Well, the Alcubierre drive [1] uses negative energy, but at this point it is not clear whether this type of propulsion is just a mathematical gimmick.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
Not only negative energy but insane amounts of it as well. Originally required converting more mass than the entire observable universe. That was lowered in later works. A recent work moreover made a drive using only positive energy.
We do not know if and I bet plenty of people do not believe such negative energy really exists.
Besides, all warp bubble metrics so far are inertial; meaning the ship is unable to accelerate, so they're a gimmick nowadays. I have hopes we find something workable though.
>We do not know if and I bet plenty of people do not believe such negative energy really exists.
Plenty of people believe that mental problems are all caused by disembodied souls unleashed by Xenu of the Galactic Confederation when he blew them up with A-bombs in Hawaii, back when Earth was called Teegeeack.
Speaking of which, is anyone aware of example code using the LSTM? I've been trying to get this to work, but there seems to be information missing e.g how to setup the input/output descriptors and how to manage input data: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/accelerate/bnns/us...
It’s just like with private APIs. It’s functionality that they don’t know (¿yet?) whether they want to support it in the future, but they do provide calls that use them indirectly.
There also could be bugs in the hardware that they carefully programmed around.
Why do people act as if “private APIs” (which is somewhat of a contradiction in terms) is nefarious? An API is something that is publicly documented that the vendor promises to support where the behavior won’t change.
Raymond Chen has been blogging for close two decades about all of the hacks that MS had to put into Windows because vendors used undocumented APIs.
There are two ways of dealing with apps using private APIs though: Microsoft indeed goes out of its way to maintain backwards compatibility, sometimes at the expense of sanity, but Apple breaks stuff — this API is private for a reason, you had to reverse engineer how to call it, and you knew your risks when you decided to use it, so if your app breaks, you get to keep both pieces.
Yes, and I suspect this is informed by Apple historically having APIs that were much more open and prone to what we would know call abuse by developers — but was then just cleverly taking advantage of the environment — during the Apple II/early Mac era.
I agree that people tend to get a bit too worked up about it, but I don’t think it’s a contradiction in terms as such - an API is really just any interface where two distinct pieces of software interact in some way. It doesn’t need to be formally described or published or anything like that, and the idea of a private API is pretty common generally.
Where it starts to piss people off though is where those private APIs are used to allow first-party software access to platform features that third-party software doesn’t get. For some applications that’s not so bad, but in the case of a general-purpose operating system platform or similar it’s kind of an anticompetitive move and we should complain when companies do it.
Once you make an API public, no matter how badly designed it is, you have to support it forever.
I would much rather an API be private, let the company dog food it and let their internal employees use it, and then make it public. It also gives them the freedom of completely changing the internal workings.
The extensions API and the Siri integration for third parties are great examples. The Siri intent based API is very usable and reminds of the Amazon Lex based API - the AWS version of the consumer Alexa skills SDK.
Presumably first party software that qualifies. I’m thinking siri, or their AR stuff. It’s possible it’s also used by something like CoreML where there is a public facing framework that utilizes this under the hood.
If you read, it’s promising that EVs can actuallly be upgraded with tech that will have EVs plugged in will be a great help. And banning them now isn’t going to have a meaningful impact on the number of EVs this summer.
The thing that’s despicable is the lack of nuclear power. A few more plants would completely stabilize the grid.
Nuclear power is good for providing base power not for reacting to spikes in demand. You cannot just spin up production of a nuclear power plant when you need it and shut it down when you don’t. They’re always producing so when demand is low, they’re producing too much and wasting it. If the California grid cannot meet its demand at its lowest, then yes, base power like nuclear would be a good solution. Heatwaves generally pass though.
That's pretty much the same issue you have with renewables, especially wind. Sometimes it will just produce more than you need. The solution is the same: use overproduction to produce hydrogen or for desalination plants. It's actually easier in the case of nuclear, because demand is more predictable than weather, and you have excess energy day, not only on a few days per week or month.
> The solution is the same: use overproduction to produce hydrogen or for desalination plants.
Does anywhere actually do this? Storing hydrogen at scale seems insanely difficult and desalinating water wouldn't let you use the energy later. AFAIK, most places deal with surplus energy by putting it into a big battery, usually the physical kind of battery like pumping water up hill and holding it behind a hydroelectric dam.
