Nice to see some numbers. So for the peak load situations, a Dash 8-100 would not require a battery bigger than that a short range BEV ("city", though in reality the short range BEV use case is more for the rural equivalent of stuff that would be walkable in a city setting). And that's even before considering the energy contributed by the fossil fuel engine.
"13000 * 9.81 * 1000 = 127.5 MJ, to reach your altitude"
Presumably quite a bit of that would be harvested back during the descent that follows. The conventional engine would still need some excess power (relative to cruise load) to fill the gap left by drag and imperfect circle efficiency of the electric motor/generator, but mass x altitude is stored energy, not lost. (I'm still talking about the "what if we need a second abort" of the root post)
Easy: you don't try the second landing approach before the battery is sufficiently recharged to contain enough energy for the second abort. Chances are this does not take any longer than going through the pattern anyways.
The saving is not just the dead weight of the bigger engine you'd need to do take-off, climb and abort without electric assist, it's also the fuel saved during cruise from running an engine that is completely designed for efficiency at cruise load instead of for some compromise between cruise efficiency and sufficient peak power for start and abort.
Not when they are properly used as a fossil fuel source. As a fossil fuel source that just happened to also make itself useful in other ways on the voyage from mine to smokestack. As long as we still burn coal for electricity and/or heat it's just stupid to bury plastics (or, worse, let it slowly decay unburied)
Misleading title: they are using eminent domain to seize land for power lines to data centers. (emphasis mine)
This is still quite debatable, but so much less so than the implied accusation that they would somehow sell out their privileges as subcontractors for the data centers themselves.
I'm not a friend of nationalism, but I believe that it's a trade-off: of you want to be open to immigration, of the kind that pulls in newcomers, inviting them to become a part of the place they move to, instead of remaining outsiders, you have to give them plenty of opportunity to identify with their new home. Of course these days, we see the American flag used a lot in ways completely opposite to this, but that does not change the great progressive value national symbols could provide.
I read about this so often, yet it's a problem I just never encountered. If I need super high bandwidth like connecting a display, I pick one of those annoyingly unlflexible fat cables. Easy. They even tend to feature the TB4 flash icon. Surely I would not expect any of the light and nimble ones to do that trick. When I need strong PD, it's also either one of those or one of the far more flexible but still quite thick braided ones. Often they have some hinge gimmick connector to prevent any hope for bandwidth one might be tempted to have. All other cables, I expect nothing but legacy USB. Yeah, and some of those won't do data at all (curiosly those are never the lightest cables in my stable, the lightest ones tend to do the legacy USB "gear not, some bits will eventually get through!" just fine)
Yeah, I guess in these days of hardware not getting completely outdated even after half a decade, it might well make sense to spend chip area on specialist units that are shut down almost the entire time.
In the old days, when it was all about squeezing maximum performance from a given chip area budget you'd prefer using those transistors for some improvement of the general purpose parts, no matter how marginal. But now it's the thermal envelope, or power consumption of you prefer looking at it from that angle, and even slightly esoteric special purpose units can start making sense.
Will the workloads exist? As in not going straight to something at least as dedicated as the Strix Halo CPU/GPU combo (with air quotes around the G)? Or the Apple max? Somehow I don't picture this as an attempt to make a full AI rig that just happens to be x86 in the housekeeping parts but just something that will make CPU inference a little less bad. In that case it would at best be a hedge against some low requirements use case becoming more important than expected, yet another unused spec sheet checkbox engineering marvel otherwise.
Yeah, I'd expect this approach to be almost universal, with the caveat that of the few who don't, many still don't get bitten.
But it turns out even in the container, there are footguns that have occasionally made the news by being fired: few projects don't have any external resources and when credentials with any form of write access happen to make it into the container (even if it's just a session cookie) agents might jump at the opportunity.
Is that built in protection really a filter, on code level, that sits between the LLM session and the shell or is it just some pleading in the bootstrap prompt? "Pretty please don't do xyz this is important!!!11"?
The latter can seem to be as good as the former for any amount of time. No outside observation can really prove reliability, only the negative result ("it does occasionally break the rules we expect") would be proof. So it's difficult to trust any claims that it's the former.
And even if it does have some of the former, chances are that the protection you experience is only partially provided on code level, while an unknown amount is still just bootstrap prompting that just works until does not.
In ca 1995 fiction, the upsell was human ractors occasionally coming in, temporarily substituting AI on heiress class instances. Sounds pretty much spot on for one of those coveted post AI jobs...
But it really depends not only on the presentation theme but also on the data set itself and that varies by region. I'm sure that there are still places where the sources Google is buying are better than whatever is on OSM, just like there are regions where OSM is just so much more detailed than everybody else. And yet others, where OSM is generously fed by an entity that also supplies Google and all the others because they are not doing it for the map, they are doing it for the place.
None, in the months (sometimes years) it spends switched off (off, not standby) between print jobs. It's a quarter of a century old and I can still get replacement cartridges when I need them.
I very much agree, the status quo is not sustainable. But I really don't believe that the solution is trying to one-up China in whatever they are doing, or the USA, for that matter.
It might be a minor contributor, but it sure isn't the reason.
If you do do much admire economic success through suffering, can I assume that you have relocated to China? (mainland) Because they sure know a thing or two about that...
Or in other words: there's a big difference between public domain and copyleft and it looks like whoever came up with the asbestos analogy was underestimating that difference.
"13000 * 9.81 * 1000 = 127.5 MJ, to reach your altitude"
Presumably quite a bit of that would be harvested back during the descent that follows. The conventional engine would still need some excess power (relative to cruise load) to fill the gap left by drag and imperfect circle efficiency of the electric motor/generator, but mass x altitude is stored energy, not lost. (I'm still talking about the "what if we need a second abort" of the root post)