The main benefit for me is that digital watermarking becomes completely inaudible with high-res audio, but I can sometimes clearly hear it in standard resolution.
It takes too much energy and produces water too slowly to scale. In general any area with sufficient moisture in the air to explore this also has easier access to rain and ground water.
This is honestly what I'm thinking. Carbohydrates and hydrocarbons will oxidize to CO2 and water in our atmosphere, and especially quickly at warm temperatures, in the presence of energy sources like sunlight, or in the presence of ozone or elevated oxygen levels. In general biological processes like aerobic decay are so much more effective that we ignore this, but it still happens.
From what I understand, the main goal is to fix the problem that non-native (1:1 pixel mapping) resolutions and scaling look worse than native. This is a problem when you ship high-dpi displays that need UI scaling in order for things to be readable. Apple's solution was to render everything at a higher, non-native resolution so that images were always downscaled to fit the display.
So to oversimplify, Windows can have a problem where if you are running 1.5X scaling so text is big enough, you can't fit 4K of native pixels on a 4K display so videos are blurry. If instead you were rendering a scaled image to a 6K framebuffer and then downscaling to 4K, there would be minimal loss of resolution.
GPS is based on a small number of satellites in high orbit, so it's not practical to disable it for a particular region like it is for Starlink and other LEO satellites.
For a high up-front price, nuclear plants give us an extremely large amount of consistent, emissions-free power that can also provide frequency stability to the grid. It's also very energy-dense in terms of Gigawatts per acre. Spent fuel is a largely solved problem, we should reprocess it into new fuel and place the residue into long-term geological storage. Modern nuclear reactors also do online refueling so they aren't shutting down to swap the fuel out.
That said, it's entirely possible to make an argument that the combination of wind, solar, battery energy storage, and kinetic (flywheel?) energy storage can solve the above needs for less money over the long term than nuclear. They can be built more incrementally and in smaller chunks, but there's also a certain value in having huge amounts of energy that can be sited basically anywhere. A big challenge with nuclear is that every time someone costs out a plant, by the time they can gather money solar and wind have gotten cheaper faster than expected.
Overall, I'd like to see a diversity of power sources. I think we should try building some big modern nuclear plants, convert some combustion plants with small modular reactors, subsidize solar and wind preferentially in areas where it makes the most sense, and fund hydro projects where it won't impact the environment.
It usually contains significant amounts of milk protein, which contribute to flavor but spoil about as quickly as milk does. Washing the butter thoroughly until well after the water is clear will improve storage time, as will salting the butter and thoroughly drying it.
The point of a 90% marginal rate isn't to increase tax revenue, it's to discourage high incomes that are economically and socially harmful. If you don't believe that's a problem then policies to address it won't seem logical.
This is just an Amazon site issue, lots of things are broken right now. This problem specifically appears to be caused by the site not being able to determine your location to ship to.
How do we build a society that continues to function while people like this blog writer exist? The reality is that some people will always be 10/10 upset about something, no matter how unreasonable it is. We have a society that's the safest it's ever been but people want to burn it all down because they smelled a cannabis flower.
No one sane is afraid of living the ideal retired life. They are afraid of not being able to afford to live. If we were actually talking about replacing the current system of "work if you want to live" with AI-funded universal basic income, I don't think as many people would be complaining.
I believe that LLMs provide an excuse for businesses to shed the excess hiring they did during the zero interest rate era. Ultimately, this question comes down to how healthy you think the economy will be in five years, rather than being related to LLMs specifically. I believe there is an AI bubble, so to me this question is asking how much of our economy is mis-invested in AI, and how quickly the rest of the economy can recover if the AI portion implodes. I'm really concerned that the level of mis-investment is high enough that when the bubble bursts it will do severe damage to the larger economy. For example, I'm worried that we'll suddenly have a bunch of abandoned partially constructed data centers, power plants, and fabs. Can the market absorb a massive glut of DRAM and NAND that was contracted for by an entity that suddenly went bankrupt? What will happen to all those warehouses full of GPUs that were waiting for rack space and power?
All of the above could mean we're facing an economic depression that will be talked about for generations. Or it could mean that it will temporarily be unimaginably cheap to start a compute-intensive business, and they will all need to hire developers.
The point is to have a useful way of getting rid of all the plastic waste we already have and will continue to generate. Plastic isn't going anywhere in the near future because it's a byproduct of natural gas production, which is needed for energy.
The YouTube Premium model seems to be the way forward here. In short, pay $5 per month and every video you watch gets paid slightly more per view than they would if you watched ads. Expanding this to a larger ecosystem may require a larger fee, but avoiding the friction of people deciding whether the marginal cost to read an article is worth it is an obvious win.