Many pumped hydro station were originally built to use cheap overnight electricity from nuclear plants when demand was low, and timeshift it to spikes of demand later.
Ok, so industrial users buy hydrogen. And then how do you convert the currency they give you into energy when you need it later? If you're just trying to find an economic use for excess power, you might as well mine Bitcoin.
> You cannot just spin up production of a nuclear power plant when you need it and shut it down when you don’t. They’re always producing so when demand is low, they’re producing too much and wasting it.
Yes you can, pretty much any plant built in the past 20 years does that and in France/Germany even older plants have been designed to do it.
(Economically it's undesirable of course, because the marginal operating cost of a nuclear plant is very low.)
I think the financial markets can solve this. People like me who like the luxury of having reliable electricity every day of the year can buy futures from a nuclear operator. And people who don't mind cooking in the middle of the night or having a week-long power outage now and then can buy solar or something on the spot market.
A surplus of energy is always better than a deficit.
You could have scheduled applications to divert the energy to if storage is not built out. Desalinate the pacific, for example, pump the water inland for drought time when supply exceeds demand.
1. Nuclear can be built safely to handle emergency scenarios. It's not the catastrophe you see in movies. Fukushima which used a very primitive design, suffered from bad maintenance, and suffered a historic tsunami, still was kept fairly safe.
2. You don't built right ON the fault line. Electricity delivery over long distances is a thing even without HVDC. The fault lines for Diablo Canyon were discovered after the fact but the design was adjusted to handle that information.
3. New reactor designs are waaay better. And guess what. The more reactors we build, the more nuclear scientists there are, the better we get at building them. Why do you think America, the country that invented nuclear power, has 55 plants while China ALREADY has 47 with another 11 along the way while most construction started ~7 years ago. China is going to absolutely OWN the US on energy policy unless we get our head in the game.
I guess a nuclear reactor is only 2 typical coal plants so they'll need to 10x their current nuclear capacity to get rid of coal.
The only annoying thing is they're still building coal plants. I don't understand what I'm missing since nuclear is supposed to be cheaper. Maybe SNF still poses a logistical challenge they can't handle vs venting CO2 into the atmosphere.
>And dating apps remove all ambiguity. [...] It is clear from the beginning that you are both there looking for something.
This is precisely what I find appealing. Maybe I'm just socially deficient, but I find it stressful to navigate the ambiguity of real life encounters. Especially in todays climate where unsolicited advances can get you in trouble.
The sub was an insane idea by the account of all involved experts. Do you really think that being a middle aged white dude in SEA is enough to warrant pedophilia accusations?
> The sub was an insane idea by the account of all involved experts.
Please provide a source. The only person ever comment about it as far as I know was not one of the main divers involved, it was a British guy who was accidentally there and was losely associated consultant and by the tone of his comments, he seem to be mainly angry that Musk go media attention.
The SpaceX engineers develop the sub in coordination with the diving team for one specific contingency case and were happy when the sub didn't have to be used.
Then after that one of the consultants who apparently doesn't like Musk started giving interviews and because the media didn't really have anything to report about the actual rescue they played up the drama and tried to find anybody willing to comment.
So I guess we are angry here that SpaceX invested a fair amount of resource to try something that could potentially help.
The comment by Musk was clearly stupid, but beyond that I don't really see what is wrong with what Musk/SpaceX did. The best case one can make is that 'it took attention away from what important' ok, but that's not really in their control.
>Nowhere will a training set featuring pictures of naked children be legal.
True, but generalizing beyond the training set is precisely the point of machine learning. A good generative model will be able to produce such images, no matter how heinous the content is.
No [1], the limit is 12 weeks. Any abortion above 12 weeks is a crime (except for special cases) and the doctor can be held accountable. What you're probably referring to is the fact that the pregnant woman will not be persecuted up until 22 weeks.
It gives conservative parties in a coalition something to hold on to while tentatively accepting the status quo. And it gives them hope that turning back the clock on women's reproductive rights might be possible if legislature or the judiciary ever shifts to a majority willing to undo them.
It also allows commenters on websites to go “Ackchyually, …”, purposely ignoring the de facto legal situation, focusing on the de jure fiction instead.
This study suggests that the number of parameters can be significantly reduced using deeper networks, which is a consistent finding in ML research.
So these results could actually help to decrease the amount of computing resources required.
