ThomPete

12 ms·

91.
by ThomPete 3y ago
It's not necessary. There is already the necessary legal framework to this, but they have now turned it into regulation which is the legal version of compelled speech. There is a world of difference between. You can't do X vs. You
92.
by ThomPete 3y ago
No science is based on explanations that are hard to vary (i.e. explain what they purport to without any competing explanations). We use scientific experimentations not to prove but to rule out alternative theories. I can explain why a give
93.
by ThomPete 3y ago
I hope no one takes this kind of junk science seriously. "could" is typical for wild speculation and at attempts at news-making rather than news-reporting. Other words in that category "might, potentially, risks" There i
94.
by ThomPete 3y ago
This is not the problem. The problem is that thinking in terms of these distinct subject matter is at the very heart of the problem. Reality doesn't have a clear divide between different subjects. You can start from anywhere and build
95.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Your reaction is typical. Now listen to the whole thing and see how he answers your (typical objections)
96.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Probability is not knowledge creation.
97.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Bayenism is great for things that doesn't require explanations it's horrible as a method for knowledge creation.
98.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Popper didn't equate science with falsification. That's a gross simplification that's often pushed (I once believed that myself) yet doesn't actually hold up (once you put his thinking under scrutiny)
99.
by ThomPete 3y ago
I am surprised no one have mentioned David Deutsch yet as he probably have the best critique of induction (and a much more useful alternative) than any other living person. He is also the father of quantum computation and his two books Fabr
100.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Here is how I think about it The LLM's are infinity app stores. All you need is an LLM and a database plus the ability to speak english and you can replace most features provided by SaaS services today. The GUI becomes a byproduct of
101.
by ThomPete 3y ago
In my experience having pitched to VC's it's not that there is a perfect deck but many really bad ones. I.e. there is diminishing returns on a "perfect" pitch deck. You just want to be in the category of not sucking and
102.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Unless we can control it the black holes at that time.
103.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Batteries will make it extremely expensive and we don't even have the technology to do it at scale.
104.
by ThomPete 3y ago
The problem with that argument is that wind and solar needs backup from fossil fuel.
105.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Well you can.
106.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Again yes, but that's not the point. The point is you can't do that with any other energy source.
107.
by ThomPete 3y ago
I am not talking about tomorrow. I am talking about the potential of what you can do with the energy density.
108.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Fusion is not just another way to power our lightbulbs it's a completely different kind of energy. Two unique properties of energy density like Fusion. 1. The ability to hit 10% of the speed of light in space 2. The ability to create f
109.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Well provide me with a scientifically proven consequence of climate change and I will tell you how we deal with it.
110.
by ThomPete 3y ago
They don't scale and they don't provide enough energy density to do provide energy for new types of solutions.
111.
by ThomPete 3y ago
No there isn't. There isn't a single scientifically proven consequence of climate change we don't know how to deal with.
112.
by ThomPete 3y ago
You have to come up with a better alternative that doesn't take things away. Your examples are good examples of things that are not better alternatives, they are worse. I don't think most people realize just how unique a material
113.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Whether you can make sense of what I am writing is out of my control. However there is nothing in what I said that isn't factually correct. If that makes me boomer contrarian the so be it.
114.
by ThomPete 3y ago
agree, whats your point?
115.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Wind and solar the two darlings of climate catastrophists is less than 3% of the worlds energy consumption and they will not be able to help getting the 3 billion people who uses less energy than a US fridge per year into the modern era. Fo
116.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Wasn't his argument that coldding weakens the young? And wouldn't that make it consistent with the social media claims?
117.
by ThomPete 3y ago
Climate change is now climate catastrophism. It's unfortunately many times more doomer today than ever. And while climate itself is not energizing, "doing something about it to save the world' is because it's simple even
118.
by ThomPete 4y ago
I already explained why the positive outweigh the negative. But there is a simple experiment you can do. List all the things you can't live without. List if they are possible without CO2 For those that aren't list if it's pos
119.
by ThomPete 4y ago
All the time that gets freed up for more people to create new things instead of being forced to do manual labor. The benefit of computers, AI, medicin, the ability to save life by being able to drive patients to hospitals and keep babies al
120.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Things that are reflected in the price is by definition not externalities. Which is why we are even talking about negative externalities. To that that all positive externalities are already factored in while the negatives ones aren't i

More ›