You could measure correlation at least. Let people have the sex dolls, and keep track of how many child abuse cases involved the perp owning such a doll.
First find out if having childlike sex dolls are a stepping stone to abusing real children, or if they are a good substitute so that less children are abused. Depending on the answer, either allow or ban them.
For a customer with only 1 small satellite, it's still cheaper to fly RocketLab. You can only share satellites on a Falcon-9 if they're supposed to end up in (almost) the same orbit.
You don't feel literal pain, but most likely some of the pathways are shared for experiencing someone else's pain and your own. Evolution is good at optimizing.
The answer is "not much faster". In fact, the computer you own now isn't significantly faster than the one you had 5 years ago.
No, the answer is "much faster" using dedicated hardware designs for AI applications. The first generation of Google's TPU was already 15 to 30 times faster than a generic GPU, and used much less power. This was their first attempt, and Google's not even an experienced high performance chip designer.
There is still a lot to gain, not only by limiting precision, and by implementing special functions, but also by recognizing that occasional mistakes are not a big problem, which allows a more efficient design.
I've never heard of the gov't cutting a check to cover half the cost of an oil refinery or offering loan guarantees on oil rigs, and the gov't certainly doesn't guarantee oil companies that every gallon of fuel they bring to market will find a buyer at a guaranteed price.
But the gov't does pick up the tab for all the costs of increased CO2 levels.
Seriously, they should instead focus on subsidies for energy storage.
There's already a market in place for storage. They will pay you to take the energy, and then they'll pay you to give it back. It doesn't need subsidies, it just needs time to grow.
Given more energy is going to consumed in the future, it's probable that anything they start building now is never going to be used 5-10 years down the road when it will be completed.
As people love to point out, the demand graph of solar doesn't follow the supply graph, so there will also be use for storage.
You think that the people who hold all the power are just going to create this nice utopia for the rest of us ? Why ? What could possibly motivate them to do so ?
The thing is, without a human workforce, money will lose its need. Any straight foreword allotment mechanism will do.
No, it won't do, because different people have different needs. In that situation, you would just give everybody a monthly allowance, and then they can go to the store, and buy the things they want.
Huh? If they give you money the debt has been paid; they don't owe you anything more.
Imagine we're both shipwrecked on an deserted island. You have nothing, but I managed to take a stack of $100 bills from the ship's safe.
You build a house for me, and I give you a couple of the $100 bills. Do you consider the debt settled now, or do you expect to be able to give them back at a later date, in return for work that I do for you ?
Now, you might say, what if a few really wealthy people buy all the land and all the mines and all the natural resources. That's possible, but unlikely
So eventually, unless you have a PhD in theoretical physics or math and robotics, you'll be relegated to being a janitor?
Those jobs are just as likely to be taken over by AI, if not faster. Theoretical physics is at a point where it's getting too hard for people. Quantum mechanics simply doesn't match our macro world intuitions that our brains are wired for. A fresh neural network, optimized for these problems, should be able to outperform the best humans.
Still wrong. You having money doesn't mean anyone is indebted to you.
Suppose I paint someone's house, but they can't do something similar for me. They give me an IOU to show that they owe me compensation for the work I did. The beauty about money is that it's a standardized IOU, so I can trade it with a 3rd party, and they can trade it with someone else.
That only happens in a capitalist system where producing/providing those things is rewarded. Take away the reward and production stops.
When I build a house-painting robot, and I have the robot paint someone's house, they still owe me.
Slashdot Mirror
It surely depends on the individual, but you could determine the overall effect.
You could measure correlation at least. Let people have the sex dolls, and keep track of how many child abuse cases involved the perp owning such a doll.
First find out if having childlike sex dolls are a stepping stone to abusing real children, or if they are a good substitute so that less children are abused. Depending on the answer, either allow or ban them.
They are already destroying the competition without having to take a loss. I've read they only give a 10% discount on a reflown booster.
For a customer with only 1 small satellite, it's still cheaper to fly RocketLab. You can only share satellites on a Falcon-9 if they're supposed to end up in (almost) the same orbit.
You don't feel literal pain, but most likely some of the pathways are shared for experiencing someone else's pain and your own. Evolution is good at optimizing.
