dojomouse

9 ms·

31.
by dojomouse 8y ago
This seems basically the same as an ion engine without the need to BYO ions, relying on the existing ion/electron mix in plasma being sufficient and suitable. Which makes it seem fairly credible. Potential for much higher efficiency th
32.
by dojomouse 10y ago
Finish working through 'AI - A modern approach' Finish reading 'From AI to Zombies' Get to a point with Rust that it's my go-to language for personal app development and general scripting. Super happy to see Rust fe
33.
by dojomouse 10y ago
++ this. The branches of maths that are relevant to ML are all pretty extensive, and you can do a huge amount of applied ML and understand the underlying theory while understanding only a fairly small subset of (for e.g.) probability theo
34.
by dojomouse 10y ago
AI simply working to satisfy the 'benign' goals given to it by human programmers, without our having adequately considered all possible consequences (which, guaranteed, we won't), can be incredibly dangerous. You should read
35.
by dojomouse 10y ago
Can't tell if you excluded startups where the founder had a previous successful startup (solo or otherwise) but it doesn't look like it? I think this would massively distort your results. Founders with a history of success are vas
36.
by dojomouse 11y ago
| Graham is arguing against an enormous straw man. Word. I don't know anyone who understands enough to actually have a discussion (e.g. isn't some back to nature hippy) and seriously thinks we should attempt to minimise the opport
37.
by dojomouse 12y ago
I love it, but it let this go completely uncensored: "This transformative change in paradigm allows us to move beyond conventional thinking and kickstart the data driven era." Gonna go ahead and flag that as a bug :-)
38.
by dojomouse 12y ago
Uber's brand doesn't seem very strong to me ("Oh yeah! Uber! They're the ones who deny any responsibility for accidents and attempted kidnappings of users of their service, right?"), and in any case it's only g
39.
by dojomouse 12y ago
So much criticism of Google! My question: Why on earth would Google want to cede any significant chunk of the personal transport value stream to Uber - or acquire them at a $40Bil+ valuation - when the main (only?) semi-uniquely valuable th
40.
by dojomouse 12y ago
Exactly not quite what they sound like.
41.
by dojomouse 12y ago
Interesting implications (which I'm sure people who've been thinking about it for longer than me have already considered) for the development and evolution of Friendly Superintelligent AI. The way this is presented, personhood (wh
42.
by dojomouse 12y ago
We're building a similar service at Teleport, and recently ran a few numbers on the benefits of this sort of trip sharing assuming large scale and self driving EV's. Really can change the entire transport experience in cities - cl
43.
by dojomouse 12y ago
I looked at it in some detail but they were a pain to assess. Wouldn't give me any details of the API or feature set unless I created an account... for a non-refundable $200 fee. I pointed out how ridiculous this was, and they said tha
44.
by dojomouse 12y ago
It depends heavily on the level of refurbishment required between flights; agreed. I don't think there's enough examples to say "typically". The shuttle didn't come close to targets, but SpaceX seem to be progressin
45.
by dojomouse 12y ago
I hope the roadmap for these guys includes controlled descent and landing for the rockets - otherwise they haven't got a snowballs chance against SpaceX. The aerospike dependence on aerodynamics implies it will be much less effective w
46.
by dojomouse 12y ago
Oh, of course. Nanomachines. So basically we should celebrate this contemporary not-really-an-innovation because some future speculative innovation might make it useful... and ignore the fact that it's much more likely that the future
47.
by dojomouse 12y ago
Not at all. I'm pointing out that whatever process you assume to get carbon out of the atmosphere, you should plug the inputs and outputs of that process into your calculation. Speaking of circular processes though... does this one loo
48.
by dojomouse 12y ago
So, they respond to numerous fairly well founded accusations that their 'idea' is laughably lacking in solid analysis with... a cherry picked selection of accusations and rebuttals which are also laughably lacking solid analysis
49.
by dojomouse 12y ago
Uhh... I disagree. Firstly, I don't see the circle in the following: - SolutionX puts lots of CO2 into the atmosphere compared to alternatives, and would be extremely uneconomic if we included in the cost/unitSolutionX the cost re
50.
by dojomouse 12y ago
It's more like saying 'if you're looking at a new solution you better account for every step of the process, including costs and losses, and compare to viable alternatives, before deciding it's a good thing. The logic is
51.
by dojomouse 12y ago
It's highly recyclable. Aluminium oxide (the result of the reaction in the battery) is one of the feedstocks for industrial aluminium smelting. Recyclable isn't necessarily the same as 'efficient' or 'a good idea&#x
52.
by dojomouse 12y ago
Really enjoyed the read, but I don't understand the line about going from 500km/h - 1000km/h in 5 seconds... treetop level or otherwise. Is that really possible? I think my math is off if so. Mass with a 900kg fuel load looks
53.
by dojomouse 12y ago
Sorry, I didn't word that very clearly - yes it's a liability, but it's a liability that's fairly independent of the levitation mechanism. I think it's more clear to say "That's the whole point of evacuate
54.
by dojomouse 12y ago
The atmosphere isn't a liability for Maglevs, you could make hyperloop with maglev tech and it'd still work fine. The tracks don't need to be powered for most Maglev concepts; superconducting maglev doesn't use powered t
55.
by dojomouse 12y ago
There are a couple of differences between this and Hyperloop. 1. The hyperloop white paper proposed air bearings as the levitation mechanism, rather than maglev. This could be swapped out without much change to the overall concept (and, in
56.
by dojomouse 12y ago
Yes, so you could write r + (amount that upward volatility helps) - (amount that downward volatility hurts) > g
57.
by dojomouse 12y ago
No, volatility can increase as well as decrease returns.
58.
by dojomouse 12y ago
I think you've reversed r and g vs ops notation, but yes, agreed. R can exceed g with no trouble, right up to the point where all economic growth is directly absorbed by capital accumulation (or whatever terminology you want to use for
59.
by dojomouse 13y ago
This seems to be what I need. What map data are you using?
60.
by dojomouse 13y ago
Basic income doesn't have to be all or nothing. You can supplement with targeted aid. Just should be able to get away with a lot less effort since you only need to cover the obvious extreme cases.

More ›