Ce théâtre! Il faut 8 votes du parti du président pour atteindre les 2/3 nécessaires à la destitution. Juste avant le vote, tous les membres de ce parti ont quitté la salle. Sauf un:
.
Un 2e est revenu puis sous la pression populaire qui chante d’arrêter le président, 2 de plus sont revenus. Il en manque encore 4.
Ah j’ai suivi ça news par news, sans source live spécifique. D’ici la prochaine récolte de cerises, je pense que cet article sera à jour:
Samedi à 11h (heure de Paris) ils votent la destitution du président. Le parti du président l’a lâché, ça devrait passer. L’armée a annoncé qu’ils n’obéiraient pas à de nouveaux ordres du président d’ici là. 3 haut gradés qui ont obéi ont été suspendu (ils sont pas forcément complices mais c’est une précaution). La rue maintient la pression et plein de députés ont décidé de camper au parlement pour ne pas être empêchés de voter.
Je pense que c’est vraiment game-over pour lui mais on le saura vraiment demain.
Ah et la semaine prochaine je vais exposer au salon du véhicule intermédiaire à Laval. Peut être de bonnes nouvelles à ramener. Il y avait une bonne énergie l’année dernière!
Je sais pas si tu mets de la politique dans tes récoltes, mais je trouve que le dénouement sans violence de la tentative de coup d’état en Corée du Sud était une bonne nouvelle aussi.
Enfin ! Perso j’utilise le speech to text juste tout le temps dans mon boulot. Je ne comprends pas comment ça se fait que depuis la sortie des modèles Whisper, il y a un an ou deux, on n’ait pas déjà rendu tous les softs et tous les appareils électroniques réactifs à la voix.
Bravo à Framasoft, eux ont eu le courage de faire pour tout le monde ce que moi j’ai juste fait dans mon coin.
Du coup on peut dire qu’il fait pas des étincelles au lit?
Alors c’était intéressant, le début en tout cas. Par contre Félix, j’ai un ou deux trucs à ajouter à ce qu’il dit. Alors voici ma réponse à l’invitation à participer à la déconstruction du débat dominant qui, dans ce qui est peut être ma propre bulle, est en français à 100% hostile. Je mets même pas 99%, j’ai pas entendu UN SEUL discours en Français qui soit positif sur ces technos dans mes sites d’actus ou réseaux sociaux.
Sur l’accumulation de données. Le premier gros dataset d’apprentissage s’appelle The Pile, il est ouvert et il a été déclaré illégal. Common Crawl, FineWeb, sont d’énormes datasets ouverts. Il n’est pas évident qu’on ait besoin de beaucoup plus. Ce que les grosses boîtes font derrière leurs portes fermées, c’est probablement pas de l’achat d’informations, c’est du pur piratage. on pourrait décider que c’est ok pour de l’apprentissage d’injecter des données sous copyright. Les boîtes privées s’en arrogent le droit parce que c’est une zone grise et de toute façon c’est difficile à prouver. Les modèles ouverts ne demandent juste qu’avoir les mêmes possibilités
Sur les ressources, on a de gros calculateurs disponibles dans la fonction publique. En France, on a un calculateur qui s’appelle le Jean Zay. Plein de labos publics en ont. C’est à nous. C’est pas quelque chose de privé ou d’inaccessible. Faut pas oublier qu’on a le droit d’exiger que les ressources publiques soient utilisées aux biens publics.
Sur l’eau et les terres rares et les conséquences écologiques. Je vous invite à chercher des nombres si vous voulez débattre du fait que c’est un sujet écologique plus que marginal. Quand on fait les calculs c’est réellement pas un sujet (par contre interdisez les bitcoins bordel!)
Il est indéniable que le gouvernement qu’on a n’aime pas les services publics et qu’on ne peut pas prendre ses discours sur le sujet pour argent comptant. Il est clair que leur but est avant tout de virer les gens et que l’IA est souvent un cache-misère. Ça doit pas nous dispenser de poser la question de son utilité pour le service public parce que c’est un domaine dans lequel il est évident que ça peut aider énormément. Pour l’enseignement, pour l’accueil, pour l’explication de procédures imbitables.
La démultiplication du pouvoir d’action du service public est une possibilité à coté de laquelle on ne doit pas passer et ce, d’autant plus que les risques de dérive existent. Donc il faut non seulement être là, être enthousiaste et vigilant. Perso je suis très enthousiaste sur les possibilités des chatbots dans le monde de l’enseignement mais la dernière chose que je veux c’est qu’il n’y ait pas des profs dans la boucle quelque part.
