This has nothing to do with 5 year plans, but with having a functional and competent government enable to enact a coherent long term policy.
In western countries every couple of years we elect a new clown show, which then proceeds to destroy whatever the last clown show tried to accomplish. That has happened again and again for decades, truly awesome "our democracy".
>I think it is unlikely philosophers would have suggested to treat population growth like tuning a PID controller.
We are talking about Marxist philosophers. These weren't some scholars of Christianity, who would have insisted on the inherent worth of human life and the injustice of state intervention deep into personal lives, these were the same "philosophers" who justified extermination programs based on the insufficient revolutionary spirit of the exterminated.
>We should embrace any way to get a clean running car on the road.
No. We should embrace the technically most feasible, which opens up new technology to the most people.
EVs are the clear winners. Every cent spent on hydrogen infrastructure is a cent wasted, because it could go to making the one feasible technology better. Arbitrary openness to technology long after it has been clearly established that the technology is inferior is not a good thing, it is a path to stay on ICEs forever.
Hydrogen is a bad idea. The only way to defend it is by pretending modern EVs do not exist, since they solved all the existing problems and offer numerous benefits over hydrogen.
Additionally the customer has already chosen and he has chosen the right technology, because the value proposition of an EV is far greater than that of a hydrogen car.
When comparing EVs to hydrogen cars it is very obvious that one is the superior solution.
An EV is a clear simplification of an ICE. Add a Battery and replace the mechanical complexity of a combustion engine with a relatively simple electric motor. So many components are now unnecessary and so many problems just go away. EVs also make charging simpler.
Hydrogen cars on the other hand are very complex and also quite inefficient, requiring many steps to go from hydrogen generation to motor movement. And they require a very sophisticated network of charging infrastructure, which has to deal with an explosive gas at high pressures. Something which is dangerous even in highly controlled industrial environments.
I just do not see a single reason why hydrogen cars would catch on. EVs are good already and come with many benefits.
> An EV is a clear simplification of an ICE. Add a Battery and replace the mechanical complexity of a combustion engine with a relatively simple electric motor. So many components are now unnecessary and so many problems just go away. EVs also make charging simpler.
Is it? Then why isn't it cheaper to produce and cheaper to own?
> Hydrogen cars on the other hand are very complex and also quite inefficient, requiring many steps to go from hydrogen generation to motor movement. And they require a very sophisticated network of charging infrastructure, which has to deal with an explosive gas at high pressures. Something which is dangerous even in highly controlled industrial environments.
It's a standard combustion engine, nothing special.
EVs are so much more cheaper to own that it is difficult to explain to people who own ICE cars as they, in majority of cases, just cannot comprehend it
My EV has cost me ~$1,100/yr less to operate over the last few years for the same mileage compared to my ICE, and I didn't even have any major issues with my ICE. Meanwhile its been charged with almost exclusively 100% renewable, zero-emission energy.
You're both wrong, the Mirai uses a fuel cell as the voltage source for an otherwise EV drive train. The Mirai is an EV with a fuel cell instead of a battery.
>Is it? Then why isn't it cheaper to produce and cheaper to own?
Because batteries are very expensive. But they aren't particularly complex.
This argument just does not make any sense at all. Of course simple components can be more expensive. The cost of ownership is even less relevant, since it depends almost entirely on outside factors, which vary by region and government.
>It's a standard combustion engine, nothing special.
This is totally false. The hydrogen storage alone is enormously complicated. Hydrogen, especially at the pressures needed for a car to be viable is far more complex to store safely then fuel storage for a regular diesel/gasoline car.
Pretending this is not the case is just delusional.
>I thought it's settled science that polygraphs don't work
Of course they do. And if you read the article in the OP you also realize why.
Polygraphs are an interrogation tactic, you can force a subject into a somewhat ridiculous procedure and ask them threatening questions, creating an disorientating situation. Afterwards you can accuse them of having "proven" that they are a liar. Polygraphs work, it just does not matter whether the machine is on or off.
I have an edition of the Nibelungenlied, which presents a modern German translation right next to a version of the original text. While the original is somewhat difficult to understand there is an amazing continuity between the two.
To me this made it clear that the German Nation has been clearly defined over the last thousand years and just how similar the people who wrote and enjoyed that work are to the native Germans right now. Can only recommend people do something like that if they want to dispel the delusion that people of your Nation who lived a thousand years ago were in any way fundamentally different from you.
