Roundabouts are almost always a good idea, assuming there is sufficient traffic. They keep traffic flowing faster, more predictably, and with fewer accidents.
No, they just interrupt the flow of traffic by slowing it down. The classic pattern of side roads with less traffic yielding to incoming traffic on the main road carrying more traffic is the correct road layout that minimizes frustration and confusion. Roundabouts are the favorite tool of left-leaning, anti-car, vanilla soy latte-sipping urban planners.
Btw your 'classic pattern' of highly unbalanced traffic flows is specifically called out as a non-ideal candidate for a roundabout, maybe the urban planners get cow milk in their lattes after all.
Okay, at this point you're going to need a source. Because that's counter to every civil engineer I've talked to about it. Or maybe you are a civil engineer, but got your PE license 40 years ago.
> Roundabouts are the favorite tool of left-leaning, anti-car, vanilla soy latte-sipping urban planners.
Given that part, I think it's more likely you're just a bitch ass maga troll. I hope your dear leader enjoyed his bouncy castle party. How's that ballroom coming along?
Social Media has been used for Balkanization of the US for at least a decade. It's how Russia said they would weaken the US, and exactly how they have. Now Social Media is being used with LLMs to make it even more effective. Social media is a blight. The algorithms should be basic enough for an average person to understand (chronological, friends only, etc). Also, f the marketing that encouraged manipulative algorithms.
It requires very large, high powered centrifuges and tons of uranium. Requires an infrastructure project that is visible from space, even underground. And projects that large are difficult to keep secret anyway.
you're not supposed to spell it out loud. next thing you'll be saying that a gun type nuclear bomb is easier to build than an implosion type nuclear bomb, and then we'll all be off to the races. I mean camps I mean wait shit.
Any large and well resourced enough entity that is interested in building a nuclear weapon already knows how difficult it is to enrich uranium to purity levels necessary for a weapon. It's not exactly a secret.
From what I've seen lately, Ed isn't saying the technology isn't significant. He criticizes the fact that AI companies are dumping this kind of money into it with circular financing deals. If it goes like you say, (GPUs at home) the AI labs will be destroyed, because no one will need the inference capacity they're dumping money into when they can do the decent part at home. From what I've seen he says it's more "not worth the investment" rather than not a breakthrough. It just sucks compared to the trillions they're spending which they'll never recover, is the argument. But I guess it's easier to strawman the argument to "this stuff isn't going to change anything".
He is saying technology isnt significant. Again and again and he puts a lot of emphasis on it. He is also focusing the circular financing deals, on it being a bubble etc.
Obviously, you can agree with one thing and not with other. And he can be right in one thing and not the other. But, if you listen to what he is saying, he is absolutely saying the technology is not significant.
I think you're misinterpreting a strongly worded "it isn't as great as the hype" with "there's nothing there". Because "nothing there that matches the hype" is both 100% true and completely different than "nothing there".
I don't think I am misinterpreting him. I did read some of his articles and did listened to some of his podcasts.
He is very very clear and open on what he thinks about usefulness of ai. He is not saying "it isn't as great as the hype". He is saying "it is useless". He is simply not the centrist kind of guy when it comes to AI usefulness.
Indeed it's worse, and apparently Valve/Steam is the only one who seems to care about something resembling freedom to sell legal things, even if we might subjectively disagree.
reply