Quant à la partie sur le fait que c’est des outils de domination en fait ça me désespère parce que non seulement on peut dire ça sur tout ce qui a un prix associé vu que les plus riches sont les plus aptes à en accumuler beaucoup, mais le pire c’est que c’est en plus beaucoup moins vrai pour l’IA où là il y a vraiment peu de phénomène d’accumulation. Il y a plein de modèles qui sont ouverts, (au passage énorme victoire pour des mouvements non capitalistes tels que l’open source qui pour le coup a joué la subversion en convainquant des groupes comme Meta ou Google) mais aussi, c’est relativement pas cher à faire tourner. Et la barre à investir pour être indépendant des grands groupes et ne rien leur devoir, elle est vraiment basse. On parle même pas de millions d’euros, on parle de dizaines de milliers d’euros.
Le risque, pour moi, il est au contraire que la critique de cette techno nous aveugle au point de ne pas juste ramasser ces fantastiques outils de résistance que les gros groupes n’arrivent pas à garder pour eux.
You need at least the workshop to repair and maintain tools next to the tool library.
I think they fit a different niche.
After years going to hackerspaces and makerspaces, and being desperate of not seeing them produce big projects, I realized that they were not tool libraries for most of them. They are actually social spaces. Big projects, they start there but they usually move to more adapted places. A lot of the people with the knowledge and know-how to use these tools, they have ways to get access to them. They don’t need that space. But as the stereotype says, as geeks we are not that good at recognizing our social needs and we crave talking about tools, about making, about exchanging knowledge.
It is not about the tools, it is about what you learn there.
At the makerspace, you meet makers. Once you have the knowledge you need, you go at the tool library and you get the tools to get your thing done. Chances are what you want to do doesn’t fit in a shared workspace. Maybe you do something on a car, maybe you do something on a house, maybe you do something on a tree, maybe you want to show something to your young kid or to your family who lives in a remote place.
I write that from a workshop for my two mobile robots that I have founded thanks to the local makerspace. These robots they started their lives at the makerspace but now I need more room. I still go there when I have something to 3D print something or if I need the skill of the mechanical engineer there. But actually, I go there more than I need, because I like having lunch with them, I like hearing them exchange ideas about new machines, about the local politics, about board games, or about their latest crush.
Une mode de retour chez les épaulards: https://www.livescience.com/animals/orcas/orcas-start-wearing-dead-salmon-hats-again-after-ditching-the-trend-for-37-years
Je continue mes petites expériences de développement d’un RTS avec un copilote AI, c’est sympa. Il a eu aucun mal à me créer des unités sélectionnables et bougeables, des logiques de construction de bâtiments. Mais je sais que le pathfinding c’est un truc vraiment crucial si on veut faire un jeu un petit peu sympa, alors j’essaie de passer du temps à perfectionner ça.
J’ai fait quelques essais de rendu 3d mais il connaît assez mal les les frameworks modernes il va falloir que j’essaye des approches un peu différentes.
J’ai découvert que Zero Space était accessible en alpha gratuite mais je l’ai téléchargé mais j’ai pas encore essayé. Mais putain, 50Go pour un jeu, c’est quoi ces conneries ? Va peut-être falloir se calmer sur l’inflation là.
Et par une SCOP (société coopérative) qui plus est!
Ah! enfin une vue un peu critique!
Mon fils (CM2) trouve inutile le vocabulaire et le Français, la lecture, la poésie et les rimes. Je viens de lui montrer les bonnes scènes de Cyrano de Bergerac, la balade du duel, les insultes qui demandent quasiment de les décoder avec un dico sur les genoux et il a adoré. On a beaucoup rigolé.
Il veut qu’on regarde le film ensemble et que je lui explique les passages qu’il comprend pas.
Je formule l’espoir que ça lui mette finalement un livre entre les mains.
I’m not sure I’ll have the time to go through all of your claims but I’ll try to address the most salient ones. Please tell me if there are things that I missed that you would like to see addressed. It may wait for a few days though, sorry.
What do you think of this report by GTK? See slide 23. I would be interested in what you are looking at more specifically from the USGS and how these views could be made consistent.
One of the crucial misunderstandings in this question is the nature of reserves and what it means. So let’s first check what the report you mentioned (which by the way does not cite its sources or its methodology) is using in terms of reserves. It is not clear where their numbers come from. Here is the 2018 report on nickel. They probably used the “reserves” numbers, but the USGS is a bit more pessimistic than they are there: USGS estimated 74 million tonnes. They also considered total resources of 130 million tonnes.
Here is the 2024 report on nickel: 130 million of global reserves, 350 million tonnes of resources.
What magic is that? Well, there is a reason I mentioned the definition appendix as mandatory reading:
Reserve: That portion of an identified resource from which a usable mineral or energy commodity can be economically and legally extracted a t the time of determination. The term “ore” applies to reserves of some kinds of mineral commodities, generally metallic, but for want of another term it is sometimes applied to nonmetallic commodities
Identified resource: A resource whose location, grade, quality, and quantity are known or can be estimated from specific geologic evidence. Identified resources include economic, marginally economic, and subeconomic resources.