The EU is one of the worst tech regulators in existence. The only reason they have not yet tried to ban 3D printing is because they are too tech illiterate to have heard of it.
Phone batteries are already replaceable with standard tools. Instead of having waterproof phones, the EU wants to mandate back phones which die when you are caught in a shower. Reliable water proofing is only possible with gluing in seals, I really hope some lobbyist can actually show them what the consequence of their actions will be. I do not want to have to import a phone from the US to get a usable device.
Saving the environment by creating mountains of dead phones, killed by water, is such an incredible EU move.
It's not AGPL 3.0. The binaries are MIT, the codebase (from where the MIT binaries are built from) is AGPL 3.0, except for the bits of the codebase that are Apache 2.0, and there's some kind of a promise about not enforcing a part of AGPL if you don't link to their platform directly and exclusively use the bits of the code that are Apache 2.0, and also don't make a modified version of the software. And also you can just license it commercially too.
It says you "may be licensed" to use the source code under AGPL v3.0, but never actually makes an unambiguous statement that suchandsuch code is licensed under AGPL v3.0.
The concept of MIT licensing a compiled software artifact, but not the code used to generate the artifact, is also extremely strange.
Right, the correct way here is to simply grant _everyone_ a license to _everything_ under the terms of the AGPL (or whatever). You can then separately license portions under other terms.
You don't need to note the commercial licensing option in the license itself; it's irrelevant to that grant. You just state that elsewhere.
Why is the government doing this, this seems like a ridiculous waste.
Here in Germany private corporations provide APIs for this. Google maps straight up tells you the price at nearby stations.
Maybe the UK government should focus on things such as their crumbling infrastructure, their almost non existent GDP growth or getting rid of their knife murderer and rapist population?
No it wasn't. A hardware defect so disastrous that it affects floating point computation on the neural engine, yet so minor that it does not affect any of the software on the device utilizing that hardware is exceedingly improbable.
The conclusion, that it was not the fault of the developer was correct, but assuming anything other than a problem at some point in the software stack is unreasonable.
The hardware itself is utilized by many pieces of software on any Apple device. Face ID uses it, Siri uses it, the camera uses it, there are also other Apple on device LLM features, where you could easily test whether the basic capabilities are there.
I highly doubt that you could have a usable iPhone with a broken neural engine, at the very least it would be obvious to the user that there is something very wrong going on.
> The conclusion, that it was not the fault of the developer was correct, but assuming anything other than a problem at some point in the software stack is unreasonable.
What do you mean? The developer is perfectly justified in being upset over a basic example not functioning correctly, due to bug on behalf of Apple's developers. It just wasn't reasonable to assume that the bug was due to malfunctioning hardware.
All neural accelerator hardware models and all neural accelerator software stacks output slightly different results. That is a truth of the world.
The same is true for GPUs and 3d rendering stacks too.
We don't usually notice that, because the tasks themselves tolerate those minor errors. You can't easily tell the difference between an LLM that had 0.00001% of its least significant bits perturbed one way and one that had them perturbed the other.
But you could absolutely construct a degenerate edge case that causes those tiny perturbances to fuck with everything fiercely. And very rarely, this kind of thing might happen naturally.
You are correct that implementations of numerical functions in hardware differ, but I do not think you correctly understand the implications of this.
>And very rarely, this kind of thing might happen naturally.
It is not a question of rarity, it is a question of the stability of the numerical problem. Luckily most of the computation in an LLM is matrix multiplication, which is s extremely well understood numerical problem and which can be checked for good condition.
Two different numerical implementations on a well conditioned problem and which requires much computation, differing significantly would indicate a disastrous fault in the design or condition of the hardware, which would be noticed by most computations done on that hardware.
If you weigh the likelihood of OP running into a hardware bug, causing significant numerical error on one specific computational model against the alternative explanation of a problem in the software stack it is clear that the later explanation is orders of magnitude more likely. Finding a single floating point arithmetic hardware bug is exceedingly rare (although Intel had one), but stacking them up in a way in which one particular neural network does not function, while other functions on the hardware run perfectly fine, is astronomically unlikely.
I have seen meaningful instability happen naturally on production NNs. Not to a truly catastrophic degree, but, when you deal in 1024-bit vectors and the results vary by a couple bits from one platform to another, you tend to notice it. And if I've seen it get this bad, then, surely someone has seen worse.
In western countries every couple of years we elect a new clown show, which then proceeds to destroy whatever the last clown show tried to accomplish. That has happened again and again for decades, truly awesome "our democracy".