if you want to take OpenAI’s own research into account
No thank you.
OlympicArena validation set (text-only)
“Our extensive evaluations reveal that even advanced models like GPT-4o only achieve a 39.97% overall accuracy (28.67% for mathematics and 29.71% for physics)”
Unlike this year when LLMs are more of a huge scam.
You can’t really and make a profit. You pay more in electricity than you get in crypto.
…unless someone else is (unknowingly) paying for the electricity.
(Of course, when the price of crypto takes an upturn, sometimes it might get profitable again. And I’d imagine there are people mining it even when the price is low banking on the idea that it’ll spike again and they can sell it.)
No joke. I’m ashamed to say I have had to endure Weblogic in the past. God was that time a massive clusterfuck.
The company I worked for decided to use two particular separate products (frameworks, specifically; ATG and Endeca, even more specifically) to use in tandem in a rewrite of the company’s main e-commerce application. Between when we signed on the dotted line and when we actually started implementing things, Oracle acquired the companies behind both products in question.
The company should have cut their losses, run away screaming, and started evaluating other options. That’s not what happened. Instead, they doubed-down and also adopted several other Oracle products (Weblogic and Oracle Linux on (shudder) Exalogic servers) because that’s, of course, what Oracle recommended to use with the two products in question. The company also contracted with Oracle-licensed “service integration” companies that made everything somehow even worse.
And the e-commerce site rewrite absolutely crashed and burned in the most gloriously painful way possible. They ended up throwing away tens of millions of dollars and multiple years on it.
When the e-commerce site rewrite did happen, it was many years later and used basically only FOSS technologies. I guess at least they learned their lesson. Until the upper management turns over again.
The sooner the crypto bubble bursts, the fewer victims there will be of fraud like this.
Is the human traffic cone someone I should recognize?
Did he really post this? Where? TruthSocial?
In this thread: Cryptobros downvoting every realistic take on cryptocurrency for being “bearish” and “FUD”.
Ought to have left the “T” off of “Trump”.
The other three quarters are just scared that Elom will sue them if they cut advertising.
(Not really. I suspect many of the other 75% just aren’t willing to admit they’re planning to loosen ties with Twitter (I will not call it “X”) just yet.)
Lost me at “together”.
Delete System32.
For the calculations, I was thinking maybe one could cheese it a bit and get a relatively decent vague idea of the answer if not a more rigorous idea.
My vague idea was that gravity follows an inverse square law while the centrifigul force equasion is linear relative to the length of the tether. We know that gravity pulls toward Earth and the centrifigul force pulls away. So the net force on the weight at any one time is the centrifigul force equasion (a linear equasion) minus the gravity equasion (an inverse square equasion). We also know that the point at which that sum reaches zero is exactly the altitude of a geostationary orbit.
Work equals force times distance. So suppose we just took the area under the curve of that net force equasion from r equals the radius of the Earth to r equals roughly the furthest we vaguely guess we could send the weight before it starts to get sucked into the Moon’s gravity well. And then we divide that by the area under the curve from r equals the Earth’s radius to r equals the altitude of a geostationary orbit. That should at least give us a figure like “the amount of energy we could get back in theory would be roughly x times what it takes to get the weight past the geostationary orbit altitude threshold.”
The mass of the weight would be a term in that net force equasion, but if we just decided the mass was “one unit”, that’d make things a bit simpler. If we only care about the ratio of the energy we get back to the energy we put in, the weight should cancel out anyway.
This approach would certainly ignore a lot of things, but if the answer was “A Large Number™”, I think it would still be reasonable to handwave the details. (If the result was like 1.1 or something, probably “no, that doesn’t even work in theory” is the much safer bet. Let alone if it was less than 1.)
I guess if we wanted to get even more sophisticated, we could take into account things like the weight and tensile strength of carbon nanotubes and see if it would be infeasible to build a tether sufficiently strong without adding a huge amount of weight during the ascent. But I’d be willing to pretend in this thought experiment that we have some material with infinite tensile strength and zero weight at our disposal.
Anyway! Still not trivial math, quite, and definitely not terribly precise or rigorous, but not quite so “big-boy stuff” as modeling the rotational frames and such.
So, first off, I’m definitely not arguing this would be a feasible way to get energy in a practical sense in the real world.
But, it wouldn’t be a perpetual motion machine. It’d produce less and less energy as the Earth ran out of angular momentum, ultimately approaching zero.
