Hmmm...if only there was some way of harvesting the wood and storing it somehow so it doesn't decompose...like in some kind of a building. Nah, that's impossible I guess.
Yes, that's impossible. Either the building will decompose, or humans will burn the wood at some point. Also, average US family produces 50 tons of CO2 per year, so they would have to build more than one wood frame house every year to sequester the carbon.
Synthetic hydrocarbons are only a good idea if source-to-wheel energy conversion is better battery powered EVs. Right now, things aren't looking too good.
Just because CO2 helps plants grow does not mean it's not a pollutant. It is possible for things to have multiple properties, sometimes even conflicting ones.
Water also helps plants grow. That doesn't mean we should welcome flooding.
Once they get some experience with their own Starlink systems, I would expect them to start selling cheap satellite systems as well. It's a market that's begging for disruption.
I use a regular chip card for my commute. I grab the card out of my pocket while I approach the card reader, and swipe the thing without slowing my step. Putting the chip in my hand would save zero time.
Right now, the feed cuts out, and then we usually don't see the landing until a few days later. If they could instead show it in the same live broadcast with a short delay, that would be much better.
Some plastics, including BPA and DEHP have been shown cause obesity.
You're reading too quickly. My first sentence meant that plastic on its own doesn't cause obesity. I explain that in the next two sentences.
Now explain why a hundred million people suddenly starting eating more in the early 1980s. Food didn't get cheaper.
I already explained. Food became much more palatable. We got a lot more quick snack type foods, plus snack foods that are masquerading as regular food, like muffins and donuts for breakfast, and pizza/french fries for dinner. More fast food instead of home cooked meals.
AI today is just math. It's a series of statistical probabilities and programmed actions based on those probabilities. AI doesn't "think". It calculates the probable 'correct' action
Your brain is also just doing math. There's a function from {sensory input, memory} to {actions, memory}. You don't "think". Your brain just calculates that function.
Plastics don't make people fat. People get fat because they eat too much. In theory it is possible that certain chemicals in the plastic cause people to eat more, but it is much more likely that hyper-palatable processed foods can do this job on their own, without need for plastics. The food industry employs very smart people who's job it is to get you hooked on their products.
People are doing research into monitoring actual brains, but it's very hard to do. It's not a good idea to wait until they are done and have it all figured out when you can already work on real world applications with the knowledge we have.
What we have now just mimicks a very small element of how a brain actually functions. Throwing faster processors and more memory at it won't make it magically 'wake up' and be like a human brain.
I wouldn't worry about 'waking up'. Throwing faster processors, more memory, but also better methods, will make it capable of solving increasingly difficult problems. That's all we need. For many applications, AI is already ahead of human brains. AI doesn't get tired or distracted. We don't need all the baggage and flaws of human brains. Progress will continue to march on. Researchers will keep finding problems that are just a little too hard right now, and they will figure out ways to improve their systems to solve them. While neuroscience can help find clever tricks, AI researchers can also come up with their own ideas, potentially superior to biological brains.
Slashdot Mirror
But we don't know
That didn't stop you from speculating though.
Wait, do you mean this guy ?
https://www.sourcewatch.org/in...
Patrick Moore is an ecologist who denies that humans cause climate change
So he's a nutcase.
That depends on how you define "better".
Better energy conversion means less energy needed for the same output.
there's a lot of people that disagree, and I'm among them.
So how much energy is required to produce 1 Joule worth of synthetic hydrocarbons ?
I suggest that instead of just pointing out why you think something won't work that you also provide an alternative.
The best alternative is to keep the fossil fuels in the ground.
Dr. Moore has degrees in biology and ecology so I'm going to believe him over some random person posting something on the internet.
You forgot the link to the study.
Hmmm...if only there was some way of harvesting the wood and storing it somehow so it doesn't decompose...like in some kind of a building.
Nah, that's impossible I guess.
Yes, that's impossible. Either the building will decompose, or humans will burn the wood at some point. Also, average US family produces 50 tons of CO2 per year, so they would have to build more than one wood frame house every year to sequester the carbon.
Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and even Fukushima, were yesterday's nuclear power.
Do you have a list of currently operating nuclear power plants that are still using "yesterday's nuclear power" ?
