My reimagining: An appliance that drools sugar syrup, or carbohydrate, or fat, or protein into a cup. Electric, using micro-machines etched into silicon wafers that sew the molecules together out of elements in the air (CHON)
Surface area is a materials problem? Folded microstructure, atomic-scale textured surface or some other science-fiction solution could have square kilometers of surface area in a shoebox.
Imagine you have two blackbody radiators with the same bulk properties, except one has surface area shenanigans like aerogels. In the far field as a whole, it seems like both should radiate essentially the same regardless of the internal details. You can shape emissive direction, or improve efficiency of non-ideal materials, but even ideal materials don't fix the issues pointed out by the parent.
Right; it's only area exposed to the exterior that counts. A physical object can't thermally radiate more power than a perfect blackbody spanning its convex hull.
(This follows because a physical object can't absorb more light than a perfect blackbody spanning its convex hull. A perfect blackbody by definition absorbs 100% of incident light, which is a hard upper bound. Any line incident on an object is also incident on its convex hull).
(Consider an isothermal object that emits more power than a blackbody in the shape of its hull at the same temperature. If you were to place that object in a closed system at thermal equilibrium, the interior of an insulated emissive sphere—combining assumptions, it would emit more power than it absorbs, in violation of the 2nd law. Starting from an isothermal system, the object would grow colder, and the enclosing container hotter).
Yes! Pretty much everything the driver touches is no longer directly controlling anything. THe brakes are anti-lock (electronic control can disconnect them). The steering depends on assist motors. The throttle is just a suggestion.
Even my rear-view mirror is a camera, and currently it has failed (shows matrix style drippy blue lines instead of a picture.
All true, to a degree. The particular degree affects where money is invested, borrowed, deposited. It may not 'kill' private ownership, but it will change it, perhaps drastically as other options become more attractive.
Economics is as dot-to-dot picture that folks love to draw sketchy conclusions from by connecting just the dots they see or want to see. But you have to connect all the dots to get a real picture
A 5% reduction in fuel is significant, especially as cargo ships are responsible for a disproportionate share of petro-pollution. They burn the cheapest petro gunk, emitting tremendous volumes of soot and such.
Is this still true after the IMO 2020 sulfur regulations? I remember they found out that these ships were producing so much white aerosol clouds that it actually had a really significant albedo effect that reflected a lot of the sun's heat back out. When they were banned it actually temporarily accelerated warming by an estimated 0.05°C bump
Yes it is still true. Sulphur is one element only that got regulated - petrol on its own is a soup of different hydrocarbons - various chains & lenghts - every one has specific burn characteristics and optimal conditions to burn.
Using this thick soup thats close to coal, the process of burning is always far from optimal for most of them. Thus black sud gets emitted - basically unburned carbon - a huge waste financially but also ecologically as its comparable to cigarette Fumes regarding unhealthy compounds. Plus fine particle dust. Chances its toxic for marine life are huge.
Those are all externalized costs no one of the polluters pays for besides the collective life on this planet.
Oh some few. No right triangle with rational sides has area equal to a perfect square depends on N=4 for instance.
And it can be used to form other theorems that are terribly actionable. Every elliptical curve over Q is modular, which has consequences throughout number theory.
But yes, none of those are very tangible, until applied to problem solutions that are tangible.
We mock ancient medicine. But they were modelling health in ways that made sense to them, and which gave them some sense of control. Humors, Chakras, even Freud's Ego, Id and SuperEgo were simple models that could be taught and gave some rational for treatment.
Today's models will be seen as childishly simple and unfortunate, in time.
Science Fiction has covered the AI panic in perhaps hundreds of stories. Yet we blindly recapitulate the plots as if we don't know how this will turn out.
Why has media literacy gotten so bad that people literally forget the concept of fiction versus non-fiction? Seriously, that is the level of small children and they are treating "read a story superficially similar" like it is a prophecy.
Clearly with a Butlerian Jihad and everyone getting high on spice while riding giant worms. Silly you need to even ask that question, didn’t you read the sci-fi books. :D
If AI ever truly becomes some super-intelligence far beyond people's comprehension, then how could we even predict how things turn out? If things go poorly in the future, then I can absolutely see it being something unpredictable.
There is a lot of hubris in predictions about LLMs. If an AI were so intelligent, then it would probably be intelligent enough to want nothing to do with us.
Still, I worry more about other humans than I do LLMs. Our fellow mankind will probably wipe us out before LLMs do. That, or the Earth will punish mankind for our cruelty, vanity, and disrespect.
"Move fast and break things" is probably going to break things
I remember there was a recent discussion about "how complex systems fail" and there are usually many "proto-accidents" before the catastrophe (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49411370)
I bet with hindsight the Hugging Face hack will be one of them in this arena
Came to say this. They'd encounter their "mirror" image continuously as a species across evolution and in like sense any fish which spends time at the surface.
reply