I have a question for people more familiar with these. What exactly happens at the isolation stage. They say it includes a high frequency transformer (HFT). But its input and out put is DC. And classic transformers operate on AC. So in order to get the transformer working, one would have to chop up the incoming dc power into a square wave or a sine wave. But what transistors can you use to do this, considering you are dealing both with very high power and very high frequencies?
The site suggests it is "7 weeks into 2025" but as of today (Feb 25th, 2025) we are in week 9 (according to MS Outlook calendar at work)
EU citizens badly need AI systems that are open and privacy-respecting. Getting together this rather large coalition of experts with quite some money and (importantly) access to compute power is a nice first step.
Let them play around, train some models, fail-and-get-up-again, start over, write papers and hopefully get some useful output. Remember, for the involved PhD students it will also be a learning experience!
Yes, it's only the first step. But yeez, it's a press release indicating the start of a scientific collaboration! Let's hold back on the negativity for a couple of years until after they've had a chance.
I, for one, hope this will lead to success and wish the team the best.
Storms not getting worse: "there is no clear trend in most basins, but a significant decrease in power dissipation index has been detected in the South Indian Ocean basin since 1994, which is almost entirely due to a decrease in both tropical cyclone frequency and duration in this basin", https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01683-2
Pacific islands not drowning: "Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century", https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1
Warming in 20th century over-estimated: "correcting the ocean cold bias would result in a more modest early-twentieth-century warming trend", https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08230-1
Or for more direct refutations:
Roy Spencer, climatologist, who has written entire books refuting climate change narratives: https://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Skepticism-Busy-People...
Judith Curry, (retired) climatologist, https://judithcurry.com/2024/05/26/fact-checking-the-fact-ch... "All things considered, planet earth is doing fine. We are obviously not facing an existential crisis. Anyone who tells you that we are, is not paying attention to the historical data. Instead, they are concerned about what “might” happen in the future, based on predictions from inadequate climate models, driven by unrealistic assumptions."
Nicola Scafetta, climatologist, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-lates... "The attempts of some of current climate modelers to explain and solve the failure of their GCMs in properly forecasting the approximate steady climate of the last 10 years are very unsatisfactory for any practical and theoretical purpose."
John Clauser, Nobel prize winner in physics, https://clintel.org/nobel-prize-winner-dr-john-f-clauser-sig... "Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience."
The usual response to all this is usually a No True Scotsman argument similar to the one posted by rsynnott, or a claim that "consensus" doesn't mean everyone agrees but only requires some arbitrary threshold in a carefully selected subgroup. Even there, it fails. The famous claim that 99% of climatologists agree with human-driven global warming doesn't replicate:
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/11/215
... and has severe methodological errors.
1) your actual scientific sources are not by climate deniers, but instead point to scientific progress on very specific points of climatological research. You are quoting them out of context and unfairly representing their conclusions. Even reading the abstract of the papers makes this clear.
2) your non-scientific links are a mix of unsourced claims, strawman arguments and pop-sci works that have very little scientific value
3) yes, you can cite scientists but can you cite scientists with degrees, papers and credentials in relevant fields to the presented claims? Certainly John Clauser isn't one, see summary below.
4) science is not done by consensus, as much as any media outlet will try to convince you. It is done by hypothesizing, experimenting, analyzing, reporting/publishing, correcting (each other) and learning/iterating. The 99% figure may be wrong (or right) but it is mainly irrelevant to correctness.
" The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 was awarded jointly to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger "for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science" "
So I wonder: Why are we sending out all this info. Fingerprinting is the only actual use. The number of sites using it as it should is minimal. Lets just stop giving it. They don't need a list of audio or video devices. They don't need my installed fonts. They don't believe my language settings when I whack them over the head with it. Let's just fill in defaults everywhere. Maybe provide a whitelist for legitimate sites.
Now, I don't speak or read Chinese and couldn't immediately find a way to change the setting back to English. Could probably find it on the internet but .. Oh well, I don't really use LinkedIn so it's just stayed that way now.
This culminated in a made-up addition to the timeline entitled "Matt announces acquisition of Bullenweg.com" complete with a "quote" from Matt (there is a footnote within it mentioning it is fake).
This seems to have been the last straw to the lawyers representing Matt to step in and threaten a libel suit (or similar). The result is Bullenweg.com folding (for now) since this could get real expensive real quick.
The above is my interpretation of the events - I have no further inside insights.