ignirtoq

Arguably this isn’t even bioluminescence. The researchers created nanoparticles of the chemical used in glow in the dark toys (strontium aluminate) and injected it into the plants. It only glows for a few hours after no longer being exposed to sunlight, and the material leaves the plants after 25 days and has to be reinjected.

I don’t see how this isn’t a dead end research path.

Can we be so sure such a stock market dip is due to the ongoing daytime TV drama that is AI?

There’s also the undercurrent of the Trump administration steamrolling over decades- or century-old precedents daily, putting our country, and thus the economy, in new territory. Basic assumptions about the foundations of our economy are crumbling, and the only thing keeping it from collapsing outright is inertia. But inertia will only last so long. This is affecting every aspect of the real economy, goods and services that are moving around right now, as opposed to the speculative facets like the AI bubble.

I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop and for Wall Street to realize Trump has really screwed over vast swaths of supply chains all across the economy.

Good discussion of the rationalization of a fascist play. Only one criticism:

But this investigation will become part of the pattern and practice of this administration filled with aspiring fascists.

They’re not aspiring. They’ve sent in the military to take over a city from civilian control under a completely fabricated pretext with an underlying entirely political true purpose. That’s not aspiring fascism, that is fascism.

My understanding of why digital computers rose to dominance was not any superiority in capability but basically just error tolerance. When the intended values can only be “on” or “off,” your circuit can be really poor due to age, wear, or other factors, but if it’s within 40% of the expected “on” or “off” state, it will function basically the same as perfect. Analog computers don’t have anywhere near tolerances like that, which makes them more fragile, expensive, and harder to scale production.

I’m really curious if the researchers address any of those considerations.

Some argue that because VPNs exist, any age assurance system will fail. This leads to the mistaken belief that age-restricted sites are exempt from compliance if users connect through a VPN. As we have argued before, this is not true. Legislation we have reviewed globally, including the UK’s Online Safety Act (2023) and similar meaaures[sic] in Australia or US states, offers no such exemption.

This seems a bit disingenuous. This is conflating legal exemption (i.e. the law explicitly providing an out) with enforceability. Is anyone seriously arguing that because of the existence of VPNs that their use to circumvent the law therefore makes that act of circumvention legal?

The article goes on to explain technical mechanisms by which websites can determine whether someone is likely to be accessing the site from the UK despite using a VPN (all of which become statistical and not certain conclusions, as well as require gathering suspiciously identifying information the user has not consented to supplying), but that really sidesteps the crux of the conversation. Experts in cyber security have been railing against this law and others like it for a while, with solid evidence that they don’t have the effect proponents claim (that is, make the Internet safer for children), and in fact can make the Internet more dangerous for minors. So the question is then: is violating this law civically unethical?

Vibe coding anything more complicated than the most trivial example toy app creates a mountain of security vulnerabilities. Every company that fires human software developers and actually deploys applications entirely written by AI will have their systems hacked immediately. They will either close up shop, hire more software security experts than the number of developers they fired just to keep up with the garbage AI-generated code, or try to hire all of the software developers back.

Did blockchain solve it? Is blockchain actually pragmatically solving that problem better than existing alternatives? Or is the cost of adopting a blockchain payment system as the primary payment system, with all the risks inherent in it, higher than the benefits when compared to alternatives?

misused

Give me an example of a real world problem that was either unsolved before blockchain solved it, or blockchain solves it better than existing alternatives.

I’ll go ahead and save you “decentralized currency/finance between untrustworthy entities” (i.e. cryptocurrency) because it doesn’t actually (and can’t actually) solve that in the real world. Humans are too error-prone, and an immutable ledger presents too high a risk for business-ending mistakes for any business with any alternative options to adopt it for their primary revenue pathway.

“Generally, what happens to these wastes today is they go to a landfill, get dumped in a waterway, or they’re just spread on land,” said Vaulted Deep CEO Julia Reichelstein. “In all of those cases, they’re decomposing into CO2 and methane. That’s contributing to climate change.”

Waste decomposition is part of the natural carbon cycle. Burning fossil fuels isn’t. We should not be suppressing part of the natural cycle so we can supplant it with our own processes. This is Hollywood accounting applied to carbon emissions, and it’s not going to solve anything.

A balloon full of helium has more mass than a balloon without helium, but less weight

That’s not true. A balloon full of helium has more mass and more weight than a balloon without helium. Weight is dependent only on the mass of the balloon+helium and the mass of the planet (Earth).

The balloon full of helium displaces way more air than the balloon without helium since it is inflated. The volume of displaced air of the inflated balloon has more weight than the combined weight of the balloon and helium within, so it floats due to buoyancy from the atmosphere. Its weight is the same regardless of the medium it’s in, but the net forces experienced by it are not.