But plain water doesn't feed a plant any nutrients and cause it to grow, it has to have a combinations of thing 1 of which is CO2.
Right. A plant needs both water and CO2, and a bunch of minerals. But you can find CO2 everywhere on the planet. Water not so much.
What is new is that we are calling algorithms AI now.
Is that new ? Do you know of any non-algorithmic AI ?
Synthetic hydrocarbons are only a good idea if source-to-wheel energy conversion is better battery powered EVs. Right now, things aren't looking too good.
Just because CO2 helps plants grow does not mean it's not a pollutant. It is possible for things to have multiple properties, sometimes even conflicting ones.
Water also helps plants grow. That doesn't mean we should welcome flooding.
Efficiency of photosynthesis is low. Trees will eventually decompose. We don't have sufficient areas with good growing conditions for trees.
Once they get some experience with their own Starlink systems, I would expect them to start selling cheap satellite systems as well. It's a market that's begging for disruption.
I use a regular chip card for my commute. I grab the card out of my pocket while I approach the card reader, and swipe the thing without slowing my step. Putting the chip in my hand would save zero time.
You have my axe!
Right now, the feed cuts out, and then we usually don't see the landing until a few days later. If they could instead show it in the same live broadcast with a short delay, that would be much better.
Couldn't they just record the video, delay the broadcast for a few moments, and then send it as soon as platform stabilizes ?
I don't see a country as my home, just a political unit that I happen to be unfortunate enough to live under.
So you wouldn't mind if people destroyed the roads, for example ?
McDonalds was everywhere.
If you're trying to say that home cooking and eating out did not change between 1960 and 2000, you're simply wrong.
https://america-loan-service.s...
also, ingredients in food changed dramatically, based on attempts to make food both cheaper and more addictive:
https://www.slickwellness.com/...
More cheeses eaten (just an example, you can try finding graphs for all kinds of high calorie junk food)
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdo...
Was there a dramatic increase in plastics in the 80s ? Does increase in plastic cause people to eat more cheese ?
Some plastics, including BPA and DEHP have been shown cause obesity.
You're reading too quickly. My first sentence meant that plastic on its own doesn't cause obesity. I explain that in the next two sentences.
Now explain why a hundred million people suddenly starting eating more in the early 1980s. Food didn't get cheaper.
I already explained. Food became much more palatable. We got a lot more quick snack type foods, plus snack foods that are masquerading as regular food, like muffins and donuts for breakfast, and pizza/french fries for dinner. More fast food instead of home cooked meals.
AI today is just math. It's a series of statistical probabilities and programmed actions based on those probabilities. AI doesn't "think". It calculates the probable 'correct' action
Your brain is also just doing math. There's a function from {sensory input, memory} to {actions, memory}. You don't "think". Your brain just calculates that function.
Plastics don't make people fat. People get fat because they eat too much. In theory it is possible that certain chemicals in the plastic cause people to eat more, but it is much more likely that hyper-palatable processed foods can do this job on their own, without need for plastics. The food industry employs very smart people who's job it is to get you hooked on their products.
We also don't know everything about insect flight. Yet, we still have airplanes. In many ways, our airplanes are superior to insects.
People are doing research into monitoring actual brains, but it's very hard to do. It's not a good idea to wait until they are done and have it all figured out when you can already work on real world applications with the knowledge we have.
What we have now just mimicks a very small element of how a brain actually functions. Throwing faster processors and more memory at it won't make it magically 'wake up' and be like a human brain.
I wouldn't worry about 'waking up'. Throwing faster processors, more memory, but also better methods, will make it capable of solving increasingly difficult problems. That's all we need. For many applications, AI is already ahead of human brains. AI doesn't get tired or distracted. We don't need all the baggage and flaws of human brains. Progress will continue to march on. Researchers will keep finding problems that are just a little too hard right now, and they will figure out ways to improve their systems to solve them. While neuroscience can help find clever tricks, AI researchers can also come up with their own ideas, potentially superior to biological brains.
Cars sold in the US also require at least 1 big gulp sized cup holder per seat.
As long as you eat something during the day, you should be okay. And if you don't have food, you have a bigger problem than lack of minerals.