1000000 degrees but not very dense, so not much energy per burst. They want to use a spinnning sphere of liquid lead to absorb the heat, pumping the lead around a loop surrounded by water/steam pipes.
Except in Canada we have a company doing it that's only 5 years away, always.
Also, I hoped people in general would have more of a f**king clue by now. About empirical, verifiable reality, you know? About how to think better. But no-o-o-o! It's a good thing the machines are going to be thinking for us soon, cause on average, "we're stupid and we'll die."
If by productivity, you're talking productivity (of goods or services) per unit of human labor, then productivity will tend toward infinity, as automation takes over. (Yes, you can automate goal formation, prioritization, management, planning based on counterfactual reasoning and probability and situation models etc etc etc., not just drudge work.) Eventually, you could get fully automated DAOs doing business with each other to get stuff done/made.
Productivity -> infinity Demand -> who knows. Studies show people don't get happier with more stuff/wealth after a certain fairly modest standard of living is met. Population -> (mostly driven by food explosion driven by cheap fossil fuel energy and fertilizer) - thought to be plateauing toward about 10B. Resource inputs (from this planet) -> being used up at exponential increasing rate Usable low-entropy energy -> we'll transform to plentiful solar, wind, geothermal, fusion, etc or we're f**d. There is no usable-energy shortage. Ecosystem (via ongoing producticity, diversity, and stability) services to the economy (arrogant anthropocentric way of looking at them, mind you) -> Crashing fast
Make an economic forecasting model based on those assumptions and I'll respect it.
Is that we are hitting an inflection point where computers and computerized machines are getting better than (most) humans at most types of work. And the computers and machines can be expected to keep improving in capability faster than new educational techniques/tools can improve human capabilities. So computers/machines will become increasingly superior (more effective and more cost-effective) to more humans for more categories of work.
So every time you say, increasing productivity increases production and adds more jobs, I will say that going forward, increasing productivity increases production and adds more work for computers and machines, with no net increase in human jobs.
Pre-inflection-point economic models won't work after the "machines are more effective and more cost-effective than humans" inflection point.
You can say, well that's never happened before, so it won't happen this time. And I will say "That's a simplistic and overly conservative way of predicting the future".
Humans, in general, are no longer needed for their work. A few will still be, yes (10% to 50% of those generally capable say, for a good while yet) but by no means the majority.
So stop complaining about old, mostly irrelevant problems, and focus on the real current issue: What are we here for, and should we support each other, regardless of increasingly rare work-usefulness.
Blaming foreigners, with the coming tech-storm, is outrageously evil and misguided. It's nothing but sad.
So a twice as efficient hacked-plant gets loose in the external environment. Probably takes over the whole niche and spreads globally, because, you know, more efficient more survival probability. But then it turns out the hack led to another unanticipated weakness in the plant species's long term prospects, e.g. vulnerability to a lethal viral infection. So the "smart replacement" plant gets wiped out globally. When you are hacking genomes, you could be hacking whole global-scale ecosystems. Your safety protocols better reflect that. And they never do.
Software engineers just deal with much higher complexity and much more arbitrary variation, and much innovation and navigation in uncharted waters than you are used to. That's why you're uncomfortable. Anyone who can assure you that they are confident they got all the bugs out is incompetent.
If they're going to bother you about calling yourself a software engineer, just call yourself a software architect instead. But please don't try to drive a train. It's harder than it looks.
If you watched Musk's original presentation on the powerwall, he shared a vision of the entire US power grid being powered by a small chunk of Nevada filled with solar panels, buffered by a lot of batteries.
That would allow all the coal plants and natural gas generation plants to be shut down, thus saving all of the CO2 emissions from electricity generation.
How is that not obvious?
Now in reality, we should be exploring use of deep geothermal for base-load generation too. Might be more cost-effective than just storage.
The idea (of why batteries can help the environment) is that more energy storage capacity in the grid (at the edges or in larger storage facilities) allows more intermittent clean-renewable generation (wind, solar) to be used (when buffered by storage) as a replacement for fossil-fuel base-load generation.
In theory, with enough controllable storage capacity, and also more long-distance (weather system and time-zone spanning) HVDC transmission lines, you could do away with coal plants altogether and not have to replace them with nuclear.
