Also, how hard can it be to spot a picture that's identical to the original?
Of course the next step would be a picture with one or two pixels changed, or shifted by a few pixels, but a very simple AI should be able to deal with that just fine
Then of course they could use adversarial pictures to fool the AI, but that would take a lot more expertise and knowledge of the exact AI used.
To be fair, the tweets appeared as replies to Musk's real tweets, had the same picture, the name "Elon Musk" and a very similar account name (e.g. "@elormusk"). The first time I saw one, I thought for a moment that it was genuine, it just seemed very strange for him to do anything like that. Then I read you were supposed to send a small amount first, which was even more suspicious, and then I finally noticed the slight difference in the account name.
So I didn't fall for it, but apart from the unlikeliness of the whole thing, it wasn't that easy to spot as fake.
It took a very long time for Twitter to do anything at all about this scam. How hard can it be to let someone take a second look at all acounts that are being renamed to "Elon Musk" or, as they started doing later, "Elon Musk " with a bunch of spaces behind the name? These campaigns have been going on for many months now.
Who is using electric energy to melt the steel? A furnace uses coke, not electricity.
From the summary: "Instead of the blast furnace employed in steelmaking for centuries, Boston Metal has developed something closer to a battery. Specifically, it's what's known as an electrolytic cell, which uses electricity -- rather than carbon -- to process raw iron ore."
The carbon is not just to take away the oxygen. Steel also needs to contain carbon for strength. But as others have replied, apparently they just add in the carbon afterwards. They tend to do that anyway: even with traditional furnaces, they target a little less carbon content than required, and then add some to get exactly the required amount. So in this case, they'll just have to add in a little more since the molten iron will hardly contain any at all.
Yes, and coal contains lots of carbon, and part of that carbon becomes part of the steel. So if they are using electric energy to melt the steel, where is the carbon coming from?
But steel is an alloy of iron and carbon. So if they are not using a carbon fueled blast furnace, where is the carbon coming from? Are they adding it separately in some other way?
Wouldn't it be much easier to just define it as around 5,97 x 10^26 times the rest mass of a neutron? As far as I know, all neutrons have identical rest masses. You can then come up with any number of equivalent practical measures, but at least the definiition would be unambiguous and stable for all time. Things like the Kibble balance should be derived alternatives, not the actual definition. It's impossible to even use a Kibble balance without accounting for all sorts of disturbances like the conductivity of the wires etcetera. Sure, you can use a nonexistent "ideal Kibble balance" as the definition but it just seems like an unnecessarily complex idea. If we ever communicate with aliens, what would be easier? "To understand our units, find a planet with precisely this amount of gravity, set up this complicateds
as shown in this schematic" or "just take this many times the mass of a neutron"?
It is the volume of a perfect cube where light can travel one of its edges in exactly one 2997924580th of a second. A second being 9192631770 periods of the exact frequency that most efficiently causes caesium atoms to transition between certain energy levels. Who needs water when you have practical definitions like that? People often ask me why I keep ceasium in my kitchen. Well, how else are you going to accurately measure your ingredients?
I further propose we scatter these grams all over the world to keep them safe and avoid local fluctuations. If one of the grams goes missing, the others can be used to make a replacement. It also avoids local fluctuations: even though there may be small inaccuracies in the individual grams, their total should remain quite constant thanks to the law of large numbers.
The more I think of it, the more it seems like this would be the most ideal and practical solution. Certainly beats having a single lump of metal in Paris, of all places.
I understand that there are concerns for children standing in the dark waiting for buses. Perhaps we need to make daylight savings time the standard time year round (or just make schools start an hour later and the suggested work day start an hour later).
You've got it the wrong way around. DST in winter would mean the sun would come up around 9:30. If you want school to start later, stick to winter time i.o. DST.
Weird how changing business hours during the summer is an insurmountable problem, while changing everyone's actual clocks is considered a perfectly normal and acceptable solution.
"Get up an hour earlier" - "No way, I need my sleep!" "Set your clock to one hour later and get up at the same time" - "Oh, sure, great, now we get an extra hour in the everning!"
People are weird. The same people who like DST, would probably vehemently refuse a works schedule that starts an hour earlier without changing the clocks.
