You want to dig down, let's do that... at the scale of molecules, there is no such thing as temperature. What we measure as temperature is the average velocity of molecules in a substance. So, in a cup of freshly made hot coffee, you can expect molecules to be moving on average faster than the average velocity of molecules in a cold glass of water. Does this mean all the molecules in the coffee are moving faster than the molecules in the glass of cold water? No, in fact there are molecules in the cold glass of water there are moving faster than the molecules in the hot cup of coffee, but when you refer to the temperature of an object, you don't talk about the individual velocities of molecules, you don't talk about a set of molecules, you have to refer to the average of all the molecules in that thing. We measure the average velocity of molecules using "temperature". The faster the molecules move, the higher the temperature. On zero-scale units like Kelvin and Rankine, 0 refers to molecules standing still. On offset units like Celsius and Fahrenheit, the value where molecules are stationary is a negative value because when people came up with the units Celsius and Fahrenheit they didn't know the nature of temperature, they did not know it was a measure of random motion of molecules, but these scales are still valid for measuring temperature as much as Kelvin and Rankine. The article says sunday was hottest recorded day on earth. That means on that day, the molecules on earth were moving on average faster than ever before recorded. The fact that molecules don't have temperature does not negate the measurement of temperature of the planet.

Next, HOW is the planet getting this warm? Even if we put all the human made heating appliances, cars, trains, planes, ships and nuclear bombs together, we still wouldn't be able to increase the temperature of the earth by 1 degree because earth is huge and we're tiny. BUT, the energy from the sun bathes the earth every single day with a thousand times more energy than all of humanity released in the past millennia. This is an insane amount of energy that completely dwarfs all human activity since the dawn of time. It has been doing that for a very long time and it's been in equilibrium, where the energy coming in is the same as the energy being radiated out into space. But what happened recently is that by changing the atmosphere slightly we made earth retain a tiny percentage more of the energy that hits it. CO2 alone went from 0.02% in preindustrial times to 0.04% that seems like not much, right? What would 0.02% increase in CO2 do?? It's so TINY... but that 0.02% is capturing 0.02% more of the energy sun is sending to earth... the thousand times more energy than all of humanity ever used... 0.02% of it is still many times more energy than humanity ever produced, and that's just CO2. If you add CFC, methane, etc, you end up with a much dire situation where we've changed the planet to retain energy equivalent to several thousand hiroshimas every year (or more) and we see this energy being put to use in stronger and more frequent atmospheric disruptions like stronger winds, more violent and more frequent hurricanes, more torrential downpours and flooding, more droughts etc.

Bottom line: global warming isn't caused by your heater running, even if we run all the heaters in the world at the same time it still wouldn't heat up the planet in any measurable way. Instead, global warming is caused by earth absorbing tiny percent more of sun's energy, which is caused by increased greenhouse gasses, which is caused by burning fossil fuels. We can measure the planet's temperature, and we can measure how much energy it is absorbing and it all adds up.

... because wind/solar is cheaper than coal. We do not want americans paying less for electricity especially if it's not as bad for the environment. This is America! We can afford to pay more for our power if it means we benefit the coal mine owners. COAL FTW! Where would be without that wonderful sulphur and mercury in our atmosphere?! So... here's the fun facts: we have a fusion reactor that generates trillion times more energy per second than humanity ever produced in the past thousand years. A small fraction of that energy makes it to the planet, and that tiny fraction is still 20 thousand times more energy than what we need. If we captured just 1% of that energy, it would more than satisfy ALL of humanity's energy needs.

"producing exact copies of the contents of that book" - Yeah, I see your point, and I see it's based on a misconception of how AI works. It's not a copy-paste algorithm, it's a convolutional neural network. There is a huge difference, yet it can look the same to the untrained eye. If you don't have a good understanding of the underlying technology, I definitely see how it would lead you to conclude it is a copy-paste algorithm.

You have no obligation to cite your source of inspiration. If I read a 1000 books and learn how to write books, how to create an engaging story, how to create dialogue, how to make plot twists, and I use all that gathered knowledge to write a new book, I do not have to give any credit to any of the 1000 books. The only violation would be if use the character from a book in my book, or use dialogue from a book in my book, etc, but unless AI is overfitted, it will not do that.

Yes, if you ask AI the right things you can get predictable results. But that means nothing! You can do the same exact thing with humans as well. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmagicmentalism.com%2Fpow... So, on the contrary: a person reading a book and getting inspired to write some stuff is no different than AI reading a book and getting inspired to write some crap. Large models do the same exact thing as humans, but they just do it much faster and better. What you're thinking of are simple algorithms with fixed input and deterministic output. Convolutional neural networks with reinforcement learning are very different from simple algorithms.

... to no one. Everybody who knows how cryptotokens work already knows cryptotokens are just a solution to a problem nobody had (and never will have) and people who are die-hard fans of the nonsense tokens are still too dumb to understand it.

There will always be the people that hodl for life ... not because they understand or believe in the future of crypto, but because they lost their private key.

True! Today's 2D bitmapped games use more cpu than Quake. :D

Are they going in the ransomware/money laundering business?

"Myth #1: The majority of cryptocurrency transactions are for illegal activities. Research shows that illicit activity accounts for less than 1 percent of transactions." ... So you're telling me 99% of the transactions turn coal into pollution for nothing? What a total waste.

That's pretty much Amazon's business model. That something with a non-restrictive license. Make it a "new product" on AWS... profit!

seriously? Fly over people at night? I was thinking that's oddly specific... you can fly over people but at night? That seems more dangerous if anything. It's Fly over people AND fly at night.

amazon made more than that in the time it took me to write this post.

They fought tooth and nail against every new technology... vhs, audio compression, video streaming ... that's how Netflix has become as valuable as Disney in one tenth of the time! These greedy assholes never learn: You catch more flies with honey. Long term business success is achieved by providing a valuable service to your customers! They only know to profit by treating customers like cattle. A short-sighted money grab never works in the end. RIAA/MPAA is just Kodak with a different name... refusing to change in a changing world like the Amish... at least the Amish aren't trying to keep everyone else in the dark ages!

This is actually part of a cycle: As temperature heats up, more people use their air conditioners which heat up the air even more, power central has to burn more fuel. It's one of many feedback loops that ensure climate change inevitable. The only thing you can do is prepare for it.

You misuse the term "raster graphics", as that refers to bitmaps, not vector based real-time 3D rendering. Real-time ray-tracing has been around for almost two decades, but it wasn't mainstream until recently. As the parallel computational power of GPU increases, ray-tracing becomes the inevitable future.