The answer is "not much faster". In fact, the computer you own now isn't significantly faster than the one you had 5 years ago.
No, the answer is "much faster" using dedicated hardware designs for AI applications. The first generation of Google's TPU was already 15 to 30 times faster than a generic GPU, and used much less power. This was their first attempt, and Google's not even an experienced high performance chip designer.
There is still a lot to gain, not only by limiting precision, and by implementing special functions, but also by recognizing that occasional mistakes are not a big problem, which allows a more efficient design.
I've never heard of the gov't cutting a check to cover half the cost of an oil refinery or offering loan guarantees on oil rigs, and the gov't certainly doesn't guarantee oil companies that every gallon of fuel they bring to market will find a buyer at a guaranteed price.
But the gov't does pick up the tab for all the costs of increased CO2 levels.
Real time electricity pricing would be a good start to let the market fix this problem.
California has regular shortages of water -- for example, the years 2012-2016.
it would have been nice if they had huge water storage facilities up in the mountains....
It's a problem until there's a storage solution.
Yes, but you need problems in order to get solutions.
Yes, but that's very unlikely. For instance, if I use my electric car in the garage as grid storage, the incremental cost for me is almost zero.
The chemical name is para-acetylaminophenol. Both acetaminophen and paracetamol take a different subset of the letters.
I think it will drive costs up, and I think that's a problem.
I think it's generating a market for storage, and that's not a problem.
Seriously, they should instead focus on subsidies for energy storage.
There's already a market in place for storage. They will pay you to take the energy, and then they'll pay you to give it back. It doesn't need subsidies, it just needs time to grow.
Given more energy is going to consumed in the future, it's probable that anything they start building now is never going to be used 5-10 years down the road when it will be completed.
As people love to point out, the demand graph of solar doesn't follow the supply graph, so there will also be use for storage.
You think that the people who hold all the power are just going to create this nice utopia for the rest of us ? Why ? What could possibly motivate them to do so ?
The thing is, without a human workforce, money will lose its need. Any straight foreword allotment mechanism will do.
No, it won't do, because different people have different needs. In that situation, you would just give everybody a monthly allowance, and then they can go to the store, and buy the things they want.
Huh? If they give you money the debt has been paid; they don't owe you anything more.
Imagine we're both shipwrecked on an deserted island. You have nothing, but I managed to take a stack of $100 bills from the ship's safe.
You build a house for me, and I give you a couple of the $100 bills. Do you consider the debt settled now, or do you expect to be able to give them back at a later date, in return for work that I do for you ?
Now, you might say, what if a few really wealthy people buy all the land and all the mines and all the natural resources. That's possible, but unlikely
Wake up. They already have.
An IOU is debt because the issuer has not provided all of the value they agreed to provide in an exchange
If I paint someone's house, and they can't immediately provide a value in exchange, they can give me money and provide the value later.
For each of the $20 bills in my wallet, who owes me what?
Like I said, the beauty of money is that it's a standardized IOU. Because it can be freely traded around, it's impossible to say who owes you what.
When the construction of the machine no longer has human input then it costs nothing to build, and it's produce therefore also costs nothing.
You're forgetting that everything still takes raw materials and energy. Those are limited in supply, so they will never be free.
So eventually, unless you have a PhD in theoretical physics or math and robotics, you'll be relegated to being a janitor?
Those jobs are just as likely to be taken over by AI, if not faster. Theoretical physics is at a point where it's getting too hard for people. Quantum mechanics simply doesn't match our macro world intuitions that our brains are wired for. A fresh neural network, optimized for these problems, should be able to outperform the best humans.
Still wrong. You having money doesn't mean anyone is indebted to you.
Suppose I paint someone's house, but they can't do something similar for me. They give me an IOU to show that they owe me compensation for the work I did. The beauty about money is that it's a standardized IOU, so I can trade it with a 3rd party, and they can trade it with someone else.
That only happens in a capitalist system where producing/providing those things is rewarded. Take away the reward and production stops.
When I build a house-painting robot, and I have the robot paint someone's house, they still owe me.
Which means that if the machines are performing the work then money has lost it's original usefulness
Where do you get that idea ? How is money not useful if you need to buy a house, a car, food, and a haircut ?