I do think it’s a problem when 100% of people seeing “made with AI” will assume the entire thing is AI-generated, even if all you did was use AI for a minor touch-up. If it’s really that trigger happy right now, I think it’d make sense for it to be dialled down a bit.
That happens literally every night though and wind also doesn’t blow 100% of the time.
Very true, but the fact that wind blows often and there’s also varying amounts of direct sunlight during the day already massively decreases the amount of storage required for a grid. You don’t need the capacity to cover 100% of energy usage, sustained, like you suggested earlier. Especially as grids become (geographically) larger and smarter — we need wind and sun somewhere to cover energy needed elsewhere — it doesn’t have to be localized. Plus solar output obviously peaks during the day, when demand is also highest.
Renewables make up a trivial* amount
The percentage is absolutely not trivial today. Especially considering there are multiple large grids today that can easily sustain 50%+ renewable energy over sustained periods. And 30% by 2030 is a lot, though of course it could be a lot better.
and as we phase out fossil fuels, the requirement for energy storage is going up drastically.
Yes, no-one is arguing otherwise.
You’re glossing over the fact that the battery is a backup to kick in only when renewable production doesn’t meet demand, and that much more space-efficient energy storage solutions exist, even if they lose more power to inefficiency.
Why do you keep asking this? How is this specific number relevant to the discussion?
If you have a dynamic pricing contract of course you get a discount… If you don’t, you chose not to in return for price stability 🤷
Though yeah, last time prices went negative in Germany I was still paying 10ct/kWh in just taxes and fees. Would be pretty cool if they’d have paid me for using electricity during that time, but of course that’s not how that works.
Sorry but “they could slip in a chip that enabled a wavelength their satellites can access” is ridiculous. Sending a real-time video stream to a satellite would require a large and very power hungry transmitter on the drone. It’d be super obvious.
People won’t do that at scale.
It’d take only one person to recognize a sudden large traffic spike caused by the app and post about it online to ruin such a setup. As soon as it’s confirmed by a few more people, it’d immediately be a major news story. And it’s not like it’s particularly hard to spot unusual traffic; especially on a phone where the OS monitors per-app data usage both on mobile and WiFi.
They definitely do not send video though. That would be super obvious.
Tbh it seems to me like the only thing they’re targeting with this are media company lawyers that could try to argue that they’re “enabling piracy” by resolving domains to known piracy resources.
Well yes and no. Market cap is the total value of all shares for the particular stock combined (not including those held by the company itself). The value of each individual share is determined on the market. No-one directly “owns” this value, since the whole point of stocks is to distribute ownership, so no-one including Apple as an entity “owns” their market cap entirely. If that were the case, there would be no trading, and ergo no value to the shares, and the entire idea of a market cap no longer applies.
Individually though, the value of shares is of course very real. If you own shares and the stock is liquid (as in: there are people willing to buy), you can sell those shares for real money whenever you wish, at the current market price. Unless you want to sell a substantial amount, in which case you may run into trouble finding buyers and / or create significant downward pressure on the price.
No, “most valuable” is accurate here, since we’re talking about its market cap (value of all shares combined essentially). “Wealthiest” would refer to the company’s total assets.
For sure, my point is just that they could if it made sense — so clearly they don’t think it does, at least for now.
It was most likely HP, through Windows Update (which handles device-specific driver etc. updates that OEMs are in control of). Microsoft doesn’t concern itself with pushing BIOS updates to some random 4-year old HP model
If they wanted to companies could put a camera in a smart watch easily. Samsung was doing it ages ago.
Does it though? Having it pull down your shirt, having to rely on projecting a GUI on your hand, and being unable to hear it in loud environments all seem like pretty strong limitations of the form factor
Where do you download them from?
If you read the original report, it says that it basically just displays a fake banking login page. It also says that it requested accessibility service permissions, which makes me think maybe it brought up the fake login pages “in the right moment” (as in as users opened their banking apps) to make it more convincing, even though the article doesn’t specify that.
Either way, IMO the problem here is clearly with the Play Store allowing this app in, and not with Android’s security itself. These apps are misusing the accessibility service system, which is obviously necessary for a ton of important use cases (and of course also requires the user to grant very explicit permission). The fact that the accessibility services are a thing doesn’t delegitimize Android’s security improvements over the years.
Physically? So the dev has to come ask you in person?
You can’t just “update” models to not say a certain thing with pinpoint accuracy like that. Which one of the reasons why it’s so challenging to make AI not misbehave.
Exactly! The fact that we’re shutting down our reactors all the while still burning coal is so backwards.
There are a lot of valid reasons, other than security, for why you wouldn’t want that though. You don’t necessarily want to allow any client’s activity to be traceable on an individual level, nor do you want to allow people to do things like count the number of clients at a particular location. Information like that is just unnecessary to expose, even if hiding it doesn’t make anything more secure per se.