DST makes mornings darker. So by all means abolish it. The extra accidents in the mornings are every year right after the start of DST, when everyone is forced to wake up an hour earlier. And having DST all year long, as some people would prefer, means the sun only comes up after 9am during the winter in many areas. Of course you could then say: "Let's let school start at 10am" but you could also just leave the frigging clocks alone.
Under DST, not only are you waking up an hour earlier, you are also forcing everyone else to wake up an hour earlier. If getting up earlier in summer was so great, everyone would automatically do it. DST just tricks people into accepting something they normally wouldn't want.
Why don't you just leave the clocks alone and work 8-4 instead of 9-5 then? (And please don't reply that that means getting up an hour earlier, because that's precisely the kind of irrational BS that keeps DST alive).
If they're struggling to reduce the backlog of hundreds of thousands of preorders, I'd say the cars are probably not overpriced right now. That may change in the distant future, when competitors finally come up with something remotely approaching the Model 3 (even one of the most vocal Tesla short sellers, Citron research, now admits that won't be before at least 2020), but by then Tesla's costs will have come down even more.
Also, I fully expect the "competitors" in 2020 to be only almost as good as today's Teslas, while they will have moved on with continuous improvements. Porsche is still benchmarking their Taycan against the P85D...
Who cares about consumer spending when they're still working on an enormous backlog of around 400,000 preorders? The only thing limiting their sales right now is their ability to produce cars quickly enough.
Well, for an American car brand they're actually pretty good. The highest scoring American company is Ford in 18th place with a score of 45, not that much more than Tesla in 27th place with 32. Cadillac is worse than Tesla. Top is Lexus with 78.
Considering the Model 3 is a brand new car (not just an update), that's pretty spectacular. New models always have problems, so you would expect a lot worse.
I still don't see the link with electrons, though. The spheres in that article are macroscopic examples. None of that seems to apply to electrons, nor suggest they have some sort of shape.
Anyway, after some googling I found that they are not actually talking about the shape of the electron itself (which is a point particle as far as we know) but the cloud of virtual particles around it. Here's the link.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be a logical solution, indeed. I think you nailed it when you used the word "retarded".
Also, how hard can it be to spot a picture that's identical to the original?
Of course the next step would be a picture with one or two pixels changed, or shifted by a few pixels, but a very simple AI should be able to deal with that just fine
Then of course they could use adversarial pictures to fool the AI, but that would take a lot more expertise and knowledge of the exact AI used.
To be fair, the tweets appeared as replies to Musk's real tweets, had the same picture, the name "Elon Musk" and a very similar account name (e.g. "@elormusk"). The first time I saw one, I thought for a moment that it was genuine, it just seemed very strange for him to do anything like that. Then I read you were supposed to send a small amount first, which was even more suspicious, and then I finally noticed the slight difference in the account name.
So I didn't fall for it, but apart from the unlikeliness of the whole thing, it wasn't that easy to spot as fake.
It took a very long time for Twitter to do anything at all about this scam. How hard can it be to let someone take a second look at all acounts that are being renamed to "Elon Musk" or, as they started doing later, "Elon Musk " with a bunch of spaces behind the name? These campaigns have been going on for many months now.
Who is using electric energy to melt the steel? A furnace uses coke, not electricity.
From the summary: "Instead of the blast furnace employed in steelmaking for centuries, Boston Metal has developed something closer to a battery. Specifically, it's what's known as an electrolytic cell, which uses electricity -- rather than carbon -- to process raw iron ore."
The carbon is not just to take away the oxygen. Steel also needs to contain carbon for strength. But as others have replied, apparently they just add in the carbon afterwards. They tend to do that anyway: even with traditional furnaces, they target a little less carbon content than required, and then add some to get exactly the required amount. So in this case, they'll just have to add in a little more since the molten iron will hardly contain any at all.
Yes, and coal contains lots of carbon, and part of that carbon becomes part of the steel. So if they are using electric energy to melt the steel, where is the carbon coming from?
But steel is an alloy of iron and carbon. So if they are not using a carbon fueled blast furnace, where is the carbon coming from? Are they adding it separately in some other way?