You co-ordinate it with a price signal. Individual home EMS then acts economically rationally in controlling battery discharge and charge times, and contributes to load following available renewable generation.
Facebook succeeded because it made self-publishing, and commenting, easier. (Easier even than the trivially simple 2 page original html spec.)
Google succeeded by making the search place on the Internet simple to use (one box, one, or was it two, buttons) and uncluttered by unsightly banner ads.
There's a lesson in that. Giving too many degrees of freedom, or too much disorganized and useless information, reduces the size of the user base.
So maybe if someone comes up with a website-making template thing that makes personal websites (and their interaction) as constrained and uniform to use as facebook is, maybe that could happen. Otherwise, it won't.
for putting out such crap relative to the technical elegance, power, and simplicity of the Amiga.
How could they live with their decisions, from an engineering pride standpoint.
The problem was, the average business person or home computer person had no knowledge to discriminate good computers or OSes or applications from bad, so the cheapest ones won every time. Sad.
You deliberately pretend that you don't understand that we have to reduce emissions drastically right now, and actually have to get to negative emissions (taking CO2 out of the atmosphere) as well, because we've gone too far, because of denialists like you.
You hold out that some tech 50 years from now will save us from global warming. We are already at 1 C above pre-industrial-revolution global average temperature, and we have already locked in probably 1.5 C above pre-industrial-revolution global average temperature, and on our current trajectory we're heading for 4 to 5 C above, which is a different kind of planet than humanity has ever known.
Whatever we do right now will start bending the curve in 50 to 100 years. That's how frickin' big this problem and system is. That's how long it takes to turn this Titanic (climate trends) so we have to start immediately and drastically.
You undoubtedly know all this but your agenda is to keep feeding uncertainty to the ignorant. You are an intergenerational criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
"do something rational for a change"?
the new "Global Democratic Union".
A good chunk of all computer programs ever written do "algorithmic decision making".
That's a lot to regulate.
We better narrow it down.
1000000 degrees but not very dense, so not much energy per burst.
They want to use a spinnning sphere of liquid lead to absorb the heat, pumping the lead around a loop surrounded by water/steam pipes.
Still 25 years away, always.
Except in Canada we have a company doing it that's only 5 years away, always.
Also, I hoped people in general would have more of a f**king clue by now. About empirical, verifiable reality, you know? About how to think better. But no-o-o-o!
It's a good thing the machines are going to be thinking for us soon, cause on average, "we're stupid and we'll die."
Serial processing speeding up so much that no-one thought easy parallel programs were worth the bother?
"...ongoing productivity" (not producticity, though that's kind of a cool word.)
If by productivity, you're talking productivity (of goods or services) per unit of human labor, then
productivity will tend toward infinity, as automation takes over.
(Yes, you can automate goal formation, prioritization, management, planning based on counterfactual reasoning and probability and situation models etc etc etc., not just drudge work.) Eventually, you could get fully automated DAOs doing business with each other to get stuff done/made.
Productivity -> infinity
Demand -> who knows. Studies show people don't get happier with more stuff/wealth after a certain fairly modest standard of living is met.
Population -> (mostly driven by food explosion driven by cheap fossil fuel energy and fertilizer) - thought to be plateauing toward about 10B.
Resource inputs (from this planet) -> being used up at exponential increasing rate
Usable low-entropy energy -> we'll transform to plentiful solar, wind, geothermal, fusion, etc or we're f**d. There is no usable-energy shortage.
Ecosystem (via ongoing producticity, diversity, and stability) services to the economy (arrogant anthropocentric way of looking at them, mind you) -> Crashing fast
Make an economic forecasting model based on those assumptions and I'll respect it.
Is that we are hitting an inflection point where computers and computerized machines are getting better than (most) humans at most types of work. And the computers and machines can be expected to keep improving in capability faster than new educational techniques/tools can improve human capabilities.
So computers/machines will become increasingly superior (more effective and more cost-effective) to more humans for more categories of work.
So every time you say, increasing productivity increases production and adds more jobs, I will say that going forward, increasing productivity increases production and adds more work for computers and machines, with no net increase in human jobs.
Pre-inflection-point economic models won't work after the "machines are more effective and more cost-effective than humans" inflection point.
You can say, well that's never happened before, so it won't happen this time. And I will say "That's a simplistic and overly conservative way of predicting the future".