These resources, they grow just because we explore and prospect. On most minerals, we would have between 40 and 80 years of identified resources because prospecting at a higher rate is usually non-profitable. There was a scare on lithium, and at one point on copper, because the reserves were very low. And the prices went up, not because there was a fear of a lack of geological availability, but because the mines were not opening at an appropriate rate. Since I started being interested in that question, the world has “run out of copper” at least three times.
I’ve seen other articles on a trend that worries the professional of the field, but it’s not about geological availability. It’s about the trend in prospection that change. People are not trying to identify new deposits anymore. They are trying to extend the one that they already have secured the rights to. Economically understandable, strategically problematic. There’s a chance that we cannot supply the demand for minerals, but it will come from market failing, not from lack of geo availability.
It is not at all readily apparent to be that you could have a self-sustaining closed loop system producing then maintaining ‘renewables’, all while decarbonizing the massive energy consumption everywhere else.
Here, there is a methodology question. Right now, we both agree that our current industrial ecosystem is not sustainable. It emits CO2, it uses fossil fuels. Therefore, nothing that you produce out of it will have a zero CO2 footprint. If that’s your criterion, then sustainability is just impossible to produce.
To me that’s not the criterion. The criterion is that at one point we reach a time where you don’t need to emit CO2 to run your production. To get there we will emit CO2 and we will burn fossil fuels. Hopefully, as little as possible.
The consequence of that is that I disagree that you should integrate the indirect emissions of something into your calculation on whether it’s a piece of a sustainable society. The typical example is electric vehicles, which we consider to have a terrible CO2 footprint on production, because we assume they are produced in China with mostly coal electricity mix. What I find problematic with that view is that if you were to move the factory, the exact same factory, into a country like Norway that produces its electricity mostly from hydroelectric means, then you decrease the CO2 footprint of a car by a lot, even though that’s exactly the same car.
It makes sense in some contexts, like trying to lower your own individual footprint, to consider the indirect emissions. But in order to judge if a technology is sustainable and can be part of a sustainable zero-emission society, you should only consider the direct emissions.
And here, that’s pretty clear. Let’s focus on solar panels for simplicity. Solar panels don’t require CO2 to be emitted during their production. They just require electricity and they require transport. These may emit CO2, but that’s independent of the technology used for the production of the panels. And we know that we can transport goods using only electricity. And we know that we can produce electricity by emitting zero CO2. Similarly, mining minerals can be done without emitting CO2. It requires energy. And in the biggest mines, like I said, a lot of the big vehicles are actually electric.
I think that’s your loop. Isn’t it? You produce electricity, emit zero CO2. You use that electricity to mine minerals and to transport it without emitting CO2. And you use that electricity to run your factory without emitting CO2. And you produce solar panels that produce electricity. The loop is closed.
‘Renewable’ energy harvesting machines are still a blip in the overall scale of energy system and have only added onto energy use instead of replacing it
It is about 10% which is pretty decent but of course I want to see it grow faster. I find weird the argument that it’s only added energy instead of replacing. Yes, that’s because the world is using more and more energy as poor countries gets richer. But do you think that without renewables, the growth would be different? They would just build coal power plants. In percentage, it’s definitely displacing fossil sources.
There are also examples of places where it did displace fossils pretty significantly in absolute terms. Germany is a good example: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?country=~DEU (though I find it questionnable to get our of nuclear before getting out of fossils but that’s a different debate).
So the way forward to me is to anticipate the collapse and imagine creative ways how we are going to salvage survival in that environment and under those constraints.
I see many people arguing similar things, and I used to, because I used to be a post-apocalypse sci-fi enjoyer. But then I realized that I was starting from the conclusion, that on some level, I wanted that simpler world, that less stressful world that I imagined once that complicated industrial civilization collapsed. Re-establishing a link with nature, rebuilding simple machines out of things that I would have mined with my hand. For some time, that’s kind of a pleasant dream. And actually so pleasant that many video games use that premise.
So i have no way of knowing if that’s your case or not but really think whether you reach that conclusion through well-documented premises and careful reasoning or if that’s somehow a belief that’s actually your starting point.
The thing that I understood is that I do want a different lifestyle. I do want a less stressful lifestyle, I want to be closer to nature. And I also understand that hoping that the society would collapse is actually a comfortable way for me to avoid making life decisions, to go where I want to go. So I resigned from my job in Paris. I went back to the Alps, where my parents live, and I started exploring the freelance world and the remote working world 10 years before COVID hit, when no one was doing it. I now live in a nice house, surrounded by cows and trees. Actual nature is 20 minutes away. I see my mountains every morning and I didn’t need society to collapse for that. I am helping the local hackerspace to produce lightweight electric vehicles and we are helping non-profits that recycle plastic. You don’t need to wait for the world to collapse to help it get better. And to me that’s the essence of Solarpunk.
