Hey, saying paradise is just around the corner with "just a bit more scale" works wonderfully for OpenAI, and these guys have much more modest claims and asks.
The people at cern are amazing at making you like science & gather money. I was there only for a student trip (non-related studies) and they had many slides about how awesome the international collaboration, science, funding etc is. And of course, they show you the huge site and machines and talk about stuff that you don't understand anything about.
It’s been very tightly intertwined with the position. When you retire, your wealth is gone, and sometimes retirement equals a purge. I wouldn’t call this being among the wealthy elite by any means. Today, you live in the center of Moscow, and tomorrow you’re an ‘enemy of the people’—good luck proving otherwise.
It means disparate servers which explicitly signed the interoperability agreement with Meta - however, they could well then connect using the same bridge instance via Matrix for expedience. And yes, those servers would need to provide enough anti-abuse data to allow Meta to accept their traffic.
Your eloquent responses always make me very happy. Thanks for being consistently awesome and generous with your time, Matthew. Really appreciative of it.
If you buy so much solar that it leads to expansion of facilities, this "hack" will have you buying so much fossil power you are in effect subsidising the other fossil customers and thus prolonging their use of fossils. You definitely shouldn't count that power as 100% renewable.
It only works as a clean bypass of you buy so little you don't impact the local fossil market, but this is a discussion about large data centres so that's basically never satisfied.
You've got that backwards. If you're using a solar credit from KC in Seattle, you're subsidizing the cost of power in KC. Solar generation is built in KC, but demand is unaffected. Therefore the price of power drops in KC, crowding out fossil there and lowering the price of green power.
In Seattle you've increased demand without increasing generation, raising the price there. Yes, fossil generators may be built to satisfy this new demand, but that's unlikely in 2024. In Seattle in particular, excess demand is generally met by buying hydro from BC.
That argument applies to my personal electricity bill too.
I buy my power from a company that supplies 100% regenerative power and gets most of its power from new generation facilities, 350 of them so far. Those 350 deliver power to about a half-million people, which obviously took market share away from existing fossil plants and pushed the market prices down.
So by that test, what action does not prolong the use of fossil fuel? You're making the test much too strict.
While SMBH at the center are common, it is believed that there are plenty of galaxies that don't have such a black hole including spiral galaxies. For example, M33 [1].
The upper limit on its central black hole is ~1500x of Sol and it's widely believed right now to just not have one. By comparison, the Milky Way’s black hole is 4 million Sol masses and our galaxies SMBH is quite tiny by comparison to many galaxies.
Blocking off the other side is also a negotiation strategy; one that one applies for example if one considers the demands of the other side to be nutjob
insane.
The unusual thing, as stated repeatedly throughout the article, is that this is published by people who are under one of the strictest censorship systems in the world, a system that explicitly exist to prevent the publication exactly this sort of thing.
Yes. And as you'll know, since we both read the article, the author mentions what I believe to be the correct conclusion:
> The “obvious” answer, if my above assertions are true, is that it must not actually represent a thermonuclear secondary. [...] It could be some kind of pre-approved “unclassified shape” which is used for diagnostics and model verification, for example. There are other examples of this kind of thing that the labs have used over time. That is entirely a possibility.
However, he then goes on to immediately reject this "obvious" answer, because he thinks the well-known schematics of fission-fusion bombs give the appearance of a classified shape, and because he feels it is "provocative" for a government weapons lab to show a mock up of a well-known schematic in one of their publications. Those positions seem very weak to me.
He later finds basically the same object with the caption "The multiple components of a nuclear weapon body are highlighted in this intentionally simplified mesh" from another publication of Sandia, making that theory kind of unlikely
I don't understand that conclusion. That sentence, in my mind, makes that conclusion more likely. They say it is an intentionally simplified mesh. Which to me means it is not the real deal. So why does this sentence makes you think the theory is unlikely? (Or what is the specific part of the theory you think it makes it unlikely?) Genuinely curious.
I took the quote [1] to basically mean "we might think this is a nuclear warhead, but in fact it is not, rather it is some kind of random test object used to demonstrate the software". Obscure part of a washing mashine, random geometric shape, etc.
[1] "The “obvious” answer, if my above assertions are true, is that it must not actually represent a thermonuclear secondary. [...] It could be some kind of pre-approved “unclassified shape” which is used for diagnostics and model verification, for example."
> Obscure part of a washing mashine, random geometric shape, etc.
Oh i see what you mean. I took the theory to be that it is looking like a nuclear warhead but it doesn't have the right dimensions, or even the right arrangement of the components. Kind of like the difference between the real blueprints of a submarine (very much classified) or the drawing evoking the same feel but drawn by someone who has never seen the inside of a submarine nor does really know any details (not classified).
The key issue making the publication remarkable is that the shown geometry is quite plausible as an internal structure of a two stage weapon, but is being disclosed through a censorship regime that typically thinks the precise length of the enclosing cone is classified.
So a even a diagram that is abstracted and slightly fudged would be a huge departure from what the censors usually think is ok, which is weird!
reply