No big deal is it was just video. It's really about the data that can be extracted from the video such as who you meet, when you are home or not and who is at your house, etc. all in realtime.
I hope sarcasm is working well for you. To clarify: it would be abused without systems, therefore add court warrants to access any personal information. Criminals are already abusing society by knowing that most of their crime will never be caught.
So then does the data center compensate local residents for their higher power bills today? Until the new capacity comes online?
> Your requirements is like demanding nobody can buy a house unless they have pay they entire amount upfront.
No it's like demanding your new neighbors aren't forced to lend you money for your purchase - which is entirely reasonable. If you need money, get it from the bank.
The top-level comment explains it already:
"When you drop a data center into an area, energy prices will spike. Additionally, without that green energy capacity they will cause much more air pollution."
For wind turbine project from design and planning to operational use-takes approximately 4-7 years. An offshore wind turbine project requires about 7-10 years.
> For wind turbine project from design and planning to operational use-takes approximately 4-7 years.
That's still better than 11-12 years. How long does a solar farm take?
If residents' opposition is rooted in higher power prices, data centers could just pay extra instead until the new capacity comes online. Seems like a cheap way to pay off opposition.
> An offshore wind turbine project requires about 7-10 years.
Given this article is about Pennsylvania, it'll probably take millions of years.
The famous evening duck curve, when people go home and cook and turn on heating/cooling appliances. California is able to flatten that out with batteries alone.
> Lot of industry, especialy heavy industry, chemical plants are running 24/7.
Right...so they also run during the day (that's what 24/7 means), when everyone else is using electricity. At night they're the only users. Which means less demand at night compared to the day.
> see electricity prices in Europe
This article is about Pennsylvania. That isn't in Europe.
* The longest piece for wind is "Approvals and permits" which takes up to 5 years of the 4-7y.
* The building part "takes approximately 3-6 months" for building wind.
So wind can be built far faster if we're willing to speed up approvals and permitting.
And even if corners are cut for approvals/permitting, the worst case for a wind turbine failure is a lot better than a nuclear failure.
The point of DF, to a large extent, is precise control and detail. It's the opposite of the approach taken by AI games that want to generalise based on simple prompts.
I would pose that's a matter of holding it wrong. Like, integrating generative AI as a prompt to an API endpoint exposed to the user is one of the worst, most naive and bland ways to use it as a game subsystem that I can think of.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with trying to use generative AI as a subsystem for a game, problems which exist at a conceptual level. But all the games I've seen that integrate AI as a subsystem don't even come remotely close to hitting that ceiling. I think it's ultimately up to the fact that an interesting usage of generative AI requires a level of technical competency and theory that's well beyond that of the layman. The people making games that utilize AI generally seem to lack the chops to make a good game or do interesting things with AI. The people with the chops and manhours to make a good game with AI:
- Don't want the backlash of having a generative model in their game, because no matter the context that's a lot of very bad press for something that's very difficult and time consuming to implement.
- See the immediate problems and difficulty that arise from a decently integrated concept and execution, and even without the bad press, understand that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. That it's always going to be an immensely stupid gimmick in the end, one that's trying way too hard.
That won't stop us from having 10,000 pieces of shovelware getting churned out that have the worst, most uninspired integrations imaginable mind you. We clearly already have those. For those that could do something better with the tech, there's too many good reasons to not touch it.
> The point of DF, to a large extent, is precise control and detail.
I don't know, it's basically Minecraft with Lemmings. You control a lot, but at the end, the AI comparison might be somewhat apt - you tell the dwarves what to do, and they mostly do it. When they're not struck by a strange mood, or when they're not too depressed to work, or when they're not being eaten by a Forgotten Beast (beware its deadly dust!)
It’s shorthand for “it’s unreadable, but in the way an AI would write it”. I’m not OP, but that’s the issue. If it was well written (even if AI written), there would be no problem.
As it turns out, you still need to be a good writer in order to prompt an AI to write well.
Self modifying code is not allowed on some o/s because pages with code are marked as non writable, because bad things can happen when code is writable, eg buffer overflows.
Anyone who's impact is more than just rampant financial fraud. Human's are the product of their environment and mostly just in the right place at the right time, but there's no criteria where you could put Elon Musk in a list of the most important humans of all time.
I’m not who you replied to but that’s honestly an interesting question. Genghis Khan? Jesus, I suppose?
Elon Musk is probably up there, though. You could say people like Henry Ford are on his level, but Elon is certainly more broad in his scope. I think people like them are probably accelerationists, meaning someone else would have done what they’ve done eventually. That could be a long eventually though. It’s hard to compare them to people who shaped history through their actions that nobody else would have done the same way.
> You could say people like Henry Ford are on his level
Since Tesla was started, they've sold ~9.6 million cars. In that same time period, Ford has sold 100 million. Musk is no Henry Ford, it's much more accurate to compare him to P.T. Barnum and Bernie Madoff.
Sure, but I wasn’t talking about car sales. I brought Ford up because of the first mass-affordable car and the production line stuff, not to compare sales measures.
Musk doesn’t just have Tesla. SpaceX is probably a bigger deal for humanity and how we live. Starlink was probably only possible because of SpaceX. We’ll see how some of his other ideas pan out. Ford was, as far as I know, just cars (and manufacturing said cars).
You'd probably want to be more precise regarding "important for what" as well. And the philosophical angle: if the person hadn't existed, would someone else have slotted in to take their place? Is the impact measured in years/decades, because the overall historical forces were heading in a direction anyway?
Is it like trying to say "the most important bacterium in a petri dish"?
Without diminishing the impact that Musk has had, I'm fairly certain that Musk isn't the answer. And either way, the intent of saying that Musk is the most important person in history I'm fairly certain wasn't a very grounded decision. I'm sure it was more an expression of reverence and fealty.
because the value (or lack of) on most companies he manages are tied to his personality cult. it's the main "product" of those stocks, not always what the company does. see the tsla rewards (hence investments), the board places more resources on musk doing his road show than factories, as proved by hard factual numbers.
They have definitely done some damage but there's some overlap between "special interest groups" and anti-nuclear if I'm not mistaken. If you're catching my drift.
reply