No? Even if the new battery is 3x more expensive to build, and has 50 % of the capacity of a Li-ion battery, it can still have an advantage in large scale storage if it lasts for 10x as many cycles without degrading. At the end of the day, it’s a combination of parameters that determine which is the best for a given application, and high resistance to degradation can outweigh other parameters in many scenarios.

I’ve been told I’m not an addict. I’ve been told social media is addictive. I’ve been told I’m on social media. I’m rattling around the contradictions.

There is no contradiction here: You can use something addictive without getting addicted. Ref. all the non-alcoholics that regularly consume alcohol, all the mountain climbers that aren’t adrenaline junkies, and all the foodies that aren’t obese sugar addicts.

Addicts can also love the thing and not feel like quitting (…)

Nobody said otherwise. What was said is that addicts can hate the thing they’re addicted to, and still be unable to quit. It’s the fact that you find yourself unable to quit even if you want to that indicates you’re addicted, not whether you actually want to quit.

You might as well say you’re addicted to food and air as to say you’re addicted to text and video.

False equivalence. Things necessary to sustain yourself are never referred to as addiction. Sure, you can be addicted to these things, but that implies you’re consuming them excessively (beyond what is needed for healthy sustenance).

But the idea that people can spend hours of their lives on YouTube and then claim “I hate this”… No you don’t. You obviously don’t hate it. You love it. You love your slop.

The whole point here is that there is no direct implication from using something and liking to use it, the reason being that addicts quite commonly dislike the thing they’re addicted to, yet continue using it.

https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Palantíri

How Are so many people so ignorant and confident at the same time? You’re all acting like you know what you’re talking about…

I’m upvoting just to counterbalance the people downvoting because they dislike someone else’s subjective opinion.

The damaging kind necessarily carries enough energy to cause damage, what’s preventing it from being harvested?

Isn’t a major challenge of trying to surpass Voyager 1 that it had extremely good conditions for slingshotting off a lot of planets?

Or… is that the point when the parent (having now learned what it takes to make someone else independent) finally becomes an adult?

In Norwegian we operate with “førstkommende” which translates more or less directly to “first-coming”. It’s extremely practical when planning dates, because you can always just say “Not the first-coming Thursday, but next Thursday”, or “On the first-coming Thursday”, and it’s completely unambiguous that you mean the first Thursday we encounter from the moment of speaking.

Oh, definitely. But that’s also where the “upfront” part could have saved them: If they had contacted you and been direct about “hey, I’m selling utilities now, would you be interested in switching?”, then followed up with “on another note, it’s been a while, wanna grab dinner and catch up a bit?” That would have been a completely different story.

I would actually prefer that they’re upfront about contacting me because they need a favour, and then using that as an opening to catch up. If they first spend 30 min catching up before jumping to “btw, could you help me out with this” it gives the feeling that they only did the catching up to get me to help them. When it’s the other way around, it feels like they genuinely want to catch up a bit, and used the favour as an excuse/opportunity to contact me to catch up. A personal favourite is if someone wants help with something in the house and asks if I want to come over to help them out and then we can get some beers and a pizza afterwards. Having something to do together can make it a lot easier to pick up the conversation with someone you haven’t met for a long time.

It’s completely fair to ask a favour of an old friend, I’ve both asked and been asked of favours from people I haven’t spoken to in years. However, I think you should be upfront about it, and not act like you’re trying to get in touch for other reasons. Something like “Hey, it’s been a while, but I just came across XYZ and wondered if you could give me a hand?” is completely fine IMO.

The only research I’ve seen on using LLMs in a school setting found that the kids that were given access to an LLM performed a bit better on exercises that those without. At the same time their experienced learning was a lot better. When they finally got a test assignment, the kids that had been using LLMs during exercises flopped and performed significantly worse than those that hadn’t.

Or, as is commonly done elsewhere, get their plates and a photo, and drop by their house later (unless they’re an active threat to public safety of course).

This is literally the SOP in a lot of other countries: You don’t chase someone in a vehicle unless you absolutely have to. You rather just identify them and apprehend them at a later point.

but why countries?

For the same reason as personal property, just on a larger scale. You don’t want some rando to come and set up camp in your kitchen, so we draw lines on a map and say “this is your spot, you make the rules in your spot”. Similarly, we collectively don’t want some other group of randos to show up and tell us what clothes we’re allowed to wear, or that drunk-driving is suddenly allowed. So we draw lines on a map and say “this is our spot, where we make the rules”.

Of course, ideally, the whole world would agree on a reasonable set of laws and mode of administration, and countries wouldn’t be needed anymore. However, we’re pretty far off from that being possible. To put it on point: If we had no countries today, would you prefer the russian, Chinese, German or other set of laws and administration? How would you decide which to apply globally?

See, this is what I mean. I never said that. I never said anything close to that. At this stage you’re just making up opinions you want me to have so that you have something to attack.

It’s obvious that you’ve already decided that you “know” what the person you’re arguing with means and think, and then you’re attacking that instead of recognising that you’ve misunderstood them.

It’s not about the pictures. I honestly think this is just an excuse to get rid of journalists, and a method for hammering home the point that “journalists bad. news fake.” I’m not even sure he’s actually seen the pictures I question.

With that said, I wouldn’t put it past him to actually be so vain that it is really about the pictures. However I think it’s more likely that he would have done something like this anyway, and just picked an excuse.

Viking/Danish

Norse. And it’s more similar to modern Icelandic than anything else, perhaps most closely followed by (distant second place) Norwegian.

You can fine-grain nr. 2 even more: You can give access to e.g. modify files only in a certain sub-tree, or run only specific commands with only specific options.

A restrictive yet quite safe approach is to only permit e.g. git add, git commit, and only allow changes to files under the VC. That effectively prevents any irreversible damage, without requiring you to manually approve all the time.

You’re absolutely right. I mostly run a pretty simple local model though, so it’s not like it’s very expensive either.