Your comparison between phones and VR/AR is reasonable but a bit different as when windows phones were discontinued, Microsoft had pretty much lost the phone os race. Also the windows phones sucked, I’ve used them…

IMO microsoft gave vr/ar a fair chance. They might have been early, but if we are eg. a full decade off must buy VR, then it might not be worth waiting.

I found steamdb.info. According to them Godot seems to be growing steadily.

Their government has been trying to keep the issue of aid in the public interest for a reason. Sometimes they might go too far, but I think people underestimate the fear a country would experience if they were highly dependent on outside help. Especially if it wasn’t guaranteed to continue due to changes in the political leadership in the other countries.

As always the headline is somewhat misleading.

That’s a job for the parents though isn’t it? And for early teenagers people seem to forget what positive influence the internet could have on their lives. Eg. many IT workers started fiddling around with stuff when they were quite young.

Obviously that has to be reflected in the price of the product. Presumably even more so with storage.

Also there might be a use case, where cost is paramount and the drive would experience very limited writes.

I’ve got a personal anecdote that’s not entirely the same, but I’ve bought a bunch of flash chips from china to use with retro games. Those are often salvaged, but they are also cheap and available to buy. It doesn’t matter if the chips can’t take too many write cycles, if you only flash them a couple of times.

Should the delays and subsequent costs overruns then be simply attributed to increased regulatory complexity or corporate greed?

I’m looking at the list of reactors in France, most of the builds during the last millennium were completed in more or less 10 years. Then there was a gap, and the new one is taking way longer than previous ones.

Same thing has happened in many other countries. Including finland, where at first we got 4 reactors in 6-10 years, and then after a gap of 25 years the next reactor was a clusterfuck that took almost 20years to build.

Both of these reactors are of the same design, and the issues are at least partially attributed to the company having forgot how to manage such large projects due to the years long gap in construction.

Competent nuclear engineers and technicians have retired without being able to pass on their know-how, and cutting-edge nuclear-related industries have disappeared or been converted.

This same fear has been enough to fund SLS and Ariane programs. Basically to avoid the loss of a capability in case it’s needed later on. For some reason it doesn’t seem to apply to nuclear. And now people are complaining that building new reactors is expensive, arguably at least partially due to the supply chains no longer existing in the same scale as before.

Most likely you won’t even notice some of the changes. Reasonably believable cars can already be added to films in post, so no reason why humans couldn’t be. This might not be driven only by AI, but instead on more general tech developments in vfx and such.

Thats the point of having energy abundance. When electricity costs are low enough, it wouldn’t matter, if the source of synthetic fuel was not the most energy efficient one.

But the naysayers will argue that your problem is not novel and a solution can be trivially deduced from the training data. Right?

I really dislike the simplified word predictor explanation that is given for how LLM’s work. It makes it seem like the thing is a lookup table, while ignoring the nuances of what makes it work so well.

The same guy x:d this. Apparently a chinese university has replicated at least the diamagnetism claimed in the paper.

https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1686286684424691712

Shouldn’t a different algorithm that adds a some sort of separate logic check be able to help tremendously?

Maybe, but it might not be that simple. The issue is that one would have to design that logic in a manner that can be verified by a human. At that point the logic would be quite specific to a single task and not generally useful at all. At that point the benefit of the AI is almost nil.

I guess this is a joke, but regardless. The current climate is quite different from having an ice sheet 3km thick on the ground. This summer we were nearing 30°C/85°F on some days.

I would be very interested to know why the trend has moved away from building reactors in time and within a reasonable budget. It seems that most projects after the turn of the millennium haven’t been cost effective.

Why did we manage to build reactors well before but not now?

Doesn’t matter. Bad news at the time was enough to scare people for the next 30 years.

My personal dream scenario is one, where renewables and nuclear become such cheap production methods, that electricity is cheap and abundant.

At that point one could just use that energy to synthesize fuel to avoid the hassle that is hydrogen storage.

This is a very promising approach I’ve heard of also. Places with reservoirs could benefit massively from super cheap energy.

In other places an alternative approach could be what we kinda do already. Nuclear or some other stable production as a foundation that is augmented by renewables. The foundation would guarantee that energy prices wouldn’t fluctuate too much, but we could still reap the benefits of cheap renewables when available.

Good question, that one can only speculate on. IMO it’s a two part question.

First is that newly built nuclear plants are expensive. So the question depends on if we bite the bullet (build the reactor) today or in 2070. One built today will produce cheap power in 50 years.

For example in Finland we have reactors from 1980, that make up the backbone of stable energy production in our country. Those are going to be kept online till the 2050s. I’d argue at that point the cost per kwh will be mostly dependent on maintenance and fuel, so relatively small.

Wind and solar cannot reap the same benefits if you have to replace the plant every 20 years.

Storage is a completely separate question that is not taken into account when new wind farms and such are being built. If one was to account for storage today, the cost of renewables would be much closer to that of other means of production.

Also in the future, if storage costs keep falling due to billions of R&D money, similar effects could be achieved in nuclear via serial production and scale.

EDIT: Just read you have studied this stuff for real. Then ignore most of what I said, as you might know better :D

The only issue I foresee with using regular batteries as grid wide storage is cost. Many renewable sources are inherently unstable in output, so one would have to plan for potentially multi day deficits in production.

At least in my country some alternative storage solutions are being planned. One company wants to use excess wind power to produce hydrogen. That hydrogen could then be used to offset potential production deficits.

Otherwise I very much agree with your list.