EDIT: fixed a few typos and missing words
La police fait partie des services publics auxquels les gouvernements de droite font la guerre depuis des années.
I agree that they mix super bad.
Personally, why am I a bright green environmentalist? That’s because when I first came upon this criticism that we may not have enough raw material, enough energy, that there may be physical constraints in the natural world that prevents us to do large-scale transitions, I was still in engineering school in the hope of solving problems that the world has. So I took this criticism seriously. Deeply. I was there to help the world, not destroy it. So I did my homeworks. And also, you know, telling to an aspiring professional problem-solver that there are additional constraints to their problems is not a showstopper at all. Actually, that’s pretty exciting.
Do we have a limited amount of energy to do the transition? Do we have to count on a limited number of tons of cobalt? Are we going to miss some crucial exotic rare earth? Hell, are we going to have to create computers out of wood? That’s actually super exciting!
And turns out that no, when you do your homeworks, when you look about the quantities that are necessary, you see that the problems are mostly invented. There is a CO2 emission problem (and also several other GHG emission problem but CO2 is the main one). There is an oil depletion problem. There is a biodiversity destruction problem. There are tons of very real but pretty local pollution and ecosystem destruction problems.
That’s a ton of problems to solve, and we need to address all of them. We need to address all of them simultaneously. People are not talking enough about the biodiversity destruction in the ocean, in my opinion. It’s as important as the greenhouse effect. Because the greenhouse effect, if we are lucky, we may reverse it. Biodiversity destruction, we will never. But I don’t make a hierarchy in these problems. We need to solve all of them and we need to solve them fast.
I do make a difference though between problems that are real and problems that are invented for reasons that are not totally clear to me. We are not going to lack any non fossil mineral resource (I guess you could make a case for helium and some radioactive isotopes but that’s about it). Copper, Lithium, Sand, Cobalt, Nickel, any rare earth you can name We have no resources problem about it If you think we have a problem on these resources Go check what the USGS says about it. Mandatory reading: the definitions about reserves.
Is it even possible to have artisan/localized ways of producing these technologies vs the current status quo dependent on highly energy-intensive six continent supply chain and cheap hydrocarbon flows. Brushing aside these kinds of difficult questions with techno-optimism leads to bright green environmentalism.
The answer is yes. The thing is, we don’t brush them away, we demonstrate them away. Energy can be produced in a sustainable way, it can be done at a huge scale and that energy can be used for the mining and transport (the biggest mining machines are electric, diesel engines can’t provide enough power). It’s all mostly about energy. Actually when you dig up a bit there’s almost nothing that you can’t replace if you have abundant and cheap energy.
A few decades ago, you had to do the math to demonstrate that it’s possible to switch to sustainable energy at scale. Now you don’t even have to do the math, you just have to look at the transition path of several countries.
How are those raw ores being reduced both on a chemical and energetic standpoint?
The chemical part is in my opinion the only problem that there is in the extraction industry right now. not because of a lack of chemical components, we have plenty of this, but because of the way the byproducts are usually just dumped into the environment. And the reason why is not because we don’t have the technology to do differently, it’s because of the economic incentives. See there is a global market for mineral commodities and as they are mostly fungible you can just compete on price. How do you get the price down? You get the price down by having slave workers and by having zero environmental concerns.
The problem here is unregulated free market. We can do responsible mining, we can do mining with workers rights, we can do mining with environmental procedures. Thing is, it just makes the mineral 10 times more expensive. And why would a company buy an expensive mineral if they can have exactly the same thing for much cheaper? This is the problem to solve. Cobalt has the same physical properties whether it was mined by a unionized worker that uses an environmental responsible way to chemically refine the minerals or if it was mined by a teenage slave in a third world country.
To me, bright green environmentalism is about recognition that we have tons of technologically workable solutions, but that we need also a lot of social innovation to get out of the externalities that capitalism produces.
So personally, I’m not shy of criticizing capitalism and proposing alternatives. But they need to be credible and workable. They need to be holistic in the actual meaning of the word: they need to consider the whole system, technological, sociological, economical, political. Degrowth could work on some of these aspects but not in all of it, for a simple reason: most of the people don’t want it and dark greens have no solution to solve that crucial political problems than just pretending it doesn’t exist.
I dislike reality denial. I think that’s harmful to whichever problem you’re trying to solve.
Like I said it describes intentions, not protection mechanisms.
En me baladant dans ma campagne à un moment je vois une camionnette jaune de la poste qui s’arrête au bord d’un beau château 19e. Je me dis " tiens ,cette scène fait un petit côté France baise ouais. Mais il manque quelque chose" et là le facteur sort. Avec un béret. YEAH!