Structural batteries were supposed to be the solution where the density wasn't so important. I don't really have a good understanding of the ration of fuel weight to structural weight in existing aircraft though.
casing is around 25% of the mass of a cylindrical cell, with the rest being actual battery bits that can't have any stresses applied. is 25% weight saving that significant?
Author here. I have a JavaScript port of my automated test suite (https://github.com/a-e-k/canvas_ity/blob/main/test/test.html) that I used to compare my library against browser <canvas> implementations. I was surprised by all of the browser quirks that I found!
But compiling to WASM and running side-by-side on that page is definitely something that I've thought about to make the comparison easier. (For now, I just have my test suite write out PNGs and compare them in an image viewer split-screen with the browser.)
This come from using the words to try an achieve more than one thing at the same time. Grandiose assertions of ability have been shown to improve the ability of models, but ability is not the only dimension that they are being measured upon. Prioritising everything is the same thing as prioritising nothing.
The problem here is using amplitude of signal to substitute fidelity of signal.
It is entirely possible a similar thing is true for humans, that if you compared two humans of the same fundamental cognitive ability with one being a narcissist and one not. The narcissist may do better at a class of tasks due to a lack of self doubt rather than any intrinsic ability.
Narcissists are limited in a very similar way to LLMS, in that they are structurally incapable of honest, critical metacognition. Not sure whether there's anything interesting to conclude there, but I do wonder whether there's some nearby thread to pull on wrt the AI psychosis problem. That's a problem for a psychologist, which I am not.
It also seems like a natural result of all of the people challenging the usefulness of AI. It motivates people to show what they have done with it.
It stands to reason that the things that take less effort will arrive sooner, and be more numerous.
Much of that boringness, is people adjusting to what should be considered interesting to others. With a site like this, where user voting is supposed to facilitate visibility, I'm not even certain that the submitter should judge the worth of the submission to others. As long as they sincerely believe that what they have done might be of interest, it is perhaps sufficient. If people do not like it then it will be seen by few.
There is an increase in things demanding attention, and you could make the case that this dilutes the visibility such that better things do not get seen, but I think that is a problem of too many voices wishing to be heard. Judging them on their merits seems fairer than placing pressure on the ability to express. This exists across the internet in many forms. People want to be heard, but we can't listen to everyone. Discoverability is still the unsolved problem of the mass media age. Sites like HN and Reddit seem to be the least-worst solution so far. Much like Democracy vs Benevolent Dictatorship an incredibly diligent curator can provide a better experience, but at the cost of placing control somewhere and hoping for the best.
If it comes from a site claiming it was under a licence when it was not, the misdeed is done by the person who provided the version carrying the licence.
Just because it says "CC0" does not make it CC0. If you upload a dataset you don't have the rights to, any license declaration you make is null and void, and anyone using it as if it had that license is violating copyright
Even if MS could claim that they were acting in good faith there really isn't much legal wiggle room for that. But it doesn't even come to that because I don't think anyone would buy that they really thought that the Harry Potter books were under the CC0
If you buy a pirated book on Amazon you get to keep the book and the pirate printer is the one persecuted.
Same thing applies here.
Up to 80% off all works that are in copyright terms are accidentally in the public domain. A well known example is Night of the Living Dead. It is not your job to check that the copiright on a work you use is the correct one.
Section 116 (2) A plaintiff is not entitled by virtue of this section to any damages or to any other pecuniary remedy, other than costs, if it is established that, at the time of the conversion or detention:
(a) the defendant was not aware, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that copyright subsisted in the work or other subject - matter to which the action relates;
(b) where the articles converted or detained were infringing copies--the defendant believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that they were not infringing copies; or
(c) where an article converted or detained was a device used or intended to be used for making articles--the defendant believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the articles so made or intended to be made were not or would not be, as the case may be, infringing copies.
Does this not mean the opposite of your claim? It sounds to me that if you unwittingly bought a dodgy copy of something, the law thinks the copyright owner can get you to pay for a legit copy, but not punish you for your mistake.
In the specific case of the Harry Potter works, the fame might meet the threshold of reasonable grounds for believing, but noosphr's argument that "Up to 80% off all works that are in copyright terms are accidentally in the public domain" could grant a reasonable grounds for believing it is not.
This is one of those things that causes interesting court cases because a reasonable grounds for believing X is not the same thing as not reasonable grounds for believing not X.
Reasonable grounds for suspicion probably carries more weight here than reasonable grounds for the absence of suspicion, but cases have hung on things like this before , like the presence or absence of an Oxford comma.
The main thing that held me back from using Asahi on my M2 MacBook air - was missing external display. If I read TFA correctly - that should now work with a custom kernel.
If that's true - I'd say MacBook air M2 is probably the new sweetspot - depending on how cheap you could get an M1.
My impression is that until now, MacBook air M1 was the sweetspot.
Nobody in Salem wanted to be seen to stand up for witches.
I have never had a Facebook account because I never liked what they do, but this 'evidence' against them seems like they are relying on the seriousness of the allegations more than the accuracy.
You are saying that from our perspective. I don't think the argument that witches are not real would have gained you much ground back then.
We don't have the years of analysis of what actually happened for things happening right now.
While a lot of people feel a lot of certainty about all manner of social media harms, the scientific consensus is much less clear. Sure you can pull up studies showing something that looks pretty bad, but you can also find ones that say that climate change is not occurring. The best we have to go on is scientific consensus. The consensus, is not there yet. How do you tell if Jonathan Haidt is another Andrew Wakefield?
I'm not making any claims of certaincy. I have not published any books making claims of harm. I have not gone on a tour of interviews the world over trying to build public opinion instead of building consensus that the information is true.
That's how I know.
I also don't go around talking about race based differences in IQ, but that's just Haidt.
What a load of nonsense, they won't be producing a report in a third of the time only to have no-one read it. They'll spend the same amount of time and produce a report three times the length, which will then go unread.
>research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences, while those who are afraid that their content doesn't quite cut it, litter it with jargon, long complicated sentences, hoping that by making things hard, they will look smart.
Obviously no errors Vs no obvious errors, in a nutshell.
There was an episode of Orphan Black where they were going to impersonate a billionaire. The guy turns up in a suit and gets told, 'A billionaire, not a millionaire, go and put some shorts on'
reply