mempko

40 ms·

601.
by mempko 3y ago
You don't need private investment to do electrification and renewable energy. That can be done by the government. Which doesn't have funding problems, ever.
602.
by mempko 3y ago
Before we can talk about food insecurity, (we have that too in the USA), we need to talk about the insane amount of food waste here. You can downshift the economy and IMPROVE food security if we take that as a priority. It's all about
603.
by mempko 3y ago
Never equate commercial impact with scientific breakthrough.
604.
by mempko 3y ago
Let the hamster free!
605.
by mempko 3y ago
Wait, so instead of charging their crypto mining customers more, they are paying them not to mine? WTF? You have to love their "free market" energy grid /s
606.
by mempko 3y ago
Except most tech investment happens at the government level. Computers were in government labs for 50 years before being privatized. Same with the internet. Also, as Woz told the story of Apple, they built the Apple II on a shoestring budge
607.
by mempko 3y ago
Or look at it another way. What if the guy being robbed missed, then robber shoots him and all around him. Which would not have happened if the wallets were just given. It's always better to de-escalate.
608.
by mempko 3y ago
Yes, because mass protests seem to do well to stop wars. I remember when there were mass protests in the US for the Iraq war and it was over in a month. Remember that time? /s
609.
by mempko 3y ago
Raku is great but needs that killer use case. Raku is the best language for processing / parsing / generating text. I'm surprised nobody took it and created the best in class LLM toolchain with it.... langchain but better. An
610.
by mempko 3y ago
You don't need to use tie and make_tuple. Another person posted a nice example.
611.
by mempko 3y ago
Climate deniers are going to use this in 3 2 1....
612.
by mempko 3y ago
It's not some technical point but crucial. The person is using the idea of 'my taxes are paying for their blunder' as a moral point. But that's simply not true. It completely nullifies that argument because they are basi
613.
by mempko 3y ago
Global Warming will (and probably already has) completely ruined that calendar. The problem with creating such optimizations is over fitting (every ML person here should understand this). And since now the underlying system (the climate sys
614.
by mempko 3y ago
What are you confused about, maybe I can clarify. Where am I wrong?
615.
by mempko 3y ago
Rational minds love rationalizing don't they.
616.
by mempko 3y ago
> The issue isn't "what people eat," it's "what taxpayer should pay for." I think what he's saying is that the government shouldn't be paying for unnecessary luxuries for people who can't affo
617.
by mempko 3y ago
Except most of that money went into their pockets and not buying food. So how could it affect food prices? The issue is that companies got greedy and decided to charge more because they thought they could get away with it. The money printer
618.
by mempko 3y ago
So you are saying poor people should only eat bad, cheap food? What's your point exactly?
619.
by mempko 3y ago
Which libertarians, American or other? Very different.
620.
by mempko 3y ago
When US life expectancy stops going down, we can start talking seriously about comparing quality of life here vs everywhere else.
621.
by mempko 3y ago
It's good except all the fat phobia and hate for people on welfare. So no, it's not about class struggle. It's about rich politicians who help out fat welfare slobs instead of hard working people like himself. It's a con
622.
by mempko 3y ago
Lets say you have a process that uses all available energy and energy grows exponentially at say 2% per year. This means energy doubles every 35 years and so does the usage of it. If the process is 95% efficient at using the energy for use
623.
by mempko 3y ago
It's better to miss news cycles, but at least this one was about exciting science instead of dreadful politics.
624.
by mempko 3y ago
What both of these miss is that all energy expended creates pollution. If we exponentially scale our energy (say using a Dyson sphere), we will exponentially scale our pollution. This is physically unavoidable. What's the point of usin
625.
by mempko 3y ago
I've been telling people the same thing. The aggregate demand for ALL knowledge work will go up because of LLM not go down. Why? If someone is 2x more productive, then they become 2x more valuable for the same pay. There are all sorts
626.
by mempko 3y ago
Carbon neutral is a joke. How much carbon did it take to build the machines? Their power comes from renewable energy, but our renewable infrastructure is still being built with oil. Nothing is carbon neutral until we completely transition a
627.
by mempko 3y ago
And solvable since other societies have solved it in the past and today.
628.
by mempko 3y ago
What's great about this is that there is SO MUCH MORE MATH to learn outside the calculus pipeline. Reading this post and seeing the list made me realize, 'wow, I've heard and know a lot of this but there is so much here to le
629.
by mempko 3y ago
Or revolution.
630.
by mempko 3y ago
Sure, but what is this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32047663

More ›