Nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) could be a great constituent component of a composite material. Not only would it burn, but anything that doesn't burn and makes it to the surface is biodegradable; there's lots of stuff that eats cellulose. NCC can be formed into highly strong and rigid structural pieces, or combined with carbon fiber, fiberglass, hemp, or other fibers to create ultra strong and durable composite material.
high mechanical strength, with a tensile modulus of approximately 150 GPa and a modulus of elasticity ranging from 18 to 50 GPa. CNCs also exhibit excellent thermal stability, undergoing gradual thermal transitions and decomposition between 150 °C and 600 °C
5 gigabytes vram in its minimum configuration, but various things can be done to increase that. Quantization and distillation might theoretically reduce resource needs, but that's still small enough to get halfway decent CPU generation time.
It's hard to infer relative performance based on parameter count alone. SD3 and SDXL are quite different architecturally. The only way to really tell is to compare it with examples. Even this lobotomized 2B model seems to perform better on prompt adherence and text compared the base SDXL model, so I think it has potential once fine tuned.
The model looks excellent. Complex arrangements, high quality text, and easier fine-tuning right in time for campaign season... this election year is going to be a fun one.
Investors don't know what they're doing. This is laughably apparent. They're monkeys throwing bananas at dart boards. There's that whole negative externality thing. There aren't alternatives to FAANG because they've viciously used their VC money to drive out competition, used their lawyers to litigate competition into extinction, and every other tool at their disposal to press an advantage in consumer exposure. This isn't a fair market where the best product wins; it's a game of "who's got the most money."
You make it sound like it's merit or competence that landed Cook in that position, and that he somehow has earned the prestige of the position?
I could buy that argument about Jobs. Cook is just a guy with a title. He follows rules and doesn't get fired, but otherwise does everything he can with all the resources at his disposal to make as much money as possible. Given those same constraints and resources, most people with an IQ above 120 would do as well. Apple is an institution unto itself, and you'd have to repeatedly, rapidly, and diabolically corrupt many, many layers of corporate protections to hurt the company intentionally. Instead, what we see is simple complacency and bureaucracy chipping away at any innovative edge that Apple might once have had.
Maintenance and steady piloting is a far different skillset than innovation and creation.
Make no mistake, Cook won the lottery. He knew the right people, worked the right jobs, never screwed up anything big, and was at the right place at the right time to land where he is. Good for him, but let's not pretend he got where he is through preternatural skill or competence.
I know it's a silicon valley trope and all, but the c-class mythos is so patently absurd. Most of the best leaders just do their best to not screw up. Ones that actually bring an unusual amount of value or intellect to the table are rare. Cook is a dime a dozen.
I was with you until your last sentence. By all accounts Cook was one of the world's most effective managers of production and logistics -- a rare talent. He famously streamlined Apple's stock-keeping practices when he was a new hire at Apple. How much he exercises that talent in his day-to-day as CEO is not perfectly clear; it may perhaps have atrophied.
In any case, "dime a dozen" doesn't do him justice -- he was very accomplished, in ways you can't fake, before becoming CEO.
I look at it from a perspective of interchangeability - if you swapped Steve Ballmer in for Cook, nothing much would have changed. Same if you swapped Nadella in for Pichai, or Pichai for Cook. Very few of these men are exceptional; they are ordinary men with exceptional resources at hand. What they can do, what they should do, and what they can get away with, unseen, govern their impact. Leaders that actually impact their institutions are incredibly rare. Our current crop of ship steadying industry captains, with few exceptions, are not towering figures of incredible prowess and paragons of leadership. They're regular guys in extraordinary circumstances. Joe Schmo with an MBA, 120 IQ, and the same level of institutional knowledge and 2 decades of experience at Apple could have done the same as Cook; Apple wouldn't have looked much different than it does now.
There's a tendency to exaggerate the qualities of men in positions like this. There's nothing inherent to their positions requiring greatness or incredible merit. The extraordinary events already happened; their job is to simply not screw it up, and our system is such that you'd have to try really, really hard to have any noticeable impact, let alone actually hurt a company before the institution itself cuts you out. Those lawyers are a significant part of the organism of a modern mega corporation; they're the substrate upon which the algorithm that is a corporation is running. One of the defenses modern corporations employ is to limit the impact any individual in the organization can have, positive or otherwise, and to employ intense scrutiny and certainty of action commensurate with the power of a position.
Throw Cook into an start-up arena against Musk, Gates, Altman, Jobs, Buffet, etc, and he'd get eaten alive. Cook isn't the scrappy, agile, innovative, ruthless start-up CEO. He's the complacent, steady, predictable institutional CEO coasting on the laurels of his betters, shielded from the trials they faced through the sheer inertia of the organization he currently helms.
They're different types of leaders for different phases of the megacorp organism, and it's OK that Cook isn't Jobs 2.0 - that level of wildness and unpredictability that makes those types of leaders their fortunes can also result in the downfall of their companies. Musk acts with more freedom; the variance in behavior results in a variance of fortunes. Apple is more stable because of Cook, but it's not because he's particularly special. Simply steady and sane.
> I look at it from a perspective of interchangeability - if you swapped Steve Ballmer in for Cook, nothing much would have changed.
