This type of "hurr more money good" thinking is exactly the reason why there's a massive energy crisis across Europe, where individuals and enterprises end up paying gigantic electricity bills. People are _dying_ from this situation. Energy is not a random market like any others where number goes up means everything is good. _Lives_ depend on it.
The Greens had partnered with the SPD from 1998 to 2005 (and then again recently since 2021 but that's no related to the subject). They directly contributed to creating the Energiewende program. Merkel & friends implemented it, but saying the greens just "indicated preference" is utter bullshit. It's also the greens today trying to exclude any nuclear project from benefiting from grants at the European level.
The Greens do not get to have their cake and eat it when they are, in fact, directly one of the sources of the current german problem. Those 232g CO2/kWH as I write (and over 700 last week) is exactly what they asked for when they pushed for a full renewable energy grid backed by hopes and dreams.
Do you mean they are puppets of the Greens and as opposition to red-green government could not reverse policies they have considered harmful?
> directly one of the sources of the current german problem
From 2005 to 2021 it was Merkel & Co in the government making most of the energy-related decisions, yet you single out Greens as the primary culprits. Why? Did they sign Nord Stream agreements?
> It's also the greens today trying to exclude any nuclear project from benefiting from grants at the European level.
How not starting any nuclear project now is relevant to the current situation? It’s a strange claim given the time and costs needed to build a single nuclear power plant. It’s would not solve anything in the next 10 years at least, will be the most expensive energy on the market and add a dependency on a external supplier outside of EU (you cannot seriously suggest that we should get our uranium from Africa or Kazakhstan, so it‘s going to be an American one, same terms as LNG?)
>yet you single out Greens as the primary culprits. Why? Did they sign Nord Stream agreements?
You're incredibly defensive when all I have done is point out that saying "the greens aren't responsible for it" is a blatant lie. Especially when your purposefully ignore the next sentence, which still puts the blame on Merkel & Friends for continuing to implement it, in their case because it was lucrative to sign agreements with Russia for gas.(Especially this sack of shit Gerhard Schröder.)
>How not starting any nuclear project now is relevant to the current situation?
Aside from the fact that they have been on the offensive not just in 2024, but for close to a decade now (the Fessenheim closure has been demanded since 2016, green taxonomy started in 2020), because of this:
There has not been a _single_ day, a single month, a single year where the german electricity production has been under 200g eqCO2/kWh. Not a single one. The entire project has been slowly killing the planet, one day at a time, because technically illiterate and incompetent people have been leading your country.
>It’s a strange claim given the time and costs needed to build a single nuclear power plant.
While recent developments in Europe have been funny, to say the least (lol Flamanville/Hinkley Point C/Okilouto), half of these costs are caused by incredibly tight regulations, and another huge part has been caused by a gigantic loss of talent, which tends to happen when you demonize an entire industry for 30 years. There's also the fact that most of the recent constructions are new designs, which, yeah, require discovering flaws, unfortunately. China has 5-year construction speeds for nuclear plants using proven designs.
> It’s would not solve anything in the next 10 years at least
Considering renewables have not been solving anything in the past ten years alone, and will not solve anything in the net 10 years either, how about we start looking a little bit further than our noses and build _both_ ?
>will be the most expensive energy on the market
1/ lol lies 2/ lol renewables literally not working for a whole week in germany last week 3/ lol germany pushing for a common energy market where the price of the energy is based on the most expensive energy source available. Nuclear will never be the most expensive as long as we have gas burners for 400€/kWh.
>and add a dependency on a external supplier outside of EU (you cannot seriously suggest that we should get our uranium from Africa or Kazakhstan, so it‘s going to be an American one, same terms as LNG?)
Aside from the fact that I can _absolutely seriously suggest that_ and that I wouldn't take geopolitics lessons from Germany, thank you, we can also discover new sources of raw uranium (hell, even France is full of it, it's just cheaper to get it from Niger despite the instabilities), we can work forward on reusing and making nuclear "waste" useful (Breeder reactors have been an option, killing Superphénix was a mistake (but also the right choice from a financial perspective), keep it as a research reactor).
Germany has had an absolutely blind and ignorant world view of energy production, making it an absolute catastrophe of an energy market that gets covered by other european countries. It's not renewables OR nuclear. It's never been, and that a dichotomy that's been pushed forwards by morons. It's both. I'll be perfectly happy to turn off every single nuclear reactor in the world the day we guarantee all of our needs are fully covered by renewables ,which is going to require a _lot_ of overcapacity, or a globalized electricity grid (I thought depending on Africa and Russia was a bad idea?).
Renewables aren't the solution. They're part of it, and as it stands, aren't enough. Turn off your fucking coal burners and build nuclear, now.
> You're incredibly defensive when all I have done is point out that saying "the greens aren't responsible for it" is a blatant lie
And I didn’t say that. Who is defensive?
