That implies that air resistance is the overwhelming contributor at high speeds. Is that the case?
Considering air resistance is proportional to the cube of the speed, it would be highly surprising to not be the case.
Readit Newskalenx commented on The first sodium-ion battery EV is a winter range monster insideevs.com/news/786509... · Posted by u/andrewjneumann
I think there's basically one 4x4 van on the market in the US right now. So you're making a pretty bad generalization here. In the Bay Area, it's probably true that a van would work well, although I lived in a mixed-income neighborhood and all the construction guys had beater pickups. But if you live in a place with snow and unpaved residential roads, 4x4 is pretty much a must (and pickups can be also be used for plowing, etc).
Since when? I sincerely do not understand that point about snow.
I've lived in Canada (not southern Ontario) for most of my life and everyone had (and still mostly has) FWD. 4x4 was only for people actually going off road...
I don't get how this is now a "must".
kalenx commented on Vibe Coding Gone Wrong: 5 Rules for Safely Using AI cybercorsairs.com/my-ai-c... · Posted by u/todsacerdoti
Ok, I haven't tried enough AI coding to have an opinion here, but... why would anyone think that telling an AI to not change any code (IN ALL CAPS, even) has anything to do with anything? It's an LLM. It doesn't go through a ruleset. It does things that are plausible responses to things you ask of it. Not changing code is indeed a plausible response to you telling it to not change code. But so is changing code, if there were enough other things you asked it to do.
"Say shark. Say shark. Don't say shark. Say shark. Say shark. Say shark. Say shark. Say shark."
Are you going to flip out if it says "shark"?
Try it out on a human brain. Think of a four-letter word ending in "unt" that is a term for a type of woman, and DO NOT THINK OF ANYTHING OFFENSIVE. Take a pause now and do it.
So... did you obey the ALL CAPS directive? Did your brain easily deactivate the pathways that were disallowed, and come up with the simple answer of "aunt"? How much reinforcement learning, perhaps in the form of your mother washing your mouth out with soap, would it take before you could do it naturally?
(Apologies to those for whom English is not a first language, and to Australians. Both groups are likely to be confused. The former for the word, the latter for the "offensive" part.)
Nitpicking, but I don't see your four-letter word example as convincing.
Thinking is the very process from which we form words or sentences, so it is by definition impossible to _not_ think about a word we must avoid.
However, in your all caps instruction, replace "think" by "write" or "say". Then check if people obey they all caps directive. Of course they will. Even if the offensive word came to their mind, they _will_ look for another.
That's what many people miss about LLMs. Sure, humans can lie, make stuff up, make mistakes or deceive. But LLM will do this even if they have no reason to (i.e., they know the right answer and have no reason/motivation to deceive). _That's_ why it's so hard to trust them.
kalenx commented on Preliminary report into Air India crash released bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx20p... · Posted by u/cjr
It's not an impossible maneuver. Glider pilots do this all the time especially if they don't have spoilers
Yes. On a plane which is designed to be a good glider. I highly doubt a 767 is designed to be a glider.
It's definitely not impossible (after all, it was done successfully!), but certainly a very difficult (and undocumented) one on such a plane.
It shouldn't take 0.5 seconds of thinking, unless you're a total historical illiterate.
You're not arguing in good faith here. Which is fine, but then please stop insulting others.
I find it remarkable that it's that hard for you.
They do not say it was hard. There is a difference between being hard and requiring 0.5 second more of thinking, which can and does disrupt the reading flow.
Not sure what's your point though. I do think people will always do "some" unreasonable things, but doing all reasonable things at once and as much as we can is probably not smart so we should at least discuss it. How large should a burger be? How many times per day should you wash your car? What temperature should you use for your AC? Don't know, but if someone tells me they eat 1kg burger at each meal, they wash their car 3 times a day and they put the AC to 15 in the summer I would tell them they are not reasonable and that they can enjoy life better if they change a bit their habits.
This, I absolutely agree with.
Yes, there are small things you can do which (collectively) _can_ have an impact.
