So, I can’t honestly personally understand taking your shoes off in an emergency, however I am sure they have gotten very efficient at it.. I can say that if they didn’t it would cause damage to the home, many Japanese homes, especially traditional but also in general just aren’t built to take shoes. Tatami mats, and even hinoki floors despite being “hard” for a softwood, is still a softwood, so some level of genuine damage would occur. Again of-course versus the emergency in saving a human life, I’m not quite sure I can understand it.
Also in the Netherlands, doctors / nurses in my local hospital wear things like crocs and other slip-in type shoes - don't think paramedics do, just something I noticed.
I’ve written software all my life, copyright has never been relevant to my earnings at all, trade secrets have been to some extent.
Frankly copyright was meant to enable more sharing and benefiting the public domain, instead it’s become a cancer…
I’m not sure I understand this perspective, I’m looking forward to inheriting some of my parents furnitures and getting rid of some of the ikea crap.. they are furniture that have been in the family in some cases for over 200 years, and I learned to maintain them and care for them as a kid just as a regular part of housework. Some have had amusing changes in use as the times changed, like an old wardrobe being turned into a chest of drawers as larger wardrobes became available, etc.
> I’m looking forward to inheriting some of my parents furnitures and getting rid of some of the ikea crap.. they are furniture that have been in the family in some cases for over 200 years, and I learned to maintain them and care for them as a kid just as a regular part of housework.
Your experience is an extreme outlier.
Most people don't have parents with such old, valuable furniture.
Of those who do, most don't value it themselves.
Of those who do, most don't know how to take care of it.
The reality: Kids often live far away, in smaller houses/apartments. They're married and their spouses may not like the old furniture - they've already invested in the furniture they bought. Also, as people get old, they often need to downsize, so they have to get rid of much of the furniture while alive.
When you have 3+ kids, you can hope at least one of the kids will value it. These days, having 3 kids is an outlier.
For me, personally: I just don't like heavy furniture. I wouldn't want to figure out how to get it into my house, positioned where it's needed, and who's going to move it later if I decide to change the layout of my rooms? Pain, pain, pain.
> I’m looking forward to inheriting some of my parents furnitures and getting rid of some of the ikea crap..
I think you are confusing the perspective of the GP here.
Your perspective is that of the "kid". You like the parents' furniture and eventually want to use them and that's all fine.
But GP is describing the parent perspective which, they argue, shouldn't be to plan life such that the kids will be inheriting and using things later. That puts pressure on them to actually do instead of making their own choices. It's a subtle but important difference.
I see similar issues with people buying the neighboring lot and building a second house there such that eventually their kids can move in their with their family, once they have one. Some kids certainly so, and that's great. But think about your own life, would really have wanted to do that? Or grow up feeling that's expected of you? Most of my friends live half a day of travel away from where they grew up. Most of them would despise the idea of moving in next to their parents. Which doesn't mean they don't love them, just that they value their independence and made choices free from the constraint that it needs to be exactly there. (Besides, a couple usually consists of two people and they often didn't grow up in the same neighborhood.)
Generally, trying to plan for leaving inheritances (of substantial value) is overvalued. Modern society is striving to less dynasty building and I think that's a good thing. A lot of the poor/rich divide is rooted in that and governments should discourage it (through inheritance tax) rather than encouraging it (through e.g. lack of actions against housing costs which forces people to get a big inheritance to be able to live anywhere.)
Though I'm really getting too far from the topic as that was about furniture. :)
This is a complex topic and I’m not going to do it justice in a comment, but I feel like modern society might just be destroying social mobility in the name of what you described, while the already rich are dynasty building just fine as usual via a variety of legal means only available to them selves.
Well, play it out in a simulation, what happens if you have two groups of humans, one can build wealth across generations, and infact already have access to better education, food, and the enormous privileged of rolling the dice and failing without suffering extreme consequences. The other group doesn’t, and now on top of it? They can’t work harder to build some wealth and pass it on to their descendants because the “state” legally disincentivises it.
You have in essence legally protected the rich from competition even inter-generationally.
I can’t imagine any agency in their right mind training an LLM on their top secret data… especially considering that essentially it would collapse all need to know data in one easily leakable single access domain. The models have no feasible or reasonable way to implement rbac. So you would end up in a situation where people who need to know who killed A, also know who killed B, not to mention cell A knowing potentially data on Cell B who is meant to watch them, etc, etc.