I don’t think I’ll do the monster math on this, but my gut tells me one could technically and theoretically (not so much in practice) get more energy out of that than it took to get the weight up there. (It might be that the Moon would limit how much energy could be got out of this scheme as well, but I think even with the Moon involved, I think it could still be a net energy gain.) That said, without running the numbers, you might well be right!
What I posted would take energy from the angular momentum of the Earth rotating on its own axis, not the (angular?) momentum of the Earth revolving around the Sun.
Honestly, I’m not 100% sure the right way to talk about where the Earth’s angular momentum about its own axis came from. I want to say gravity while the Earth coalesced from dust/gas, but I’m not sure that’s quite true because I think the gravity would only kindof “concentrate” the angular momentum that was already present in the gas/dust that was already present in the cloud. (Like, when an ice skater pulls their arms toward their body and speed up, that doesn’t add energy or momentum to the system that is the ice skater.)
So, maybe it’s more accurate to say it’s kinetic energy from the Big Bang and/or supernova(s?) that produced the gas/dust that eventually formed the Earth?
But I’m pretty sure this scheme would get energy from a source that wasn’t ultimately from the Sun.
It’d be interesting to think of novel ways of getting power from sources other than the Sun.
Theoretically, one could, say, build a space-elevator-like device and use the centrifugal force pushing it away from Earth to run a generator. Of course, for that to work, the weight would have to continually receed from Earth, and may require continually replacing the weight. Ultimately that would rob the Earth of angular momentum.
Sweet! Now let’s all go commence scowling at Redis until they do the same.
I’m just speaking from their history. Like when they embraced Java, built their own JVM, shipped it with Windows, and then forked the Java language by adding Windows-specific APIs to Microsoft Java and not adding the Java 1.2 features to Microsoft Java. You can’t convince me their aim all along wasn’t specifically to kill Java, and cross-platform technologies like it. The whole “Windows tax” thing is another good example. And “Open Core.”
And, who knows. Maybe they’re either nicer now or less competent at that kind of evil. But if so, that’s a relatively new thing. Their history as a company is full of (not-so-)“secretly planning to control the world”. And they have never really faced any consequences for their anti-trust violations. And if they didn’t want people to hold grudges, maybe they should have thought of that before fucking everyone over as thoroughly as they possibly could.
I guess you could say Microsoft was perfecting the art of enshittification before it became such a pervasive thing. Plus, I largely blame Gates personally for the rise of the institution of proprietary software, which is also complete BS.
Mind you, I don’t blame you for working for Microsoft or anything. No ethical consumption (or employment) under capitalism and all that. And it’s not like I’m not doing evil things on a regular basis as an employee where I work.
I kindof hate the slogan “they go low, we go high” (from Hillary’s campaign.)
But this is an example of the “good” side of that slogan. The political left(-of-what-passes-for-center-in-the-U.S.-now-a-days) isn’t given to publicly calling for assassinations of the opposition party. It’s not even given (and, yes, there are exceptions) to calling privately for assassinations of the opposition. And that’s a good thing.
It means the left(-of-U.S.-center) hasn’t turned into the fascist-dictatorship-trying-to-happen that the right has. It’s not the left(-of-U.S.-center) calling for civil war and pandering to creeps who chant “blood and soil” while carrying tiki torches around the capital.
The day left(-of-U.S.-center) news sources delight in assassinations even of opposition as dangerously unhinged and power hungry as Trump because that sentiment started with snide remarks like yours is the day we have to worry that maybe the Democrats are sliding into their own brand of fascism.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m for radical support of LGBT rights, womens’ autonomy in matters of personal health, universal free healthcare, and most other “liberal” causes. (I also identify as well left and libertarian-ward of the Democratic party and would love to see “to each according to need” be our modus operandi. I’m also for direct action.) I don’t fault the Democrats for being “too radical” by a long shot. (More likely, the Democrats will continue to be far too willing to let the Republicans control the narrative and cheat their way to political power. And that’s the bad side of “they go low, we go high”) And I don’t believe it’s very likely that the Democrats will slide into widespread advocacy for political violence like the Republicans have much more so already.
But taking delight in assassination attempts and wishing they’d been successful – even those directed at Cheeto-flavored Hitler himself – isn’t helpful.
All that said, I get it. I’m pissed at the U.S.'s descent toward fascism, too. But wishing him assassinated isn’t going to change anything for the better.