Those are not inconvenient questions, they are dumb.

One: does more production from solar and wind reduce the demand for coal and gas? If so it means less emissions.

Two: do coal and gas fired plants vanish when solar or wind provide power? If not, then they are available when necessary and there obviously will be some subsidies and regulation necessary to keep it that way.

Yes and no. The idea behind WIMP is, that it very, very rarely interacts with normal matter. So it doesn't really matter where you place the detector and can place it, where you have less background noise. A simple number example, if 99,99% of all WIMPs would pass earth without interaction, it simply doesn't matter, how much rock is above and under the detector, as less than 0,01% of the particles would be eliminated until they could reach the detector. And the true percentage is probably orders of magnitude higher, so most of the particles would reach the detector.

So you say a company has to abide the rule of the law, where it does business. I wonder what selling ads is in your world, presents for guests? No, well then those businesses better abide the law, no?

But your grandma is probably able to read full sentences and would have noticed, that it is not the number of users, but the subscribers of public channels which surpasses 45 million.

Could you please cite the international law allowing you to inspect a vessel as long as it is not in your territorial waters? And they are all legit, they are not registered as Russian ships, but for example are registered in Panama, as is most of the fleet of western countries. Russia is doing what it can to make it as hard as possible to know, if a ship is owned by them for obvious reasons, so just because you see some ship leaving a Russian port does not mean, that is part of the shadow fleet, it could be from one of the countless countries not imposing sanctions, like Greece.

The best solution would be disallowing ships in that bad shape from all your territorial waters and ports, but that is something most countries don't want to do, as they also have a lot of ships in bad shape.

So basically you know nothing, but known for sure, that his business skills were lacking. So let's speculate, how about ASML told him "either buy >n machines now or wait in line. Oh, the line means you get them in >3 years"? Or perhaps he just knew, how many lines and therefore machines they would need to produce their own chips and have at least some capacity so that someone would actually choose Intel to produce their chips, as that was the new direction they were trying to go into.

Quite honestly, I don't think we should second guess decisions where we are lacking all information, we simply don't know, why it was done and we are not likely to get that information. But I am sure that the CEO knew, that Intel has to move fast to get back on track and knew, how much reserves there are, so if you have the money, you have to take the risk and spend it now. Waiting will not save Intel.

So it might have been a very bad decision or a very good one or anything in between, but I don't see, how we could judge.

It is just very expensive and running at reduced output makes it even more expensive.

Thanks for pointing it out. But I see no mention of concrete numbers or even which architecture they attached it to in the "white paper". I also don't understand, how they intend to work without recompilation and just detecting the pthread stuff in a CPU and quite honestly who writes code like that?

But at least I got reminded of that stuff, I remember the foundations of that from a remote presentation by Danny Hillis for the Connection Machine back in the 90's. But they at least used some extensions to C to designate the parallel operations. The claims of speed ups were similar, they just conveniently forgot to mention, that the speed up was only for the parallel part. I wonder if that might be the case here, the connection network also reminds me of the hyper cube configuration CM used.

And how much is a FPGA? As the smaller variants of RISC-V fit without problems into one, couldn't they just add their stuff? Then they can demonstrate, that their stuff works.

Easy, there wouldn't be dupes if it was AI.

I just checked the onavo site on the wayback machine from march 27th in 2018 and it doesn't say anything about Facebook. So why do you think "those people" knew they were buying VPN service from Zuckerberg?

With your attitude towards them I cannot blame anybody for ignoring your input. Let me guess, you cannot be bothered to report the version or the steps necessary to reproduce. Do your bug reports contain more then something along the lines of "You morons, a three year old wouldn't make this bug. Fix it."?

You are misunderstanding how these models work. They exploit deep reinforcement learning. This algorithm basically turns the image into small blocks, trains partial nets on the blocks and reintegrates those nets into one and copies it to all the parts. Perhaps you remember that before deep learning was invented the image recognition programs could recognise for example a cat only when it was in the same spot of an image as it learnt from its training data. By copying the trained net to all positions this was solved and learning generally became much faster. But you now have the problem, that data distributed through out an image can influence locals parts of the net (by the integration process).

So you cannot use these images to train a network using deep learning to ignore the data, because the data is created only by the learning process. I am no expert in this field, but I understand that in image recognition only a limited number of block sizes is used and a lot of tools therefore use the same block size and are so susceptible to the same manipulations.

The last nuclear power plant will go offline next year. There is no way to stop that now, nuclear is slow with everything, so the preparations for shutdown are mostly done. You can't just simply restart it.

I am German, so I will see first hand what happens, when 10% of baseload capacity go offline. But I have the feeling, that the fans of nuclear energy are most afraid of the event, because if nothing big happens then nuclear energy looses another argument.

So in other words you can't explain it, but for some reason the correlation which seems to exist can in no case be any hint, that there might be a cause. Correlation is a first step in trying to find a cause, isn't it? Or would you go looking for a cause when it contradicts the correlation. Taking your examples, both Singapore and Hong Kong are basically cities, so not really comparable to most other countries. So those examples are straw men. Israel is a contrary example, but if it is so easy in that climate, why are all the neighbouring states so much worse. Couldn't that indicate, that Israel is also an exception? The other contrary indication you give is AC. AC comes with some cost. With rising temperature and rising fuel costs, what will happen in those areas, which can only be productive because of AC? So there is at least a possibility, that the long term productivity is linked to the climate.