The idea is silly because most of it is complete garbage anyway. You'd wind up with a model that might know a very small amount of actionable information, and the rest of it just speculative. Or extremely time sensitive, useful for only a relatively short slice of time (which has already passed).
> it would collapse all need to know data in one easily leakable single access domain. The models have no feasible or reasonable way to implement rbac
Oh my sweet summer child...
This has been the continual goal of the US defense and intelligence agencies since 9/11, which was blamed on a lack of information sharing. Why do you think Edward Snowden had access to everything? Because it was consolidated post-2001.
You think there is any access control at the upper levels of the dark intelligence agencies? They have access to the whole take.
And it used to be that was pretty useless unless you had an actual lead. You'd need a East German Stasi level of labor to read everyone's secrets at scale... Now you don't, thanks to AI.
Snowden had mass access to a mass surveillance program, not mass access to N dark programs or particular bits of high value intelligence. The thing you are describing is primarily around sharing threat intelligence or in other words, spying on us plebes.
High value target intelligence and other bits of fun are still kept quite seperate.
I'd suspect that the goal isn't to destroy coral reefs and the damage is "accidental." And/or the reefs are already largely fucked, so additional damage is "minimal."
To be clear, coral reefs are essentially collectors/attractors/homes for a huge number of fish species. If you go away from a coral reef (even 50 meters), there is large drop-off in the amount of fish in the water column -- almost none. They are absolutely bomb fishing within coral reefs because there are lots of fish.
Yeah, but the reefs aren't the goal. They're probably mostly not blowing up reef, but occasionally do it it - hence why so many bombs clears so little reef. If it was massively reducing reef coverage, you'd expect to see the method die off once too much reef is gone.
Fishers, I would guess, are aware of fish wanting to be near reefs.
Primary theft at them is where you scan N cheap items and just bag Y expensive item without scan and walk out, plausible deniability/psychology at play, a lot less deniability if you shove a whisky bottle down your trousers.
In Spanish supermarkets, it's tins of shellfish in the anti-theft boxes. In English ones, it's razor blades and menstrual pads. Spirits are often tagged in both countries, but not as consistently as the mejillones and the tampons.
Primarily used to catch and ban from the shop heavy repeat offenders, some people shop lift on order and resell items versus use them for them selves, or have addiction problems with alcoholism etc.
Did we somehow mass build pure lossy evaporatively cooled data-centres in the AI era while I was asleep ? Most of them im familiar with lose at best 3-4% of their water per day due to recovery systems even when they are evaporative or open loop to a lake. Yet nearly everyone I hear talking about this seems to treat it as if they lose 100% of their water loop contents per day as if it’s a matter-antimatter destruction system…
One can criticize ai data centers but the "water consumption"-argument is by far the least-intelligent one and on track on becoming the same kind of populist urban myth that got Germany cancelling (ie destroying) its nuclear plants in order to... checks notes.... save the world.
The paper refers to "indirect water use in electricity generation, and water-intensive semiconductor manufacturing".
Water use in electricity generation is significant. In the England we are in the middle of a drought and it is surprising to realise that electricity generation uses 2.5x more ('environmentally extracted') water than public supply and 10x more than agriculture.
I stumbled on that as well. I thought that water is used to cool but not consumed such as oil is - even I see the ecosystem problem of warm waste water. However, what doesn’t remove drinking water, right?
Even if the water evaporates, it will enter the ecosystem as such and eventually end up as liquid water again. Or am I totally mistaken?
The last datacenter I stepped inside (an FB datacenter in the southwest), they were very proud of how the whole thing operated as a giant swamp cooler. Unclear how they could have been limiting their losses all that much, given the evaporative stacks were open to the outside breeze
I’m familiar with datacentres, I’ve helped build a few, so I kept up with the new systems, they still aren’t that lossy last time I checked their specs.. however obviously I don’t have access to all the designs popping up in this mad rush.
The label unless you grew up in the Anglo sphere is also especially meaningless, yet certain people insist in labelling the rest of us :) I got to enjoy Phreaking well into the era most others already had ADSL…
reply