At least it was better than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

I don’t follow Mexican politics closely, but this could be part of an effort to curb obesity. I’ve heard they introduced taxes on sugary drinks for this, so this might be another avenue.

If people are wanting cheap snacks, and private companies are only making unhealthy ones, you can introduce regulations to micromanage what they can produce, or you can introduce a complex taxation process to disincentivize sugar snacks. Or you can introduce your own product that meets a perceived unmet demand in an underserved market.

Part of the reason that this jailbreak worked is that the Windows keys, a mix of Home, Pro, and Enterprise keys, had been trained into the model, Figueroa told The Register.

Isn’t that the whole point? They’re using prompting tricks to tease out the training data. This has been done several times with copyrighted written works. That’s the only reasonable way ChatGPT could produce valid Windows keys. What would be the alternative? ChatGPT somehow reverse engineered the algorithm for generating valid Windows product keys?

The thing is it’s been like that forever. Good products made by small- to medium-sized businesses have always attracted buyouts where the new owner basically converts the good reputation of the original into money through cutting corners, laying off critical workers, and other strategies that slowly (or quickly) make the product worse. Eventually the formerly good product gets bad enough there’s space in the market for an entrepreneur to introduce a new good product, and the cycle repeats.

I think what’s different now is, since this has gone on unabated for 70+ years, economic inequality means the people with good ideas for products can’t afford to become entrepreneurs anymore. The market openings are there, but the people that made everything so bad now have all the money. So the cycle is broken not by good products staying good, but by bad products having no replacements.

Oppenheimer was already really long, and I feel like it portrayed the complexity of the moral struggle Oppenheimer faced pretty well, as well as showing him as the very fallible human being he was. You can’t make a movie that talks about every aspect of such an historical event as the development and use of the first atomic bombs. There’s just too much. It would have to be a documentary, and even then it would be days long. Just because it wasn’t the story James Cameron considers the most compelling/important about the development of the atomic bomb doesn’t mean it’s not a compelling/important story.

They keep tasking these LLMs with things that traditional programming solved a long time ago. There are already vending machines run by computers. They work just fine without AI.

Honestly the computer controlled vending machines are already over-engineered since many of them play ads when you walk up. The last customer-focused feature added was credit card support, and that just needs a credit card reader and a minimal IoT integration. They really shouldn’t even have screens.

The change doesn’t reflect unprecedented temperatures, with Fairbanks having reached 90 degrees twice in 2024, Srinivasan said. It’s purely an administrative change by the weather service.

I think this is a bit disingenuous. Sure, it’s not technically “unprecedented” because it has happened before, specifically last year, but the change is because they want to better help people, and better helping people means making this change because hotter temperatures are happening more because of climate change.

Thoman also clarified that the term swap doesn’t have anything to do with climate change.

They may not be directly citing climate change, but it’s absolutely the root cause. I wonder if they’re just trying to stay under Trump’s radar so he doesn’t make them roll it back because they said the C phrase. In bad political times doing good sometimes means speaking the party line while doing good works behind their backs.

It’s mixed with other artificial sweeteners (I know of at least the monk fruit in my pantry) to get better weight to sweetness ratios. Most of the most popular artificial sweeteners are far stronger, sometimes hundreds of times stronger, than sugar. So they mix them with erythritol, which is less sweet than sugar, so you can replace 5g of sugar with 5g of the artificial sweetener in recipes and get the right sweetness.

The human brain is not an ordered, carefully engineered thinking machine; it’s a massive hodge-podge of heuristic systems to solve a lot of different classes of problems, which makes sense when you remember it evolved over millions of years as our very distant ancestors were exposed to radically different environments and challenges.

Likewise, however AGI is built, in order to communicate with humans and solve most of the same problems, it’s probably going to take an amalgamation of different algorithms, just like brains.

All of this to say, I agree memorization will probably be an integral part of that system, but it’s also going to be a small part of the final system. So I also agree with the article that we’re way off from AGI.

The size of the cut is what they use for the appeal to the public to build their social narrative, but legally/economically speaking it’s not really the problem. The problem is that Apple effectively forbids developers from having any other mechanism to transact with customers except through their marketplace where they take the 30% cut, hence the lawsuit being about monopolistic practices, not the amount they’re charging.

Valve handles things completely differently. Sure, listing on the Steam store requires giving Valve a 30% cut of the purchase price, but Steam doesn’t demand a 30% cut of any and all transactions that happen within or related to the game like Apple does. You also don’t have to buy a game from the Steam store to load it and launch it from the Steam client. And Proton works with a lot more games and applications than just those on the Steam store.

The fact that the two companies charge a similar price for a single relatively similar business case oversimplifies a lot of how the two companies operate.