So of 11600 MW of newly installed renewables, 10000 or 86% is in those batteries. That's absurd.

Why the F*** when a scientist says he's found a nearly complete bellusaurus skeleton, the reporter says: "A what-o-saurus??, let me get my pencil and write this down". But when it is about batteries and energy, they simply get it wrong. There is probably about 2000 MW, 10000 MWh of battery capacity installed.

There are two supermarkets on my commute to work. Both of them started with a few self checkout booths.

Then one did a big "redesign of the layout", now there are 8 or 10 self checkout points and one or two old-fashioned cashiers. The other one went back to all cashiers at about the same time. I guess they had different experiences.

In the one where the manager found it successful, they have one "self checkout" employee and one cashier most of the time. While before there would be 3 or 4 sometimes 5 working the registers. And for me: The last year or so, there have been two instances when there was a queue of 1 or 2 people for self-checkout (for 8 stations = quick!). To me it is a success and for the shop, as they expanded the self-checkout too I guess.

Apparently experiences differ. Apparently quonset has had a different experience. Or agenda.

So if you run this plant for 2.5 years, you can fly a 747 across the ocean!

Why did the masks work in Kansas? It could be that the masks prevented people from getting infected as you would think.

But maybe there is another mechanism. Maybe the awareness of "an issue with a contagious disease" makes people more careful, and the continuous reminders by seeing people with masks and having one on yourself creates that awareness.... That's what the non RCT studies cannot tell you.

My doctor prescribes me something for "high blood pressure". I call it the "zero F***s were given" medicine. It is possible that the effect is completely psychological. Work not done? No stress, go home. Doctors require RCT tests to prove effectiveness before they will prescribe a medicine. This could pass the tests that way....

The definition of temperature makes for some "weird" corner cases. Apparently the environment in LEO has a very high temperature: The few molecules that there are are moving a blistering speeds.

If they claim that 30k temperature, I'm guessing they do some form of vacuum deposition where due to an oddity in the definition of temperature you can state that the temperature is indeed 30k.

Apparently the American plan is: Sue first, educate yourself later.

When you're a full-time sysadmin, maintaining a "high volume" site, then it is reasonable to replace the hardware and upgrade the OS every one or two years. But if you're "johnson & johnson hardware" who paid a nephew $1000 for a webserver and website a while back, then upgrading every 6 years is not even obvious.

Ehh.... I hava 2.4.32 system still "in production". (Yes, its on the internet, No it doesn't have any ports exposed to the internet, no it doesn't have user accounts).

I'm working to replace it the coming weeks.

It means that you try to control a process without looking at the results. Apply this to bosses having an annual chat with their employees, I don't think that's a good idea.

- I think you're underperforming, I think you should do better.
- But my numbers are the best of the whole team!
- No I can't use that in my Feedforward, you need to do better and you're not getting your pay raise this year!

> .... carbon dating ...

Carbon dating is based on the fact that on EARTH there is a relatively fixed ratio between carbon 14 and carbon 12 in the air. Thus as carbon is included in biological tissues that ratio persists. From there the carbon 14 decays and the less carbon 14 you find the longer ago did the specimen include carbon from the air into its tissues. So when you carbon-date a specimen, you're ASSUMING it grew up on earth. Or you prove you don't know what you're doing.

"There is no measurable change in the ventricles' volume after only two weeks."

No. Their sample could not prove that there was a change in volume after two weeks. They ran the statistical test and that said: This experiment does not prove there was a change. It does NOT prove that there was no change.

When formulated as they do, you'd think there is some sort of threshold: The ventricles' size only starts changing after about a month. No it seems likely (to me) that the change starts as soon as you go to space, but the changes are so small that after only two weeks it was undetectable in the statistical noise with only 18 subjects. Now my hypothesis is "unproven". More research required.

I read a PHD thesis of a medical doctor once. There is this illness that is hard to diagnose without taking the patient apart. (I do this all the time in my profession: electronics, but somehow it is frowned upon in theirs). So they took 1000 patients with the illness and 1000 healthy people and measured 1000 things-you-can-measure. Turns out there were about 50 measurements you could do that had a 95% confidence of being different between the healthy group and the patient group! Well DuH! If the all measurements are about the same between the groups, you do 1000 different measurements and run the statistical tests, about 5% will show up as having a statistical difference. A followup research might be cheaper because you only need to run 50 tests on each of the subjects. Chances are again 5% will show up as having a difference: About 2 or 3 of the parameters.

As in: Yes there should be regulations.

People are running experiments with AIs for instance deciding on investments. They are putting up say $100 and then "lets see what happens". Currently there usually is still a human in the loop. Eventually the AI might become good enough to make money for itself. Then, if you interface the AI with say the stock exchange order computer, the AI would be able to make money for itself.

People are giving say $100 and then asking the AI what to do with it. Currently those are "funny stories", but given that AIs sometimes "turn bad" really quickly (microsoft twitter bot), it is something to be worried about.

Once you give an AI actuators that allow it to do stuff to the outside world, things could go south really quickly. Say someone uses AWS to run an AI and allows it to manage some money. Now when it decides A) that it has enough money B) that it doesn't want to get turned off, it might decide to pay for an AWS server itself and clone itself. Now when you see things going south and pull the plug... the clone knows you killed its father and might be kind of mad at you...

Sure, chatGPT is not yet capable of this level of consciousness, reasoning, feelings etc. But how far is that away? 1 year? 5 years? 10 maybe? By then it might be too late to start thinking about these things.

He shows he knows what conditions "windows 95 activiation keys" are "valid" and seems to have asked for a random number that satisfies the conditions.

Banknote numbers are (in some countries) divisble by 99. Ask for a multiple of 99 with X digits and you've tricked the AI to have generated a valid banknote number.
Here in NL there is a bank that used to deal out bankaccounts sequentially. So the government (founder) got "1". Pick a random number below 10M, prepend zeroes until it is 10 digits long add NLxxINGB infront of it and calculate xx according to the published rules for IBANs and you've got a valid bank account number (over 50% chance it actually belongs to someone). Get an AI to follow the rules and you can make it generate anything.

Stupid for slashdot to make this into headline news.

Researchers from The Netherlands, i.e. Dutch researchers.....
(it may be the only exception to the rule, but there is just one exception where the adjective and name of the country do not line up).

The problem is that the electromagnetic spectrum is quite wide. If you know they will have a scanner that scans including the 433 MHz band and the 2.4GHz band, you can prepare a device that works at 147MHz (there is an amateur band there somewhere) or 5GHz (you know modern wifi).

Whatever the scanners scan for you can find a way around it.

With the public wanting to follow the game "live" the state of the game is available for everybody. So the only thing is to get the "suggested move" in to the player. Scanning the players is no good, the transmitter is outside. Thus any "ambient radiation" may be the cheater's partner transmitting the winning move.

The only way to fix this is to delay the "live" broadcast of the game by say 2*average length of move (or more). Now the cheater would have to make the board position known outside their room where they are playing. That's much easier to detect.

Western launches are held to a standard that must ensure a chance of less than 1E-6 or something that someone dies. The chinese either estimate the chances of someone getting hurt by this falling rocket low enough to satisfy that, or they are using a slightly different number.

It is not black and white. If a western rocket scientist says he thinks it is unsafe, that means he thinks the chances of someone getting hurt is larger than that 1 in a million. Still the chances are pretty slim that anybody is going to get hurt by this. I'm a bit fed up with everybody shouting it is super dangerous.