Humans, in general, are no longer needed for their work. A few will still be, yes (10% to 50% of those generally capable say, for a good while yet) but by no means the majority.
So stop complaining about old, mostly irrelevant problems, and focus on the real current issue: What are we here for, and should we support each other, regardless of increasingly rare work-usefulness.
Blaming foreigners, with the coming tech-storm, is outrageously evil and misguided. It's nothing but sad.
So a twice as efficient hacked-plant gets loose in the external environment. Probably takes over the whole niche and spreads globally, because, you know, more efficient more survival probability.
But then it turns out the hack led to another unanticipated weakness in the plant species's long term prospects, e.g. vulnerability to a lethal viral infection.
So the "smart replacement" plant gets wiped out globally.
When you are hacking genomes, you could be hacking whole global-scale ecosystems. Your safety protocols better reflect that. And they never do.
Software engineers just deal with much higher complexity and much more arbitrary variation, and much innovation and navigation in uncharted waters than you are used to. That's why you're uncomfortable. Anyone who can assure you that they are confident they got all the bugs out is incompetent.
If they're going to bother you about calling yourself a software engineer, just call yourself a software architect instead.
But please don't try to drive a train. It's harder than it looks.
I develop AI on European-hosted or Canadian-hosted AWS servers using a cloud IDE, say, am I exporting AI from the US?
(Or is this whole idea ludicrous?)
Carbon tax smart.
Humans dumb.
To quote a certain replicant: "Then we're stupid and we'll die!"
If you watched Musk's original presentation on the powerwall, he shared a vision of the entire US power grid being powered by a small chunk of Nevada filled with solar panels, buffered by a lot of batteries.
That would allow all the coal plants and natural gas generation plants to be shut down, thus saving all of the CO2 emissions from electricity generation.
How is that not obvious?
Now in reality, we should be exploring use of deep geothermal for base-load generation too. Might be more cost-effective than just storage.
The idea (of why batteries can help the environment) is that more energy storage capacity in the grid (at the edges or in larger storage facilities) allows more intermittent clean-renewable generation (wind, solar) to be used (when buffered by storage) as a replacement for fossil-fuel base-load generation.
In theory, with enough controllable storage capacity, and also more long-distance (weather system and time-zone spanning) HVDC transmission lines, you could do away with coal plants altogether and not have to replace them with nuclear.
You co-ordinate it with a price signal. Individual home EMS then acts economically rationally in controlling battery discharge and charge times, and contributes to load following available renewable generation.
A billion seems like a lot of types of things.
Be precise please.
Yes but not centrally owned and gathering your data to sell you ads
or "to rid air of hazardous compounds"
Facebook succeeded because it made self-publishing, and commenting, easier. (Easier even than the trivially simple 2 page original html spec.)
Google succeeded by making the search place on the Internet simple to use (one box, one, or was it two, buttons) and uncluttered by unsightly banner ads.
There's a lesson in that.
Giving too many degrees of freedom, or too much disorganized and useless information, reduces the size of the user base.
So maybe if someone comes up with a website-making template thing that makes personal websites (and their interaction) as constrained and uniform to use as facebook is, maybe that could happen. Otherwise, it won't.
for putting out such crap relative to the technical elegance, power, and simplicity of the Amiga.
How could they live with their decisions, from an engineering pride standpoint.
The problem was, the average business person or home computer person had no knowledge to discriminate good computers or OSes or applications from bad, so the cheapest ones won every time. Sad.
You deliberately pretend that you don't understand that we have to reduce emissions drastically right now, and actually have to get to negative emissions (taking CO2 out of the atmosphere) as well, because we've gone too far, because of denialists like you.
You hold out that some tech 50 years from now will save us from global warming. We are already at 1 C above pre-industrial-revolution global average temperature, and we have already locked in probably 1.5 C above pre-industrial-revolution global average temperature, and on our current trajectory we're heading for 4 to 5 C above, which is a different kind of planet than humanity has ever known.
Whatever we do right now will start bending the curve in 50 to 100 years. That's how frickin' big this problem and system is. That's how long it takes to turn this Titanic (climate trends) so we have to start immediately and drastically.
You undoubtedly know all this but your agenda is to keep feeding uncertainty to the ignorant. You are an intergenerational criminal.
that the country (or person) that dies with the most debt is the winner!
having debt means other people trust you.