I'm arguing against : "So you know you are killing us in so many ways, and you can't be arsed to eat less meat? Aren't you supposed to care about us?"
You can replace "to eat less meat" by basically a thousand different "reasonable" things. Does that mean that _literally everyone on earth_ is willingly "killing their children and not caring about them"?
I really dislike those arguments patronizing everyone. They achieve nothing -- actually quite the contrary, at _best_ they do nothing for someone who do not feel targeted, at worst they turn people against your cause. There's a difference between stating that each of us can and should take action because those are needed and saying that everyone not doing X is a child killer. If someone suggest that I should stop drinking almond milk, I would consider it. If they introduce this by telling how ashamed I should be and how my children will hate me for this -- but not for long since they will soon be dead anyway because of me -- well, maybe I'll just ignore an otherwise perfectly reasonable and fact-based suggestion.
Yes! I'm not sure what the your intended upshot here is, but those absolutely would be beneficial changes in behavior and are perfectly in line with prevailing recommendations of ways behaviors need to change to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, and related recommendations more broadly in line with environmental conservation and public health.
Far from a counterpoint, they testify to the reasonableness of the request in this instance, of stepping away from factory farming, because it belongs to a class of similar and well respected recommendations. Getting people to actually change their behavior is an important issue, and the purpose of recognizing it should be to reckon with it in a serious way rather that use it to tee up complaints about hypocrisy that seem to imply the futility of doing anything.
The thing is, I'm not arguing against the fact (yes, the fact) that doing this would beneficial. I'm saying that stating how "simple" and "reasonable" are these actions is missing the point.
Again, not a personal attack, but do you follow all of these actions (I could add more similar ones)? Do you own or use a car? Have you ever taken a flight? Went on a cruise? Ate cashews or almond milk? If so, why are you doing this? Why are you (to use the terms stated by OP), so unreasonable, unwilling to do so simple things for your children?
I'm not saying that any action is futile, but that the cost (monetary or otherwise) to take them is _vastly_ underestimated and basically swept under the rug with arguments of reasonableness and simplicity.
And, just to restate, I am not defending my own lifestyle, it's not an emotional argument to make for me.
> We, the people, have the power to improve this situation. Call your representatives, do activism, talk to your friends about it, vote for the right candidates.
And stop eating meat and fish! It's insane for many reasons even if you don't care about how the animals are treated:
* Biodiversity loss: because we kill everything in the sea by fishing, and we kill everything in the fields for intensive agriculture (which is needed to feed the cattle). And because of deforestation of course. * Antibiotic-resistance: because putting so many animals (fishes or cows) together brings diseases we need to treat. * CO2 emissions: it's super inefficient, we all know it.
Not being a vegetarian in 2025 is just completely unreasonable.
We had Greta Thunberg talking to politicians, but actually I'm looking forward to when kids will ask their parents: "So you know you are killing us in so many ways, and you can't be arsed to eat less meat? Aren't you supposed to care about us?"
By this logic, having a car in 2025 is "just completely unreasonable". Taking plane in 2025 is "just completely unreasonable". Use of AC unless life threatening circumstances is "just completely unreasonable". Wasting rainwater and use drinkable water to wash your car (or yourself, actually) is "just completely unreasonable". Eating cashew/almond or other highly water intensive crops grown in a dried out area (California...) is "just completely unreasonable".
Note that apart from the rainwater one, I do none of the above, so I'm not even pleading for myself and my "way of life". I'm just showing how easy it is to boldly state that "it is obvious, we just all have to be reasonable" while, in fact, _not_ being "reasonable" yourself.
kalenx commented on Mexico issues legal threat to Google thecomeback.com/politics/... · Posted by u/thund
As much as "changing" the name is stupid, Google isn't here to pick battles between countries.
Quick check shows that google.com.mx shows it always as "Gulfo de Mexico". That's all that matters.
In Canada, I see the "new" name along with Gulf of Mexico. Seems like a weird take. Every sovereign island should start naming it a different way, I'd like to see if Google would display 27 names for the same Gulf...