I'm almost 40, but nowhere close to being able to retire and enjoy the rest of my life, which is, I hope, going to be at least another 40 years. It's going to be a fun ride
I wish you good luck. On my side I actually don’t have the amount of money to retire comfortably. I’ll just retire uncomfortably, like going back to the younger days when I spent 1000 bucks a month for everything.
> Apart from a few idiots nobody claims it is Turkish dialect.
Back in the 90's, it was not that hard to find Turkish people saying exactly this.
This was before most had the Internet, so they could say stuff and get away with it. The idea was to belittle the Kurds, and deny them their identity. Obviously, not serious scholarship.
Instead of parsing "mountain Turkish" as "mountain+turkish", parse it as " mountain turk+ish". The use of the term "Mountain Turk" arose in the Atatürk era as a quick way to nip any discussions of those ethnic minorities in the bud. That is all the term serves for. It doesn't mean that Turks believe Kurds actually speak a language genetically related to their own.
The current consensus is not that Hittite is Indo-European, it's that Anatolian languages (including Hittite) are related to Indo-European, both stemming from proto-Indo-Anatolian.
I actually work in this field, so I can encourage you to do some further reading and get to grips with the terminology. "Indo-European" remains among experts the most popular way to refer to the entire language family, Anatolian and non-Anatolian. Terms like "Nuclear IE" and "Core IE" are often employed to distinguish the non-Anatolian languages.
"Indo-Anatolian" for the higher-level family is a term that some may use here and there, but no expert would ever make a "well, acktually..." remark as you just did to those in a discussion, professional or layman, using "Indo-European"
It's not consensus (yet?), but Kloekhorst's categorization does put the Anatolian split first and early, making it essentially two separate branches of PIE. He isn't concerned about the terminology, but it does allow for alternatives, and "Proto-Indo-Hittite" is now a century-old term.
Despite the terms used, Anatolian and non-Anatolian languages are seen as two separate branches.
Maybe I'm being too charitable, but I hadn't read that user's comment as a "well, acktually", especially given the chain of comments, but perhaps I'm wrong.
Everyone puts the Anatolian split first and early. It doesn't mean the use of the term "Indo-European" for the entire family, Anatolian included, is in any way superseded or unpopular among experts.
I agree, but that's why I said "Despite the terms used." I'm suggesting, moderately, that the user might be thinking of that split and how others have used alternative terms to better describe the situation.
Certainly, that Hittite broke off first is the consensus, and thus it makes sense (but isn't the consensus) that we should say something like "Indo-Hittite". BUT, one is a matter of describing history, and the other is an arbitrary label attached to that description.
Your "well akshually" was a nice way of softening the original poster's brief comment. I just don't think any of us truly disagree (barring that user's subsequent thoughts, of course).
I don't think that's the consensus. Even if it were the consensus, the I doubt the people making the argument would disagree that the Anatolian languages are closely related to the Indo-European languages. The grammar is classic Indo-European, with 7-9 cases depending on the period. The vocabulary has a lot of cognates with Indo-European languages. The only things that really distinguish Hittite from Indo-European languages are the system of enclitics and grammatical gender based on animacy rather than the usual masculine/feminine/neuter.
Well, we aren't purely stochastic machines passively subject to entropy. We also have some DNA repair mechanisms, which work better when we are younger, and maybe could be restored to their youthful function. Plus, if a cell is beyond repair, other mechanisms can simply whack it and it will later be replaced by a new cell grown from the stem cell population (of course with some limits). But that again means having a youthful stem cell population.
This is an uninformed suggestion, but is it possible to take a large collection of cells from across the body and work out which ones carry the untainted DNA by statistical methods?
From a purely engineering perspective, this and the destroyed AWS datacenters in the Middle East show an interesting trend. How will it affect the way future datacenters and services hosted in them are built? Will we see a rise in decentralized systems and much larger networks of smaller DCs?
And give an AI in the DC targeting control. And why not some humanoid armed guards also under AI control? It'll just expand from there until we are under full corporate military occupation.
To merely destroy "space data centers", you need not have very advanced targeting technology nor space lasers or whatnot. Just launch a few things releasing little ball bearings or steel needles or something like that - and "poison" the entire orbit.
If all you seek is to destroy (how en-vogue...) then that's more than perfect; not just destroy what's there but also make sure that by virtue of what remains (debris) nothing will get re-built.
