Worrying about declining birth rates on Earth in 2025 is exactly as psychotic as dinosaurs worrying about their investment portfolios the day after Chicxulub.
Someone said "more meat for the grinder", which is exactly correct whether it is referring to a war machine or the late-stage capitalist shithole we've created.
You're all absolutely crazy if you think more fscking people on this finite planet is going to solve any problem.
The world now is in better place than it ever was. We are less violent, live longer, live healthier, minimum wage workers can have luxuries unimaginable by kings back in time. It's time to end the nihilism epidemic.
Tried everything. The only response is "Error: Failed to execute function: failed to deserialize api response: expected value at line 1 column 1".
Can't see anything about this in Issues. Checked the API key a dozen times.
Need an example, perhaps some setup suggestions, and better coverage of potential errors.
Edit: this may be because I only have a free account at OpenAI. If a paid account is necessary, it would be great to mention that in the ReadMe.
Also, tried it with ollama API, but the code is looking for /chat/completions in the API base, but it looks like ollama wants something like /api/chat. Can't find where in the code this is formatted.
Since you mention smollm2 and local compatibility in the readme, it would be helpful to include something about how to configure for other APIs
Kinda, but at least for gamma radiation (which is the main one you care about finding at standoff), the same radiation that induces the ionization these lasers detect will go right through tupperware and ionize the air outside, which will be just as detectable as long as it's strong enough to still produce enough ionization outside the tupperware.
Shielding the source with something that actually absorbs gammas like steel or lead is something that would actually render this laser detection null, but that's also true of conventional direct radiation detection methods too. No real way to find something that's not emitting something.
Regardless, this method is probably more intended for scenarios like nuclear accidents where you don't really have to worry about someone hiding the source from you. Though I still don't see that many applications for it even within that niche (and I did my PhD on finding radiation sources and currently work full time on it, so I'm fairly knowledgeable on the subject...), as there are a lot of limitations to this.
I think this is for the, now depressingly remote, situation where you want to verify that something at the end of a adversaries missile is really not a nuclear weapon because a treaty says that would be one too many.
In that context a way to measure radioactivity by non-invasive means is great!
Shame that a nuclear weapons treaty with limits and an inspections regime is more sci-fi than the technology needed to remotely verify the presence of a warhead.
Most of warhead verification is actually verifying a given weapon IS a real weapon (without giving away its internal design, which is the hard part), not that something is not a weapon because generally you're trying to keep an account of how many/where warheads are. Verifying a given missile isn't nuclear tipped is largely a non-issue at least in the current arms control regimes.
This method has no real way to identify materials, which is what you really need for warhead verification. It would be easily fooled by replacing a warhead with a dummy source, which is a big no-no because now there is a potential hole in the bookkeeping. Weapons grade material isn't actually that radioactive anyway; warheads aren't inert but measuring radiation from them is fairly challenging. Probably not hot enough to see easily with this laser approach, though I'm only speculating on that.
>Shame that a nuclear weapons treaty with limits and an inspections regime is more sci-fi than the technology needed to remotely verify the presence of a warhead
Well articulated. The early history of atomic weapons regulation hinges on precisely the difficulty of independent verification means (as well as judgements on whether or not an adversary would let you into their country without whack-a-mole style circumvention). I still think that verification technology is the main stumbling block. Neutrino detection is what I (and I bet ongoing orograms in the DoE) focus on for this purpose. We need to be able to figure out how to sense neutrinos order of magnitude more effectively than we can currently. Right now it feels like panning for gold silt with sieves as sparse as chicken-wire.
> We need to be able to figure out how to sense neutrinos order of magnitude more effectively than we can currently.
I don't see any reason to believe that's possible though. I guess I don't know how close we are to the theoretical limit, but anything made of atoms will feel like a chicken-wire sieve, right? Unless there's something big you/DoE know that I don't.
If the sensor is further away, it might be easier to maintain, have a longer lifetime, and could even be re-aimed to cover a wider area or identify where a specific hotspot is.
A small capsule of radioactive cesium-137 was lost during transit, and the search for it was difficult due to the distance the truck carrying the device had travelled and the size of the capsule.
"When you consider the challenge of finding an object smaller than a 10-cent coin along a 1,400-kilometer stretch of Great Northern Highway, it is a tremendous result."
Alpha and Beta particles are easily blocked with a thin amount of material. Their comment is both accurate and not constructive as gamma radiation is what we're interested in detecting.
From the abstract, "Diversity of terrestrial microbiomes decreases with depth..."
Decreases. Gets smaller.
That is a copy and paste from the abstract of the paper.
Exaggerated by the ignorant tech press and the legacy media; misinterpreted by the public who probably did not read the article, let alone the paper it is based on.
Are we actively trying to become morons, or is it a passive process?
"Diversity of terrestrial microbiomes decreases with depth, while marine subsurface diversity and phylogenetic distance to cultured isolates rivals or exceeds that of surface environments."
It would be so nice if we could stop destroying the planet by dropping support for legacy Macs. Mine is a 2014 Air and I'll stop using it when it crumbles to dust.
I have a 2014 iPad Air with a zagg clamshell keyboard that I love. I would like to have a new browser for it, this version of Safari has been deprecated from Discord and Discus forums.
