Potentially, yes. But that case would only be good against poor _execution_ of the war on drugs, not the _concept_ that drugs need to be dealt with as if we were in a war. Activists seem to oppose the concept, which is where I disagree.
The concept is fundamentally flawed. Curtailing rights and imprisoning people for victmimless crimes is incompatible with anything approaching a free society. There are many approaches to dealing with the problems inherent with drugs, we just keep using the wrong over and over and at an extraordinary cost, in money, liberty and ruined lives.
Living in Seattle and seeing the fentanyl crisis first hand, I disagree with you that addicts aren’t victims.
Not to mention the citizens who are victimized by the crime needed to sustain that addiction.
Legalization of marijuana has gone fine, but there are drugs so powerful that adults lose all control and reason, and I can’t see ever legalizing something like that.
The people you see on the street are a tiny percentage of illegal drug users. I'd also consider the vast range of options between where we are now (people dying regularly from contaminated street drugs, spreading diseases, violence associated with black markets) and full-on, no limits legalization. Somewhere in between is a place where we can save lives, enhance liberty and still not have Ultra-Meth available at every corner store.
What developer working on anything meaningful does not rely on documentation? You certainly have to make the documentation available similar to how you would have to make it "available" to an LLM. I think you might be missing the point about what the potential use-cases for these systems are.
Because there is a huge selection bias that influences the sample of people that comment on these types of posts. I will back up the claim that, in my experience, a lot of this thread is hyperbole. There is some truth to it, sure, but don't make the mistake of thinking these anecdotal accounts actually represent the typical experience.
The idea of connecting CV to audio via spectrograms pre dates Jeremy Howard's course by quite a bit. That's not really the interesting part here though. The fact that a simple extension of an image generation pipeline produces such impressive results with generative audio is what is interesting. It really emphasizes how useful the idea of stable diffusion is.
Could you elaborate on your point a bit more? If you're talking about utilizing the weak force vs. the residual strong force then I'm not sure this argument holds up.
Also, when comparing to renewable+storage you have to consider how much land has to be dedicated to energy use in these scenarios. Wind and solar require orders of magnitude more than a potential fusion reactor (or an existing fission reactor).
Just referring to what particles the released energy is carried in.
The easiest fusion reactions to make happen release most energy as neutrons. But neutrons are, from a practical standpoint, a huge pain in the ass to deal with. They just fly off until they hit another atomic nucleus.
They irradiate the structure of reactor, making it radioactive and weakening it, neccesating periodic replacement. This means handling radioactive materials, which as the existing nuclear power industry demonstrates, is hard to make cheap.
Reactions that release excess energy as charged particles, though all harder to actually do, leave you with charged particles that can be directed by electric or magnetic fields and can be used for direct enerergy conversion.
Yes solar requires a lot of surface area, but fusion power is just not looking like it will be anywhere near cheap enough for the real estate savings to matter.
Neutrons aren't that hard to capture. They are certainly harder to capture than charged particles but there are plenty of materials that are dense enough to reliably capture neutrons. This is how heat is extracted from the reaction to use in a generator. The activation of the containment material is a problem but it's not even close to the level it is for fission reactors where you're forced to deal with spent fuel rods.
At the moment fusion is obviously not cheap but no one is planning on using the technology in its current form for actual power generation. The processes involved will all get more efficient and given the astronomical upper limits of energy output from fusion it doesn't take a big stretch of the imagination to think that it will eventually be preferable to solar and wind power. There's no guarantee that will happen but hopefully this breakthrough will trigger more investment and momentum to make it a reality. I also want to add that I'm very pro solar and wind, especially in the short term.
Personally I am very fond of voluntary human extinction.
If we give up on withering away, and instead learn to accept death with some dignity instead of becoming a parasite to our offspring, euthanasia is a good way to go.
The fact that the older, non productive population will be more than the productive population in the not so distant future suggests that we need to rethink the way we go about doing things.
If life expectancy moves past 100, and people retire at 60-65, society will need to feed and take care of people for 35 or so years, that is far far more than the time and money it invests on its children, for a much larger segment of the population, which suggests that the old exploit the young.
1.) You're talking about a nested comment on a hacker news post. A little perspective is helpful.
2.) You are making grandiose and uncharitable assumptions about the interpretations of things other people said, e.g. equating not having the words to to describe something to implying that we should give up trying to understand it more.
3.) Having a physical definition for every term in an equation does not mean the resulting behavior/phenomenon can be conceptually explained with words. Can you conceptually explain what "spin" is for an electron?
3. For starters, the math does not explain "what spin is". So you've introduced a fallacy off the bat, and I suspect it was intentional. But if you tell me how you know about spin then I will explain it conceptually. It's not so complicated. None of this proves anything though. What's the fallacy called? I dont remember.
And I guess you're going to invoke some vague connection to angular momentum to do so? We're talking about empirically derived properties. The math certainly predicts the empirical results but it does not give an accurate conceptual connection to concepts that we, as humans living and interacting with a classical world, can actually understand.
edit to add a bit more: I should also point out that no one introduced a fallacy except you. You are, yet again, stretching other peoples words to build straw man arguments for yourself. I don't remember ever making the claim that the math explains ""what spin is"".
we dont live in a classical world, noob. things tend to decohere and mix at this scale but quantum phenomena are obviously observable. and no, you're the one arguing in bad faith. this discussion was about whether these mathematically modelable concepts can be explained by a knowing person with words. not whether i can magically explain something you dont even have math for. go away and find something productive for your life instead of attaching yourself to discussions to feel more alive.
"Can you conceptually explain what "spin" is for an electron?"
> You are really an unpleasant person to interact with.
I'm sure Meletus felt that way while Socrates was absolutely wrecking him in court and exposing his hypocrisy. Maybe that's why they murdered Socrates?
You are not qualified to take part in the debate I raised. It's obvious you dont understand the little physics you have read nor know the math you're trying to talk about. You should count yourself lucky instead because this conversation is a chance for you to open your eyes to a world of physics which is even more amazing than you realized. Instead you'll probably just keep trolling. 'The starting point of true learning is the realization that you're not actually aware of anything yet.'
> let me know next time you personally observe a quantum phenomenon with your own senses.
to my knowledge, literally every single "sense" measurement is a "quantum" phenomenon which happens via entanglement along with literally everything else at all scales. you still have insufficient understanding of this.
and dont mince words about quantum being a theory and things being beyond theory. you contradict yourself in that way and if consciousness is beyond our science now and that is your point then I invite you to stop arguing with me and will remind you that we are discussing experiments in real life and what physics means, not what I feel in my heart.
I remember when I had delusions of grandeur in my mother's basement as well. I'm sure in your mind you're "absolutely wrecking" every person you attack online. As stated by a previous commenter, you should probably spend less time on the internet inventing straw men to "absolutely wreck".
as long as you do not discard your preconceptions and delusional words then you are going to misunderstand that what is being opposed or destroyed while you are being freely educated and benefited is you. just forget about me and go read about entanglement and measurement.