> Aside from the fact that they have been on the offensive not just in 2024, but for close to a decade now (the Fessenheim closure has been demanded since 2016, green taxonomy started in 2020)
2016-2020 - Merkel government.
Overall most of what you say here can and should be attributed to conservative/socialist parties which were in charge and use green agenda opportunistically rather than strategically. Making greens as a root source of all problems is a lie, simply because they did not make most of those harmful decisions. Regulation is mostly not on them too. I am not big fan of German greens myself, but things should be made straight on this matter: German problem are not greens, German problem are boomers which do not care about change. Most of mainstream politics in Germany is captured by special interests groups, old dudes from some Verein, Kammer or other medieval guild, lobbying to preserve their moats and privileges. Nuclear power has lost the game to Fukushima fears and Chernobyl fallout, but it is a secondary matter. It could have been useful or not, that’s a matter of calculations deep in strategic documents. Last document I saw considered them unpractical. You are right, we do need energy strategy, but honestly I think Germany is incapable of producing it. EU should take it over, it has more momentum and political diversity to figure this out. And it makes sense anyway, not just to regulate the market, but to build.
Regarding the uranium production, yes, there are some expensive deposits in Europe. We have high population density so even if environmental concerns are addressed, they will cost a lot. Post-processing of the waste is going to cost a lot. It is by no means the same price as 20-40 years ago. Can it fully replace gas? I doubt so. Is it the only alternative? I doubt so. We are talking about 20-30 years, the horizon on which we may really see the effects of nuclear scale-up. The renewables will be much more advanced by then, grids more robust and efficient. We may not have the same problems as we have now to be solved by nuclear. So the question is really, does it make sense to commit to fossil fuel for another 50-70 years again?
> does it make sense to commit to fossil fuel for another 50-70 years again?
I now see that you have been arguing in bad faith since the beginning and should not have wasted time, down to repeating exact arguments from the greens that have, so far, proved to be wronged and dragged Germany into one of the worst emitters of Europe.
Good luck with your dreams, knowing you're dragging all of us down with you.
I understand that somehow Greens made you feel so angry that you cannot stand any argument with other opinion than yours, but this is HN, not therapy, we are not here to release your steam. Try to make it less emotional next time.
I‘m not acting in bad faith, I just don’t see how is your argumentation relevant to my original comment above. What I would expect to agree with you is the causal link making greens primarily responsible for current situation. As I pointed out, I do not see it simply because other parties were long enough in the government not only to undo things, but to build something on their own.
And I honestly, being relatively familiar with the topics, cannot see how nuclear power industry could save us if it were restarted couple years ago. The reports from German research teams show otherwise. If you have more data on viability of this approach, please feel free to share.
You broke the site guidelines badly in this flamewar. I'm not going to ban your account right now the way I did the other one, which broke them quite a bit worse and has more of a history of doing so. But if you keep doing this, we're going to end up having to ban you, especially since this isn't the first time.
Please avoid tit-for-tat spats in the future, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are, and please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post respectfully and thoughtfully in the future. If you had edited out the swipes from your comments, as the rules request, they would have been fine.
Thank you for letting me know! I apologize for the tone and inconvenience caused and will try to make the necessary edits/avoid biting the bait. It was definitely not my intention to start the flamewar.
>this is HN, not therapy, we are not here to release your steam. Try to make it less emotional next time.
and here they said germans didn't have any sense of humor. Only one of us is trying to have an energy policy based on feels and good vibes here.
>And I honestly, being relatively familiar with the topics
Every single one of your messages has proved so far that you aren't, down to the delusion that "all renewable" is a possibility. So, with none of the due respect, no, I'm not going to go any further with someone as incredibly stupid and boneheaded as you.
You can't do this here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. I've banned the account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
Because you don't know how to write GLSL/WGSL, that things like font rendering end up requiring you to learn at best texture atlases, at worst SDF font rendering, and because you're quadrupling the time it takes you to do _anything_ because you're pixel bashing.
Oh and it's not accessible, which means you're going to get clapped by any audit, which means you're already eliminated from most places. Shaders have their place, for interactive, high speed components that you _explicitly_ don't want to make accessible by default.
2 months ago Jensen Huang did an interview where he said xAi built the fastest cluster with 100k GPUs.he said "what they achieved is singular, never been done before"
https://youtu.be/bUrCR4jQQg8?si=i0MpcIawMVHmHS2e
Meta said they would expand their infrastructure to include 350k GPUs by the end of this year. But, my guess is they meant a collection of AI clusters not a singular large cluster. In the post where they mentioned this, they shared details on 2 clusters with 24k GPUs each.https://engineering.fb.com/2024/03/12/data-center-engineerin...
What's singular is putting 100k H100s in a single machine. Which, yay, cool supercomputer, but the distributed supercomputer with 5 times the machines runs just as fast anyways.
