Sounds like they fucked up training the AI then. For a user it doesn’t matter whether the AI is designed poorly or trained poorly, it’s behaving poorly.

Probably way better and way more expensive.

The Wikipedia article seems to say something similar happened, but in a different way.

A reasonable length survey will never “paint a full picture”. Maybe what they’re trying to show is that there are a lot more people who value walkability more than is currently assumed. In most of the US you can either chose a super high density walkable area in a condo tower or a house in a car based suburb. It’s possible to design neighborhoods that are walkable and can provide a reasonable amount of private outdoor space, and what this shows is people would be willing to pay for it!

What’s the point if they still have AMD, Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm, etc. chips on them?

Yeah the current challenge with searching is if no one has subscribed to a magazine or user on another instance, you have to search the exact name@domain to get it to show up. Ideally Kbin instances would implement a user bot that subscribes to all the users and communities it can scrape from all federated instances until this search limitation is fixed.

I’m a sucker for any connector that has a nice solid spring load mechanism that pops into place when properly connected. It should sound like a movie sound effect of a gun being reloaded.

I’ve also used some really nice quick release steering wheels, like on race cars or racing sims, where they have a spline connector with a tight fit and a good spring load.

The carbon free rock is replacing limestone in the manufacturing process, not the sand. Sand is added to cement, along with rocks and other aggregates, to form concrete.

From what I can tell, the way this might be bad is that the carbon free rock may not exist in significant quantity. If it does, it will be mined in the same way as limestone, so that’s just a wash not a bad thing. If the rock they need doesn’t really exist they have to buy it from someone else who makes it from readily available materials. In that case, it could be green washing, where the company can claim “our process doesn’t release much carbon compared to the traditional process” but in reality the total carbon released to create the cement - from mining to processing to pouring - could be similar.

Having multiple, semisolated compartments in a Hyperloop train is entirely reasonable. There’s definitely room in a traincar for the occupants of a compartment that’s on fire to move to another compartment for emergency purposes.

Evacuation points would be defined every so often (say every few miles) such that the train could come to an emergency stop within one, seal doors on each side and let air in. This would take a few minutes, but so does landing a plane or stopping a high speed train.

Bottom line is that fire safety is, to me at least, an entirely solvable problem. The biggest problem with Hyperloop, I think, is that given the materials for the vacuum sealed tube and the energy required to hold that vacuum, it is just so unlikely to be more efficient than a maglev. For medium distance travel, even standard high speed rail is good enough to replace planes, so we don’t need the extra speed for ~500 mile distances. For longer distances where high speed rail is super slow or impossible, such as across continents and oceans the cost of building the vacuum tube will be so costly that it would take something like a complete ban of non-renewable fuels in aircraft for it to be a consideration. Even then, I think it could end up being cheaper to develop and use renewable fuels for aircraft.

It is much harder for fire to exist without air. There are some self oxidizing fires, but it should be relatively easy to avoid those materials. For fires inside the vehicle, there are some existing fire protection protocols that could be followed. There have been fires on the International Space Station and they couldn’t exactly run outside either.

Tbh you might be able to come back go pocket casts. They added a bunch of functionality back over time. Can’t remember what it used to be like anymore, but it works for me.

I have a free account and do have access to the filters. You can filter by podcast, started/not started, duration, etc. It may still not work for your needs though.

Legally speaking those are the same thing.

If you don’t have anything other than a pourover, you can still make good iced coffee. You’ll brew with 60% of the water in the pourover and 40% as ice. You can put the ice in your vessel and brew directly onto it or brew into a mug or carafe and allow it to cool a bit before pouring over ice.

Yo, I’m a Kbin.social member and can report we’re federating now

On one had we’ve got links to the department of energy and to Wikipedia. And just some hand waving on the other hand.

If we’re talking approaching fundamental limits, Hydrogen fuel cell is not a great comparison. A high pressure tank can only get so light, even with linerless ultra high strength carbon fiber pressure vessels, the mass of the vessel is maybe 6-10x the mass of the hydrogen it carries. To increase specific energy there you need to go to cryogenics which is a whole technology leap and has its own set of challenges.

Battery tech has been improving more than you have seen, clearly. Since '08, lithium batteries have increased energy density by 8x (https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1234-april-18-2022-volumetric-energy-density-lithium-ion-batteries). The best LiPo batteries are around 0.9MJ/kg right now, but there’s no fundamental reason a battery couldn’t achieve 9MJ/kg. Lithium-air batteries could theoretically achieve way higher energy density than that even (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium%E2%80%93air_battery), and have already been demonstrated in a lab to achieve more than 5x what current commercial automotive batteries are doing.

I think the point that is counter to yours is that we are nowhere near the fundamental limits of energy density for batteries. It’s probable we are near a fundamental limit for LiPo, but the point is that battery tech improves by changing technologies/chemistries. BEVs couldn’t exist at all when the best rechargeable battery tech was lead-acid, but were enabled by LiPo. Theres most likely a type of battery you can’t even imagine that has yet to be invented that could store >10x or more energy than current LiPo per unit cost or mass.

I mostly listen to Shift+F1 and the BBC post race. The BBC show has gotten a lot less good lately but it’s still a pretty tight review of the race, usually 30-50 min. They lost Jennie Gow (she had a stroke in January) and she really carried the show.

I agree there’s a lot of interesting things to discuss about this topic. It can hardly be contained in a short survey like this.

For the additional thoughts I put:
Positive: Selfish human thinking restricts most people to considering only how their actions will impact the world within their lifetime. The potential for living hundreds or thousands of years could allow people to think more long term about their actions. Very few things are persued in the 50-year time span, let alone planning for something that could take 200 years.
Negative: People may be much less willing to take risks. If the only things that can kill you are possible to avoid entirely, wouldn’t you?

I hadn’t considered how bad the unequal access could be in the way that you talked about. I was thinking it would be one of those things like advanced cancer treatments, for example, that the mega-rich get access to when it is first developed and then within a few years to decades it becomes the standard of care. What I didn’t consider is that whatever the breakthrough is that allows immortality may need to be near-constantly applied for it to work. Almost like a potion of immortality that lasts only weeks. Even if the cost of the treatment is lowered very quickly it’s not likely it will be something as simple as insulin for treating diabetes or aspirin for treating blood pressure. It could take decades for it to become affordable for the upper class and may never become economical to give to everyone. Having a class of people who die of old age and a class who doesn’t is some super dystopian cyberpunk type shit.

There’s nothing formal stopping the SC from doing anything, but courts are generally limited to ruling on the controversy in front of them in as narrow a way as practically possible. I haven’t read any analysis on this ruling, but just from the little I have seen, it looks like they ruled that the HEROES Act didn’t grant the federal government the ability to forgive the loans in the way they were attempting.

Biden could try using an authority from a different law or creating a different set of rules by which the loans may be forgiven.

My non-lawyer prediction is that if Biden tries again, the SC will find a new reason to stop it and will make a bigger ruling that takes more power away from federal agencies to make decisions. They’ve already been doing this with environmental and health decisions, and I’m sure other agencies have been impacted too.