This is quite ridiculous. "Developers x3" Ballmer would have face-planted at Apple. He only coasted so far at Microsoft because Gates had already won the platform war.
> They're different types of leaders for different phases of the megacorp organism, and it's OK that Cook isn't Jobs 2.0 - that level of wildness and unpredictability that makes those types of leaders their fortunes can also result in the downfall of their companies.
This is absolutely true. But that doesn’t imply that Tim Cook is so unexceptional that anyone with a 120 IQ could do the same job he does. The fact that Steve Jobs himself trusted Cook as his right hand man and successor when Apple probably has literally thousands of employees with at least a 120 IQ should be a sign of that.
Partly because little of this is really a question of intelligence. If you want to talk about it in psychometric terms, based on what I’ve read about the man he also seems to have extraordinarily high trait conscientiousness and extraordinarily low trait neuroticism. The latter of the two actually seems extremely common among corporate executive types—one gets the sense from their weirdly flat and level affect that they are preternaturally unflappable. (Mitt Romney also comes across this way.) I don’t recall where I read this, but I remember reading Jobs being quoted once that Cook was a better negotiator that he was because unlike Jobs, Cook never lost his cool. This isn’t the sign of an unexceptional person, just a person who is exceptional in a much different way than someone like Steve Jobs. And, contrary to what you claim at the top of your comment, someone like Tim Cook is pretty distinguishable from someone like Steve Ballmer in the sense that Ballmer didn’t actually do a good job running Microsoft. I don’t know if that was related to his more exuberant personality—being a weirdly unflappable corporate terminator isn’t the only path to success—but it is a point against these guys being fungible.
A company floating this 20 years ago would have been laughed into oblivion. Stuff like this is a nightmare; it's terrifying that Microsoft just trots it out like they have, as if there's absolutely nothing wrong or concerning at all.
Numerous studies have shown that the overall rate of occurrence in drug users is the same as the rate of occurrence in non drug users. Drug use causes schizophrenic breaks to happen earlier in susceptible individuals. The nature of schizophrenia makes the situation a "when" and not "if" question; around 1% of the population will have a schizophrenic episode and break from reality, regardless of whether they abstain from drugs or not. Almost any psychoactive drug can trigger early schizophrenic breaks; even caffeine or extreme stress and social trauma can be the trigger.
Drug use can result in other forms of psychosis. Psychedelics can result in pathological derealization, when the individual begins to question everything about their life up to that point, becoming vulnerable to any potential model of the world that offers plausible answers. Persistent use can detach someone from reality, making it hard for them to integrate with normal society and maintain a normal, responsible life.
Any drug use should be done responsibly. Harm reduction sites and drug safety activists and influencers have provided a huge wealth of information. Things that should be taught in school can nonetheless be found online, giving you the necessary health, use, preparation, and other harm reduction information necessary to be a responsible user.
It's awesome that mainstream academia and the medical establishment are allowing this research. A better informed society will be a safer, healthier society, without the misinformation and stigmatized gossip that passed for "drug safety" in recent history.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.
CS gas and pepper spray - capsicin extract - were the two suspected substances.
CS gas and the solvent it's in are incredibly toxic, and are known to be toxic. It can cause heart, lung, and liver damage in acute exposure. Degrading kids health and possibly taking years of their life expectancy deserves more accountability than an "oops, we'll do better next time!"
Beyond the original chemicals in the CS gas canisters, the chemicals likely change over time, oxidizing and possibly mixing with chemicals in the container, so who knows what additional toxic hazard the expired canisters might have in store?
Just brief exposure can result in sensitization, such that any future exposure could trigger something like an asthma attack or a huge inflammatory response.
Absolutely nothing about this is ok.
>>The source said it was not routine to deploy such a large amount of munitions in an area so close to civilian populations.
Heads need to roll, or it'll just happen again. A whole lot of people made some very bad choices. Cops should be the most accountable of all members of society, given their authority.
None of the cops involved should be trusted with anything more dangerous or complex than tying their shoes unless and until they can prove they've got any respect for the rest of society.
That means that somewhere there's a written policy defining where they should and shouldn't be doing these things, and that the policy wasn't strictly observed this time. They weren't just doing this randomly; they had procedures designed, ostensibly, to protect public safety, and the procedures weren't followed. A failure of leadership occurred at multiple levels, but, as is so common these days, nobody will be held accountable. It'll be given lip service and hand wringing, but ultimately nothing will be done.
> That means that somewhere there's a written policy defining where they should and shouldn't be doing these things, and that the policy wasn't strictly observed this time. They weren't just doing this randomly; they had procedures designed, ostensibly, to protect public safety, and the procedures weren't followed. A failure of leadership occurred at multiple levels, but, as is so common these days, nobody will be held accountable. It'll be given lip service and hand wringing, but ultimately nothing will be done.
Procedures are there to look nice in the book, what matters is culture of use. Because culture always wins with procedures.
Yup - the "should we be doing this here" and "how and where should we do this" came after the fact, meaning they've probably been flagrantly violating written procedure for a long time; it's only now that they've been caught that the rules matter.
reply