Especially in situations like this where it’s quite possible it would cost less to go back to the basics of better pay and training to create willing workers. Maybe the initial cost was less than what they have to spend to improve things, but add in all the backtracking and cost of mistakes, I doubt it.
That explains it. I read the title and wondered how they are doing prethought crime.
Understanding the variety of speech over a drive-thru speaker can be difficult for a human with experience in the job. I can’t see the current level of voice recognition matching it, especially if it’s using LLMs for processing of what it managed to detect. If I’m placing a food order I don’t need a LLM hallucination to try and fill in blanks of what it didn’t convert correctly to tokens or wasn’t trained on.
Carbon monoxide also contribute to ozone breakdown, and there are additional manmade substances similar to CFCs with chlorine and bromine that are still leaked. Environmental changes in the Antarctic also can increase ozone depletion as well as longer lasting cold air in the stratosphere (observed in 2020 in the Arctic). The mention of emissions was just to suggest that smaller reactions can get lost in all the other problems we have created, although wildfire increases are raising CO.
I didn’t see a mention in the paper on what amount the bump up would be with the maximum amount of AlO2 distributed in the layers of the atmosphere where the reactions would occur. When emissions are in the trillions of tons, I wonder if it would even be measurable.
At least the article came with the numbers. Given what I regularly read about all the pollutants we daily pump into the atmosphere, the numbers in this article for the materials being atomized is…well, they’re very small in scale.
Basically, if a few hundred tons per year is hurting the ozone (and other things), just imagine what the billions of tons per year of emissions does.
Is it a physical HD (magnetic) and making noise? I had one years ago (fortunately my only failure so far) and if I kept persisting to try and read it via a USB recovery drive, I managed to pull enough data off that was important. If it’s a newer SSD, that’s a different thing. Doesn’t mean all the data is gone, just a lot harder (read $$$) to pull. Hopefully it’s just software or a loose cable.
And Apple gets more usage. It’s a win-win for both companies.
Probably size. Often times that seems to be the problem, where to put the battery since Teslas are built with it already part of the chassis. OP’s question stemmed from just tearing down to the battery and frame, and there’s a lot more to it than that. The question would be, what is the minimum needed of a Tesla to work?
Also, I don’t know much of a Tesla battery is internally managed vs. outside, but I think the interface is a lot more than just a red and black wire.
Also-also…in the spirit of this particular forum, moving from a ICE to an EV is a very small percentage of a solution since it’s still a car with all the baggage, just a bit less pollution in the air.
Very. It’s a lot more complicated than just a battery, it’s a complex management system that, despite the reputation of Tesla for manufacturing details and their CEO for…well, himself, is very impressive. You’d need to keep or reinvent most of that to avoid cell failures (and fire).
If you’re really serious about a small DIY EV, look into the kits that are available to modify existing ICEs into EVs. Not quite the power level, but they do work pretty well if you don’t mind the complexity of the work in strip down and rebuild. And often times they do use used/refurbished Tesla batteries in their makeup.
That emphasized my point. If someone feels that they had always been a certain way in the past even though they didn’t look it or act it in public, there is no “other side” of themselves. I’m not trying to change the vocabulary, just was an observation of using a word past its usual meaning. That’s how words evolve.
The narrow purpose models seem to be the most successful, so this would support the idea that a general AI isn’t going to happen from LLMs alone. It’s interesting that hallucinations are seen as a problem yet are probably part of why LLMs can be creative (much like humans). We shouldn’t want to stop them, but just control when they happen and be aware of when the AI is off the tracks. A group of different models working together and checking each other might work (and probably has already been tried, it’s hard to keep up).
That makes sense, but then the term “transition” seems incorrect. More of a “resolution”.
It was a hook, and the media grabbed it. It’s really more of a way to continue to divide people and keep them in the voting groups. Trump won’t get anyone from the left to vote for him, but he has to keep those on the right in his camp. So these are tools to alienate each from the other and secure the base.
And it’s also him saying what he really thinks out loud, but it’s been shown time and again he can do that and it won’t be those words that drive people away. His biggest fear is silence, if the media isn’t talking about him then people might drift to other places.
I’d agree I’m cynical, but it’s just my opinion based on everything I’ve read and seen over decades, not some attempt to brainwash people into inaction. We should absolutely do anything we can to change our ways both individually and overall now that we know the damage we do, but that doesn’t guarantee a fix.
It’s very difficult to discuss the state of things today without being accused of being too negative and now even claimed to be “the problem”. If you want to continue thinking that we could have had a modern society with high living standards and constant growth, then go ahead. It’s simply not realistic to me knowing we have a finite world. The bacteria in the beaker analogy is well known to everyone.
We crossed the line maybe with the industrial revolution, but certainly with learning how to use chemical means to provide far more food than naturally possible (Haber process). I fail to see how we can ever get back to that line now, especially since it and everything else we do is heavily dependent on petroleum that’s also finite. Hence my comment on restructuring society - unlimited growth is not sustainable, yet it’s a cornerstone for us for centuries.
I did think we could fix things long ago, but after a while you begin to see the pattern of hope and promises and realize we’re experts at fooling ourselves.
Small changes never were a viable solution, but for a while they could be sold as one. Especially the ones where the consumer became the problem and one to take action (recycling et al.) Only a complete restructuring of society would do much of anything, and now it’s even too late for that because of both the time and the population. Yeah, it’s pessimistic and doomerism, but it’s also reality.
Bad article. Didn’t answer the only question anyone is interested in. Did they get the spider?
I’d be far more freaked out if they discovered not only a planet there, but with characteristics that resembled Vulcan. Fiction can get some things close to correct sometimes, but that would be disturbingly too close.
Usenet. Go back to the base level.