I always love reading the dolphin progress reports. They do a good job of explaining how things work and parsing it out into something easy to understand
Agreed. They've been consistently high quality for the 12 years they've been put out at this point. I'm glad they stopped trying to force them into the "monthly update" mold because so many ended up being like "April/May/June/July Update!"
I've found lots of communities online on both reddit and facebook for solar DIY and there's some youtubers out there that talk about what you need for this and do reviews of different batteries/inverters/panels.
From what I've heard Tesla has a high cost/energy storage rate and you'd be better of going with something else (even if you have a tesla) but it would boil down to are you wanting to set this up yourself or hire a professional to do all the wiring.
I'm not sure if there's been talk about it but it does make you wonder, would this AI generated CSAM 'saite' the abuser's needs and/or would it spread the idea that it isn't bad and possibly create more abusers who then go on to abuse physical children. Would those individuals have done it without the AI. I believe there's still debate over whether abuse is a result of nature or nurture but that starts to get into theoretical and philosophy. To answer your question about who the victim is I would say the children who those images are based off of. As well as any future children that are harmed due to exposure of these images or due to the abusers possibly seeking real content. I think for the most part AI generated porn hurts everyone involved.
There's definitely at least some people who will be influenced by being repeatedly exposed to images. We know that usual conditioning ideas work. (Like presence of some type of images mixed in with other sexual content) On the other hand, I remember someone on HN claiming their own images are out there in CSAM collections and they'd prefer someone using those if it stops anyone from hurting others.
The need to fight CSAM also provides a pretext for broader censorship. Look at all the people in this thread salivating over the prospect of using Grok generations to take down Musk, whom they hate for allowing people to express wrongthink on X. If they ever regain broad censorship powers over AI or people, they definitely won't stop at blocking CSAM.
Lots of research has been done on this topic. You say "let some science happen", and then two paragraphs later say "according to the research": so has or hasn't research taken place? (Last time I looked into this, I came away with the impression that most people considered pædophiles are not exclusively attracted to children: I reject your claim that the "no choice" claim is evidenced, and encourage you to show us the research you claim to have.)
I don't think you're engaging with this topic in good faith.
> Whether it is exclusive or not is not really relevant to the point.
Whether it's exclusive or not is very relevant to the point, because sexual fetishes and paraphilias are largely mutable. In much the same way that a bi woman can swear off men after a few bad experiences, or a monogamous person in a committed relationship can avoid lusting after other people they'd otherwise find attractive, someone with non-child sexual interests can avoid centring children in their sexuality, and thereby avoid developing further sexual interests related to children. (Note that operant conditioning, sometimes called "conversion therapy" in this context, does not achieve these outcomes.) I imagine it's not quite so easy for people exclusively sexually-attracted to children (though note that one's belief about their sexuality is not necessarily the same as one's actual sexuality – to the extent that "actual sexuality" is a meaningful notion).
> Can you link me to research on how AI generated CSAM consumption affects offending rates?
No, because "AI-generated" hasn't been a thing for long enough that I'd expect good research on the topic. However, there's no particular reason to believe it'd be different to consumption of similar material of other provenance.
It's a while since I researched this, but I've found you a student paper on this subject: https://openjournals.maastrichtuniversity.nl/Marble/article/.... This student has put more work into performing a literature review for their coursework than I'm willing to do for a HN comment. However, skimming the citations, I recognise some of these names as cranks (e.g. Ray Blanchard), and some papers seem to describe research based on the pseudoscientific theories of Sigmund Freud (another crank). Take this all with a large pinch of salt.
> For instance, virtual child pornography can cause a general decline in sexual child abuse, but the possibility still remains that in some cases it could lead to practicing behavior.
I remember reading research about the circumstances under which there is a positive relationship, which obviously didn't turn up in this student's literature review. My recent searches have been using the same sorts of keywords as this student, so I don't expect to find that research again any time soon.
None of the services dealing with actual research papers discovery/distribution block this. Don't expect AI to make up answers, start digging through https://www.connectedpapers.com/ or something similar.
I've heard good things about XCP-ng as well and tried it out at home and proxmox seems much easier to use out of the box. Not saying XCP-ng is bad just that it wasn't as intuitive to me as proxmox was when we were moving away from vmware
Yeah, I understand but it but I wasn't referring to performance only, mostly to "living room PC gaming" in a convenient package, almost like a home appliance. I really hope Steam can pull this off.
A GPU cluster would work better but if you're only testing things out using CUDA and want 200GB networking and somewhat low power all in one this would be the device for you
I'm not sure if the density plays into this too much. Gravity would probably play a bigger role as the gravity is only 38% of Earth's so it would need less wind to move
Wind forces in the 17 mbar tests (mentioned in the article) are roughly twice as strong as those on Mars, but still about 60x weaker than on Earth at full atmospheric pressure (1013 hPa (= 1013 mbar)).
The lower gravity might compensate for the pressure in the test being about twice as high.
The force caused by the wind acting on the rovers are 50% of Mars, if you are correct, so I'd expect twice the "sail" force pushing the CG of the rover versus its current contact "point" on Mars as in the experiment. 2/0.38 = 2.5x the moving force. When the CG is pushed forward, the whole thing rotates, and the rover advances to a new contact point.
Of course, we're talking about things like wind velocity and surface texture as "constants" here, but yeah: the thing should move.
The phys.org article mentions it: "[...] the team carried out static and dynamic tests in a wind tunnel with a variety of wind speeds and ground surfaces under a low atmospheric pressure of 17 millibars.
Results showed that wind speeds of 9–10 meters per second were sufficient to set the rover in motion over a range of Mars-like terrains, including smooth and rough surfaces, sand, pebbles and boulder field."
Ah, thanks, I missed that. It's weird how that information is in the phys.org article but not in the linked abstract. I guess that's because it's just an abstract -- they must have given more details during the presentation.
