Philips Ultra Efficient bulbs use only 4 watts, and they have a glass bulb and metal base, so they might feel cool to the touch anyway. Or at least feel plausibly the same temperature as the room, depending on how hot it is in there.
huge fucking place basically 50 mini countries who mostly hate each other.
First, stop with the 50 countries crap.
Next, the size of your country has zero, literally nothing at all, to do with transportation within an individual city. Get the "america special" shit out of your brain, please.
New York does 8 million transit trips a day and it’s just a Lil state
If US cities really were so big and busy and extreme compared to the rest of the world like you seem to think, they would have a larger need for rail transit, not a lesser one. A rail line has a higher capacity than a highway lane, by at least an order of magnitude.
I am asking you again, please get the "we are so special and big and extreme nowhere else is comparable at all, no one else could even comprehend it" crap out of your head.
I don't even necessarily disagree, but I think that position is unfalsifiable because if the example is a highly popular program then "that doesn't count because it's big", and if it has a small user base then "of course it's small, it has a shitty name".
Today we differentiate between the physical substance (or category of substances that are the ethers) and the alchemical concept of the aether, but look at the etymology of "ether".
At the time these various "light" flammable easily evaporated substances were conflated with each other, and were thought to be this sorta mystical stuff that was the fifth element from which the 4 other ones were differentiated from. Since it was undifferentiated it was supposed to be "pure", and free of the messiness of ordinary life (space was thought to be filled with it because of the "perfect" predictable movements of the heavenly bodies). This is also where we get the word "quintessential", which literally means "fifth essence", to mean a pure, perfect, and archetypical example of something, without complications. It's also where we get the word "ethereal" to mean "otherworldly", "light", "ghostly", etc.
It's for similar reasons that we use the word "spirit" to mean both something that comes in a bottle and a disembodied soul. All sorts of alchemists from different areas and different times believed different things of course, but a lot of alchemical thought was based on the idea that everything had essences inside it which were hard to perceive or touch directly but which gave things their properties. In other words something's essence is it's spirit.
Of course what they called "spirits" or "essences" were really things like distillation products, gasses driven off by heating, and the colored flames that you get when you put some metals in fire. But that's what they thought was going on.
Initial cost of the read device will be about $6,000
That's not bad at all. It's something that basically every library could have. Imagine that level of distributed redundancy for hundreds of terrabytes worth of information, in a medium that essentially lasts forever.
Assuming it really is coming out at that price of course.
I mean, the first one alludes to a pun, but just devolves into word salad in the second half. It's also an intentionally shitty modification of this earlier version of the image:
And probably some other meme image too, given the subway food in the background and the blacked out impact font text. I'm not familiar with that one though.
Its pretty well known that "lines of code" is a horrible metric to judge programmers with. It seems "number of new projects" is pretty similar, though at a higher level of abstraction.
Unfortunately that metric is applied to a lot more than just programmers; and I think getting rid of it would involve completely restructuring the type of activity our society is oriented around, and would run up against the life philosophy of the people in charge.
Of course I'm not against progress, but I'm talking about executives that don't plan beyond the next quarter, politicians that don't plan beyond the next election cycle, the endless pursuit of growth, and the inability of market economies to cope with the fact that sometimes inaction is more advantagous than action. All of this encourages endlessly churning out 'new' things, without designing those things to last or putting in the effort to maintain them.
You also don't have to worry about getting Teflon flu if you overheat the pan. The worst thing that can happen is that you ruin your pan, not that you poison yourself.
The thing about this perspective is that I think its actually overly positive about LLMs, as it frames them as just the latest in a long line of automations.
Not all automations are created equal. For example, compare using a typewriter to using a text editor. Besides a few details about the ink ribbon and movement mechanisms you really haven't lost much in the transition. This is despite the fact that the text editor can be highly automated with scripts and hot keys, allowing you to manipulate even thousands of pages of text at once in certain ways. Using a text editor certainly won't make you forget how to write like using ChatGPT will.
I think the difference lies in the relationship between the person and the machine. To paraphrase Cathode Ray Dude, people who are good at using computers deduce the internal state of the machine, mirror (a subset of) that state as a mental model, and use that to plan out their actions to get the desired result. People that aren't good at using computers generally don't do this, and might not even know how you would start trying to.
For years 'user friendly' software design has catered to that second group, as they are both the largest contingent of users and the ones that needed the most help. To do this software vendors have generally done two things: try to move the necessary mental processes from the user's brain into the computer and hide the computer's internal state (so that its not implied that the user has to understand it, so that a user that doesn't know what they're doing won't do something they'll regret, etc). Unfortunately this drives that first group of people up the wall. Not only does hiding the internal state of the computer make it harder to deduce, every "smart" feature they add to try to move this mental process into the computer itself only makes the internal state more complex and harder to model.
Many people assume that if this is the way you think about software you are just an elistist gatekeeper, and you only want your group to be able to use computers. Or you might even be accused of ableism. But the real reason is what I described above, even if its not usually articulated in that way.
Now, I am of the opinion that the 'mirroring the internal state' method of thinking is the superior way to interact with machines, and the approach to user friendliness I described has actually done a lot of harm to our relationship with computers at a societal level. (This is an opinion I suspect many people here would agree with.) And yet that does not mean that I think computers should be difficult to use. Quite the opposite, I think that modern computers are too complicated, and that in an ideal world their internal states and abstractions would be much simpler and more elegant, but no less powerful. (Elaborating on that would make this comment even longer though.) Nor do I think that computers shouldn't be accessible to people with different levels of ability. But just as a random person in a store shouldn't grab a wheelchair user's chair handles and start pushing them around, neither should Windows (for example) start changing your settings on updates without asking.
Anyway, all of this is to say that I think LLMs are basically the ultimate in that approach to 'user friendliness'. They try to move more of your thought process into the machine than ever before, their internal state is more complex than ever before, and it is also more opaque than ever before. They also reflect certain values endemic to the corporate system that produced them: that the appearance of activity is more important than the correctness or efficacy of that activity. (That is, again, a whole other comment though.) The result is that they are extremely mind numbing, in the literal sense of the phrase.
Philips Ultra Efficient bulbs use only 4 watts, and they have a glass bulb and metal base, so they might feel cool to the touch anyway. Or at least feel plausibly the same temperature as the room, depending on how hot it is in there.