Huang is still a CEO trying to prop up his product. He'd tell you putting an RTX4090 in your bathroom to drive an LED screen mirror is unprecedented if it meant it got him more sales and more clout.
If you're going to do this be sure you swap between charging and discharging as often as possible, go as low as your timer will allow. 30 minutes charging, 30 minutes discharging should allow you to reach house fire in less than a month.
No, but then again you're not paying me $20 per month while I pretend I have absolute knowledge.
You can, however, get the same human experience by contracting a consulting company that will bill you $20 000 per month and lie to you about having absolute knowledge.
When combined with intellectual honesty and curiosity, the best LLMs can be powerful tools for checking argumentation. (I personally recommend Claude 3.5 Sonnet.) I pasted in the conversation history and here is what it said:
> Their position is falsifiable through simple examples: LLMs can perform arithmetic on numbers that weren't in training data, compose responses about current events post-training, and generate novel combinations of ideas.
Spot on. It would take a lot of editing for me to speak as concisely and accurately!
> you can try to convince all you want, but you're just grasping at straws.
After coming back to this to see how the conversation has evolved (it hasn't), I offer this guess: the problem isn't at the object level (i.e. what ML research has to say on this) nor my willingness to engage. A key factor seems to a lack of interest on the other end of the conversation.
Most importantly, I'm happy to learn and/or be shown to be mistaken.
Based on my study (not at the Ph.D. level but still quite intensive), I am confident the comment above is both wrong and poorly framed. Why? Seeing phrases "incapable of thought" and "stochastic parrots" are red flags to me. In my experience, people that study LLM systems are wary of using such brash phrases. They tend to move the conservation away from understanding towards combativeness and/or confusion.
Being this direct might sound brusque and/or unpersuasive. My top concern at this point, not knowing you, is that you might not prioritize learning and careful discussion. If you want to continue discussing, here is what I suggest:
First, are you familiar with the double-crux technique? If not, the CFAR page is a good start.
Second, please share three papers (or high-quality writing from experts): one that supports your claim, one that opposes it, and one that attempts to synthesize.
I'll try again... Can you (or anyone) define "thought" in way that is helpful?
Some other intelligent social animals have slightly different brains, and it seems very likely they "think" as well. Do we want to define "thinking" in some relative manner?
Say you pick a definition requiring an isomorphism to thoughts as generated by a human brain. Then, by definition, you can't have thoughts unless you prove the isomorphism. How are you going to do that? Inspection? In theory, some suitable emulation of a brain is needed. You might get close with whole-brain emulation. But how do you know when your emulation is good enough? What level of detail is sufficient?
What kinds of definitions of "thought" remains?
Perhaps something related to consciousness? Where is this kind of definition going to get us? Talking about consciousness is hard.
Anil Seth (and others) talks about consciousness better than most, for what it is worth -- he does it by getting more detailed and specific. See also: integrated information theory.
By writing at some length, I hope to show that using loose sketches of concepts using words such as "thoughts" or "thinking" doesn't advance a substantive conversation. More depth is needed.
Meta: To advance the conversation, it takes time to elaborate and engage. It isn't easy. An easier way out is pressing the down triangle, but that is too often meager and fleeting protection for a brittle ego and/or a fixated level of understanding.
>it doesn't lend itself to reuse, but I don't blame it either: it's not really meant to do that.
Only if you keep writing more logic into build.gradle.kts.
Writing custom Gradle plugins has been the standard and recommended way to configure your projects for years now. Aside from a few footguns (lol extensions not being resolved at configuration time and needing providers everywhere), it allows you to mostly skip configuration steps.
Adorable how HN's in absolute denial over this comment and downvoting you.
Garland is a donator to the Federalist Society. Garland was a gift from Obama to the Republicans, trying to put someone who's right wing enough at the Supreme Court to appease the Rs. (And it didn't even work).
1199 cyclists killed in 4 years, 658 of these being from collisions with various motor vehicles. 262 pedestrians killed in 4 years, 11 of these being from collisions with bicycles. Before any "oh but there's few deaths but more accidents it's still unsafe": no, it is not.
I know your username sets high expectations, but stop bullshitting and look at facts.
If a bicycle hits a pedestrian and the pedestrian was on cycling path in The Netherlands, who's fault is it? If the pedestrian gets a broken arm who pays for medical services?
If NL laws are anywhere close to the rest of European countries: the bike is responsible. The pedestrian is never responsible, unless they do something absurd like jumping in front of the bike without leaving any way to react to the bike.
>If the pedestrian gets a broken arm who pays for medical services?
The... Insurance of whoever is responsible? I know this concept is weird to the US, but personal insurances in Europe are about covering the damage you inflict on others first, then eventually you. They're also mandatory. In addition, well, a broken arm is not a financial catastrophe in Europe. Should it prevent you from doing your job, the insurance also covers that.
