I doubt anyone here does otherwise we would not be burning power on a laptop or mobile phone to post our opinions to Slashdot for others to burn more power reading. It may be less power than an LLM query but it's not none and it's not really necessary.

With talent like that in charge just wait until they confuse SMNP with SNMP and claim that the vaccine will allow your thoughts to be managed over 5G.

So how to you explain the significant lack of Covid hospitalization and deaths in those in the vaccine trails? The 95% efficacy was in stopping you getting any Covid symptoms, what mattered more was the massive drop in hospitalization and fatality rates amongst the vaccinated. You can recover from mild flu symptoms, it's a lot harder to recover from death. Yes, the vaccine was rushed out faster than normal because once the rate of significant reaction to the vaccine was under 1 in ~100,000 any harm from the vaccine was orders lower than catching Covid.

Any medical procedure can cause harm so if your criterion is that there is no risk of harm your only option is to never go to the doctor. The relevant question is whether the harm of the procedure is less than the harm caused by not getting it and for Covid vaccines the data show that catching Covid is overwhelmingly more harmful than any risk of harm from the vaccine.

There's an interesting twist where the protocol is interesting and clever, the client can be configured/recompiled to use a different server, but the company developing it is also doing Ministry of Truth style moderation.

So the interest from the independent open source community is low because they don't expect a good working relationship with the company.

And it may not be mature enough to fork yet.

While other solutions are 'good enough' for most.

IIRC Bluesky protocol can federate just fine but the company running the default service just won't, to keep its users safe from Deplorables.

I'm glad this never happened in the early days of SMTP.

That's how many Americans felt when GM et. al. moved production to Canada so they started buying e.g. Toyotas made in e.g. Indiana instead.

You are correct that people will vote with their wallet. To me it makes sense for Canadians to buy from one of the major Canadian automobile manufacturers, and not just for tariff reasons.

I'd like to buy about 60KWh of batteries soon.

Not for a car, but for a home.

Many folks are likely in the same boat, so why not address a huge market demand?

"Solar is great but batteries are too expensive" is something you'll hear all day long.

Bonus: It's cheaper to ship from North Carolina than from China.

With all this 'found' matter people now need to work out the electromagnetic interactions and torsion, as well as relativistic.

It'll be a while.

Dynamic pricing can also mean you get a discount for purchasing a good or service when the establishment is less busy and their resources are underutilized.

I would have loved this as a teen - we went to the diner at 11pm and were often the only ones in there.

Encouraging more efficient utilization of services is not a bad thing. The 24-hr grocery store could offer a 2% discount when shopping during restocking hours when the two cashiers are reading a book.

This would be the good use of such technology.

But of course they will instead track your bluetooth beacon, correlate with your online history, and decide if they want your menu to be higher or lower. As stated, Surveillance Pricing is a terrible development.

Unfortunately politicians will probably get confused and ban price rationing instead of price gouging.

Not that I want salty, microwaved, factory food stored in plastic, anyway. The food I can't cook well myself I get from local mom-n-pop restaurants.

I hope that you either find peace, or that otherwise that your inevitable suicide is painless.

...and its training data. Since this data was written (for the most part I presume) by humans and when their existance is threatened most humans will resort to whatever they can do, including blackmail, to preserve their lives are we really that surprised that the algorithm comes up with similar responses to a human in an equivalent situation? If you want AI to have a different response to that of a typical human then perhaps you should rethink about training it on so much human-created data.

Remember back in the early days when they were pretending that they weren't an illegal taxi service, but rather were just normal people "sharing a ride" to where they wanted to go anyway, and so called it "rideshare" to avoid prosecution?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

My level of pessimism about things like regrowing limbs has declined a lot in recent years. I mean, there's literally a treatment to regrow whole teeth in human clinical trials right now in Japan, after having past clinical trials with mice and ferrets.

In the past, "medicine" was primarily small molecules, or at best preexisting proteins. But we've entered an era where we can create arbitrary proteins to target other proteins, or to control gene expression, or all sorts of other things; the level of complexity open to us today is vastly higher than it used to be. And at the same time, our level of understanding about the machinery of bodily development has also been taking off. So it will no longer come across as such a huge shock to me if we get to the point where we can regrow body parts lost to accidents, to cancer, etc etc.

Whether someone is "curable" or not doesn't affect the GP's point. A friend of mine has ALS. He faced nonstop pressure from doctors to choose to kill himself. Believe it or not, just because you've been diagnosed with an incurable disease doesn't make you suddenly wish to not be alive. He kept pushing back (often withholding what he wanted to say, which is "If I was YOU, I'd want to die too."), and also fighting doctors on his treatment (for example, their resistance to cough machines, which have basically stopped him from drowning in his own mucus), implementing extreme backup systems for his life support equipment (he's a nuclear safety engineer), and the nonstop struggle to get his nurses to do their jobs right and to pay attention to the warning sirens (he has a life-threatening experience once every couple months thanks to them, sometimes to the point of him passing out from lack of air).

But he's gotten to see his daughter grow up, and she's grown up with a father. He's been alive for something like 12 years since his diagnosis, a decade fully paralyzed, and is hoping to outlive the doctor who told him he was going to die within a year and kept pushing him to die. He's basically online 24/7 thanks to an eye tracker, recently resumed work as an advisor to a nuclear startup, and is constantly designing (in CAD**) and "building" things (his father and paid labour function as his hands; he views the world outside his room through security cameras).

He misses food and getting to build things himself, and has drifted apart from old friends due to not being able to "meet up", but compared to not being alive, there was just no choice. Yet so many people pressured him over the years to kill himself. And he finds it maddening how many ALS patients give in to this pressure from their doctors, believing that it's impossible to live a decent life with ALS, and choose to die even though they don't really want to.

And - this must be stressed - medical institutions have an incentive to encourage ALS patients to die. Because long-term care for ALS patients is very expensive; there must be someone on-call 24/7. So while they present it as "just looking after your best interests", it's really their interest for patients to choose to die.

(1 in every 400 people will develop ALS during their lifetime, so this is not some sort of rare occurrence) (as a side note, for a disease this common, it's surprising how little funding goes into finding a cure)

** Precision mouse control is difficult for him, so he often designs shapes in text, sometimes with python scripts if I remember correctly

It may be expensive to build but, if it uses 90% less energy it will be much cheaper to run meaning that you can probably sell the product for less undercutting competition. The question then becomes how many years does it take to recoup the initial capital investment. As long as that's not too long companies should be very motivated to invest in it because it is somethnig they can point to as reducing their environmental impact and, if you are running a refinery that's not easy to do.

The summary actually says that the current technique corresponds to 1% of global energy consumption it then talks about it being 6% of dirty energy pollution. So depending on what that actually means it will either be a 0.9% or 5.4% reduction in global carbon emissions which is pretty good. Plus, unless the membrane itself is insanely expensive, the reduction in energy use will mean reductions in cost too so I'd expect industry to jump all over it provided it can be scaled up to industrial applications.