That’s not how orbits or satellites work. Imagine you were attacking a Red Bull airplane race where they are circling pylons. What would happen if you throw some ball bearings up at them? You might hit one plane and then they all fall down. Same thing happens in space if you aren’t traveling orbital velocity. Imagine you throw the ball bearings sideways to try and hit more planes - you still hit maybe one plane, they fall down, it falls down, the rest keep going.
Well ... first, that needs a "gadget" suitable for creating an EMP - which is still higher-rate tech than a missile being able to just reach a few hundred miles
altitude and then "conventionally blow up into tiny pieces". And second ... as I said, as belligerant or terrorist, why would you not want to destroy / orbit-poison ? Why would it ever be a good idea to "destruction-less disable" space infrastructure?
The SpaceX stock is floating solely (and temporarily) on fairy dust, it will not have any impact on the stock what-so-ever.
As the market goes, so goes the multiple being granted to SPCX. That is, when the AI bubble contracts on the multiples being granted, SPCX will decline dramatically. In my observation HN typically widely can't differentiate properly between the real AI economy being developed and the multiples being temporarily granted in the stock market, it's common on here that people think they're the same thing ('when the AI bubble ends'). Back in reality what is going to happen is an implosion of the multiples when the growth slows (or suddenly stops due to an economic shock), and despite that the AI economy broadly will radically expand regardless over 10, 20, 30 years. See: the Internet build out (and market valuations), it will occur much the same conceptually.
SpaceX has a de facto monopoly on space now. And they are 10-20 years ahead of even China. No nation now has a response to Falcon 9 - sth SpaceX built over 10 years ago.
Yes, so Europe and China are (sadly) more than 10 years behind the tech that SpaceX is retiring already.
I think the last time such a divide existed was when the West had guns and Japan had Samurai. I’m so glad we, Europe, are (still kind of) aligned with US.
It will mean data-centers move to space and then Musk will use his space prowess to bring weapons into space, in collaboration with the US military, and deny/strong-arm/corrupt governments around the world to protect his treasure, including the US government. He'll have a robot army to back it up.
He is on his way to become the first ($100 trillion) supervillain. Until 2 years ago, he stood at the center of most of the good news, then he got a few calls from Putin and he became unhinged from our (obscured) point of view. Nowadays he's a dark pattern.
Capitalism culminates in him, and he has to decide what to make of the world. He is our de-facto king, while on a personal level he has to decide what to do with his fortune. Put it into smart contracts for an AI to use and rule the world? Giving it to his kids would be underwhelming, not what he lived for.
People joked that mankind existed to bring forth the machines and would then become superfluous. The irony of it. Well, it seems irony has mr Musk. He sees the petty online bickering and he sees himself as alone, as the only adult in the room, who has to decide the fate of humanity, and his power in many domains puts him to the task.
He has his fiduciary responsibility that puts the interests of his share-holders first. He sees that as a healthy check on his power. At the end of all his calculations he has responsibilities akin to the Star Wars Emperor. Just like many white men, who come spend the remainder of their days in function and in defense of their property. Not in defense of life.
So Musk needs his antagonist to arrive on the scene, so he can repurpose his empire for the good the antagonist brings, as he represents a complete overhaul of the way life is lived. So the jury is out on mr Musk, and may he always remember his status as an American is just a hustle gone wild. Similar to the dynamic of how a liar has to keep extending his web of lies. He will make it into a machine that will carry his burden going forward. And then what? When, if ever, will he remember he is an African, and a friend of his own antagonist? His final words may sound like: Luke, I am your Father!
Data centres will not be moving to space. The physics and economics don't work.
It's not that it can't be done at all, but heat dissipation at scale in space is an insane engineering challenge, the tech to make giant radiators work doesn't exist yet, and even if it did it would extremely costly to develop and deploy.
Musk is a textbook narcissist. His consistent pattern is to make grandiose promises - literal future faking - fulfil a small percentage of them, then make even bigger and more grandiose promises and hope investors have a short memory. (They do.)
As a narcissist his primary relationship orientation is contempt for others. He's more interested in damaging projects he doesn't like - like the left-leaning community on the original Twitter, using promises of Hyperloop to kill high speed rail, ignoring the CSA from Grok, and of course the USAid fiasco - than seeing through the projects he claims to be developing to completion.
He fits in perfectly with Thiel, Altman, and the rest. The tech is sometimes interesting, but the alignment is fundamentally hostile to the rest of humanity.
> but heat dissipation at scale in space is an insane engineering challenge, the tech to make giant radiators work doesn't exist yet, and even if it did it would extremely costly to develop and deploy
Different problem.