Wouldn't it be much easier to just define it as around 5,97 x 10^26 times the rest mass of a neutron? As far as I know, all neutrons have identical rest masses. You can then come up with any number of equivalent practical measures, but at least the definiition would be unambiguous and stable for all time. Things like the Kibble balance should be derived alternatives, not the actual definition. It's impossible to even use a Kibble balance without accounting for all sorts of disturbances like the conductivity of the wires etcetera. Sure, you can use a nonexistent "ideal Kibble balance" as the definition but it just seems like an unnecessarily complex idea. If we ever communicate with aliens, what would be easier? "To understand our units, find a planet with precisely this amount of gravity, set up this complicateds
as shown in this schematic" or "just take this many times the mass of a neutron"?
Yeah, the kilo will just follow bitcoin into oblivity.
It is the volume of a perfect cube where light can travel one of its edges in exactly one 2997924580th of a second. A second being 9192631770 periods of the exact frequency that most efficiently causes caesium atoms to transition between certain energy levels. Who needs water when you have practical definitions like that? People often ask me why I keep ceasium in my kitchen. Well, how else are you going to accurately measure your ingredients?
I further propose we scatter these grams all over the world to keep them safe and avoid local fluctuations. If one of the grams goes missing, the others can be used to make a replacement. It also avoids local fluctuations: even though there may be small inaccuracies in the individual grams, their total should remain quite constant thanks to the law of large numbers.
The more I think of it, the more it seems like this would be the most ideal and practical solution. Certainly beats having a single lump of metal in Paris, of all places.
I propose that we set the kilogram equal to exactly 1024 grams to end the confusion once and for all.
Or could it be that poor people are fatter, and poor people also happen to live in more polluted areas? Correlation, causality,...
Not to mention the fact that the date would change during the middle of the day.
I understand that there are concerns for children standing in the dark waiting for buses. Perhaps we need to make daylight savings time the standard time year round (or just make schools start an hour later and the suggested work day start an hour later).
You've got it the wrong way around. DST in winter would mean the sun would come up around 9:30. If you want school to start later, stick to winter time i.o. DST.
Weird how changing business hours during the summer is an insurmountable problem, while changing everyone's actual clocks is considered a perfectly normal and acceptable solution.
"Get up an hour earlier" - "No way, I need my sleep!"
"Set your clock to one hour later and get up at the same time" - "Oh, sure, great, now we get an extra hour in the everning!"
People are weird. The same people who like DST, would probably vehemently refuse a works schedule that starts an hour earlier without changing the clocks.
DST makes mornings darker. So by all means abolish it. The extra accidents in the mornings are every year right after the start of DST, when everyone is forced to wake up an hour earlier. And having DST all year long, as some people would prefer, means the sun only comes up after 9am during the winter in many areas. Of course you could then say: "Let's let school start at 10am" but you could also just leave the frigging clocks alone.
Under DST, not only are you waking up an hour earlier, you are also forcing everyone else to wake up an hour earlier. If getting up earlier in summer was so great, everyone would automatically do it. DST just tricks people into accepting something they normally wouldn't want.
Why don't you just leave the clocks alone and work 8-4 instead of 9-5 then? (And please don't reply that that means getting up an hour earlier, because that's precisely the kind of irrational BS that keeps DST alive).
Yep, rockets are tricky.
If they're struggling to reduce the backlog of hundreds of thousands of preorders, I'd say the cars are probably not overpriced right now. That may change in the distant future, when competitors finally come up with something remotely approaching the Model 3 (even one of the most vocal Tesla short sellers, Citron research, now admits that won't be before at least 2020), but by then Tesla's costs will have come down even more.
Also, I fully expect the "competitors" in 2020 to be only almost as good as today's Teslas, while they will have moved on with continuous improvements. Porsche is still benchmarking their Taycan against the P85D...
Who cares about consumer spending when they're still working on an enormous backlog of around 400,000 preorders? The only thing limiting their sales right now is their ability to produce cars quickly enough.
Normally I'd say "wooosh" but with those Tesla shorts you never know...
Well, for an American car brand they're actually pretty good. The highest scoring American company is Ford in 18th place with a score of 45, not that much more than Tesla in 27th place with 32. Cadillac is worse than Tesla. Top is Lexus with 78.
Considering the Model 3 is a brand new car (not just an update), that's pretty spectacular. New models always have problems, so you would expect a lot worse.
I still don't see the link with electrons, though. The spheres in that article are macroscopic examples. None of that seems to apply to electrons, nor suggest they have some sort of shape.
Anyway, after some googling I found that they are not actually talking about the shape of the electron itself (which is a point particle as far as we know) but the cloud of virtual particles around it. Here's the link.