Regressives are playing a losing hand for one simple and obvious reason --- economics.
EVs and renewable energy are unstoppable and will win simply because they are a less expensive alternative.
Until americans and american industry embrace this simple fact, we will be operating with an economic handicap and competitive disadvantage against the rest of the world and particularly the Chinese.
Government support and mandates for fossil fuel is a regressive step away from free trade and toward technical inferiority and decline --- not "greatness".
Ecology and economy are the same thing. The only way it is misaligned is because quite often the environmental impact is an externality.
E.g. A big oil corporation gets the profits of selling oil but the environmental price is paid by everybody else. Accounting the increase in climate disasters, oil becomes way more expensive that it is currently reflected in its price.
So, when someone argues that "taking into account the environment is too expensive" they are really arguing that "I should not pay for the environment damage but society at large should be paying while I collect profits".
My godfather was a safety engineer in an absolutely massive refining plant in the middle of the mediterranean. The amount of handwashing, grants, political appeasement and local populace straight-up subjugation required to keep the pretense that thing is an economic net positive rather than a polluting, cancer-causing, money wasting black hole is immense.
I know I can't prove it, but I strongly believe that much of the "Big Oil" dominance is due to political pressure to bend the market forces rather than any kind of real economic advantages compared to renewable energy sources.
Remember what you replied to: "Can change just be advocated for something out of our own interest instead of using the "Chinese" boogeyman? Is that a possibility?"
If you hadn't disingenuously replied to that comment by asking us to reread your comment, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
My plan to have it with batteries included is to reduce the chance of it happening. Most of the times my bash scripts fail are due to:
1. bash heavily rely on OS tooling for almost everything, which is not bad per se, but adds more variation. Lua is a more complete programming language and the idea is that except for invoking external binaries to do things like copying files, talking to AWS, etc, you have everything you need in this lua runtime on steroids.
2. Instead of using the system-installed bash, you can copy Lush binaries instead of relying on the system installed one
Currently, the only dependencies of lush are libssl.so, libcrypto.so and libgcc_s.so. At some point, I plan also to get all static, so there will be no dependencies, no even libgcc
Instead of WAF, just build a custom web application server that only responds to requests with valid data that pertains to the app at hand and only with valid credentials.
The idea is to severely restrict the available attack surface.
New research reveals that LLMs often fake understanding,
It took "research" to figure this out?
Finding answers in a huge database may make you look "smart" on Jeopardy but it does not demonstrate understanding of the principles involved or the ability to apply them to move mountains or scale new heights.
LLMs are like "Rain Man". They confidently state facts (some true, some false, some invented) but they are obviously lacking a real firm grasp of reality. And why would anyone expect otherwise?
reply