Cooling can be done in space, it's a normal problem; not easy, nothing in space is easy, but on the scale of space it is normal.
However, at the temperature you would run a chip at, a radiator you make for space will just work better, reject more heat, if you leave it on the ground.
We get convective cooling down here as well as radiative. At operational temperature, convection more than makes up for the atmosphere being a heat bath at ~20 C or whatever.
Everything is possible. Doesn't mean you should do it. You can also put datacenters on the sea floor in a nuclear submarine. That might be even easier.
> t's not that it can't be done at all, but heat dissipation at scale in space is an insane engineering challenge, the tech to make giant radiators work doesn't exist yet, and even if it did it would extremely costly to develop and deploy.
You are overstating the engineering difficulty. Starlink constellation already dissipates around 100MW.
If you solve your cooling problem in space by distributing 10000 servers across 100 orbits then you replace one engineering challenge with the next; good luck with the satellite-satellite optical crossbars, and even more with the time travel beam shapers to get the communication latency between the components of your "orbit-distributed data center" to-target.
(the sarcasm is intended; there are some usecases for "space servers", around stealth for sure; to "scale it like a terrestrial DC" though ... dunno; not matter how I turn it, it just seems crazy expensive)
Communication latency and bandwidth would present big issues for AI satellites used for training. But if they are inference-only, then the latency and bandwidth demands are much, much lower. Starlink already demonstrates the required parameters.
Indeed ... yet the servers for that already exist and are largely ground-based - "edge" compute of the large CDNs through which much of the internet's traffic flows anyway.
Will starlink build its own edge ? Maybe. We'll see. Whether it makes sense to have this infrastructure "colocated in space" if you're not also the owner of the "connection infrastructure in space" though? It'll come down to cost.
If I were anyone else but SpaceX ... that's where my eyes would be.
"Once the Phase I trial of PVX-001 concludes, we will open-source the design and manufacturing information needed for others to produce and build on it, and we will not enforce our intellectual property rights against anyone who uses it to make vaccines against any betacoronavirus [...]"
The headline seems slightly inaccurate. A pledge of later going open-source isn't the same as open-source. Sure, "marketing".
They kind of did the opposite. Started off open source until they had gotten what they needed from the goodwill of the open source community, then made it closed source to make sure they wouldn't have to return any of that goodwill
Open source software is still copyrighted, its just that the rights holders grant you a license that allows you to do certain things as long as you stick to certain conditions
You're contradicting yourself, how can it be unique if only 1000 can be assigned per given date of birth? What if more than one thousand babies are born in the country one day?
There have been collisions in Sweden, but that was due to lots of immigrants coming from the middle east that did not know when they where born. So many of them picked first of January. They “solved” it by overflowing to the next days.
They said sex is encoded in it, so it’s probably a sex digit.
edit: I was wrong. Wikipedia says, “The first digit of the sequence number encodes the century of birth (so that centenarians are distinguished from infants)”.
It also says “the last digit of the sequence number is odd for males and even for females”. What a strange system. Essentially the last three digits are two different sequences made to look like one.
You must be thinking of physics and other sciences. Mathematics has very little to do with the real world and can be better described as a game, similar to chess, but much more complex. It's no wonder it now went the way of chess, go and similar games
> Mathematics has very little to do with the real world a
I don't necessarily think that that is true, as almost every social science has been turned into maths one way or another, beginning with Economics. Heck, even mundane stuff like sports (think football/soccer) has now been absorbed by data, which you can see as applied maths.
Yes, I do know that advanced maths doesn't currently explain Arteta's system at Arsenal but we're generally talking about that same semantic area of interest, i.e. if the interest on maths were to subside as a result of AI taking that interest away from us then we will have no more data/stats-focused Artetas in the future (and possible no AI-like thingie also).
Almost all sciences (at least, parts of them) have been also expressed as code, mathematics is no different. It's a tool used by sciences, but it is not itself a science and it is not necessarily rooted in anything "real". Not better or worse, just different.
I’m saying that this wouldn’t have happened had our society not become “mathematics-ised” at some point (I’m talking about said society’s technical and scientific elites, of course). I’m also saying that outsourcing our “mathematics-mind” to AI (which seems the current process we’re now part of) will not allow for similar “mathematics-ing” to take place into the future. I’ll come with an even stronger claim and say that we risk losing the “mathematics-ing” we now associate with most of our sciences.
> Mathematics has very little to do with the real world
But it's a construction based on very basic properties of the real world, at least on those properties we accept and perceive as very general and we use them as building blocks.
reply