trasneoir

4 ms·

1.
by trasneoir 7y ago
"[Engineers] tend to overestimate what can be done in the short-term and underestimate what will be done in the long-term." I'd expect level 5 autonomy to be slow, because level 4 delivers 80% of the benefits for 20% of the c
2.
by trasneoir 7y ago
I'd quibble with the price point - economies of scale can reduce the cost of nuclear pretty dramatically. That said, I've got no problem with it in principle. Pricing externalities properly seems the simplest way to solve the trag
3.
by trasneoir 7y ago
Support for nuclear power has become my acid-test. If somebody is serious about making urgent and effective change, fission has to be on the table. Volume is the key to price - we need an internationally-vetted medium-sized design, with a s
4.
by trasneoir 7y ago
Some designs currently in use, if catastrophically mismanaged, yes. OTOH, some newer designs (eg LFTR) are walk-away safe: Nuclear explosions/meltdowns are physically impossible short of deliberate sabotage.
5.
by trasneoir 7y ago
These studies compare short-term results of reduced fat vs reduced carbohydrate diets. I don't see how they relate to glucose vs fructose?
6.
by trasneoir 7y ago
It seems clear that bots will dominate humans in many/most competitive closed-world games over the next couple of years: They are already unbeatable in perfect-information games like Chess and Go. They could crush human motor racers to
7.
by trasneoir 7y ago
We can afford to manage risk, but not eliminate it. If we allow safety to rule us completely, we invite regulatory capture and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws