That every currency is not accepted everywhere in the world, though every one you listed is pretty commonly accepted by business and as such you absolutely could by things with them in the Eurozone, is not an argument that they are the same as an casino token.

Yes lightning, the network of centralized trusted third party banks that are needed to make bitcoin useable so long as you deposit all the bitcoin you want to use into one of these centralized banks first, at which point they can make bank to bank transfers without having any involvement with the actual bitcoin network at all.

Or you could do basically the same process with an actual Debit card, which does the same thing but can be used in actual stores.

You also need to note that for something posturing itself as a currency, the fact that you either have to wait hours or days for the price per transaction to come down or spend an even more absurd transaction fee on you’re cup of coffee before you can check out is actually a rather fundamental problem.

I’ve rarely heard it suggested as an investment, but it can actually be realisticly used to goods and services outside of itself and as such does have an actual purpose, which is more than can be said for any crypto currency.

I don’t think it’s obvious that a tool for loaning money to businesses would be primarily used for loaning money to businesses trying to solve problems with the tool itself.

I don’t think the internet has really changed all that much when it comes to due diligence. Maybe it’s a little easier to do background checks or find a person’s previous projects, but you still need an trusted third party to audit a company, you still need to be sure who is legally liable for if things go wrong, etc…

Neglecting that a lot of companies don’t actually want every person’s pay, every dime they spend for a luncheon, and every thing R&D buys to be publicly available to their competitors, it’s still not actually much help for verifying and auditing their financials because nearly all fraud already relies on people entering false information to the computer about what the transaction was for or why it was made, not anything that could be verified by the chain.

Um, no. Traditional markets have financial related companies, but you’ll have to show me where you’re getting the idea the finance sector makes up the majority of the traditional market and as such it is no different than the crypto space where finance makes up nearly the entire market.

I also don’t think that the existence of the internet really changed much when it comes to the need for rules for soliciting investment from the public such as providing investors accounting figures and legal accountability. Nor has it changed the fact that cryptocurrencies haven’t changed the process for gaining the investment necessary to start a new bakery or other small business and never will provide a pathway to do so, and as such hasn’t really changed much at all when it comes to providing customers with more access to investment loans outside of more crypto businesses.

A lot of the scandals you listed weren’t done under the current market regulation, but rather directly led to the current market regulation at the behest of the little guys who got screwed over and pressured politicians into passing it, and as such I just don’t see how removing the protections for the little guy is ment to benefit them over the rich.

I mean surely then the rich would be opposed to the crypto and loosening regulations rather than being the ones most heavily pushing and lobbying the government for them?

They banned it after it kept driving up energy prices.

It means that despite being fifteen years old, it still takes more electricity for a single bitcoin transaction than to drive an electric SUV from Florida to California, cost per single transaction has still spiked over 50 USD twice in the last six months, and it remains too prone to wild inflation and deflation for any serious business to actually price anything in.

In other words, it has the same inherent value it always has, none at all.

You realize that the things listed on the NASDAQ actually represent more than just an entery in a database, right? Like the groups listed on there tend to make physical objects and software that does things beyond move things that can be traded for currency around?

You also realize that the NASDAQ, without all the protections and basic rules the public forced it to adopt after vast numbers of little guys got screwed out of all their money, isn’t actually that great of a pitch? At least not to anyone but the far right uber rich libertarians that hold majority control of the crypto space.

We are talking about a technology that is about as old as smartphones, but which has still yet to see any widespread use to solve a problem it did not itself create.

Most people when starting out are, or at least should be, very uneasy about putting money into things with no underlying value or feasible purpose beyond being bought by a greater fool in the future.

In my experience you can typically just pull the fuse for the cell transmitter is you don’t want the vehicle phoning home, though they annoying tend to rely on the radio module for things like carplay and radio so it’s not a perfect solution.

Some manufacturers rely on the same module for the key fob though, so some research is required.

Definitely wish it was just an option in settings, but i’m not sure I would trust it if it was.

Why do you think that? The whole article was on how the only barrier to long trips in rural Canada was being overcome and on how heavily the First Nations and other inhabitants of the far north have been pushing for access.

I worry that a lot of the left is going to be hesitant to turn out to vote for a tough on crime cop so soon after we had nationwide protests against people like her and at a time when the stop cop city protests continue to get national coverage.

Meanwhile, I bet Fox is already talking about the DEI hire who never would have been hired to be anything more than a waitress if not for reverse racism.

And we haven’t even gotten to the chance that she isn’t even allowed to show up on the ballot in some Republican ran states because the deadline for submitting candidates already passed or whatever.

I mean despite the oil companies whining about how important they are oil represents what, 3.5 percent of Canada’s GDP?

I’m not exactly sure what someone working for a Murdoch outlet expected would happen.

I’m actually kinda amazed that this overview video is only coming out now given the topics Asianometry primarily covers are semiconductors, water infrastructure projects, and economic/corporate histories. I assumed that this topic was the first video to be uploaded to the channel.

You can’t publicly share nudes from your imagination or pass them out to your friends with five minutes work, something you basically definitionallly have to be doing in order to get caught.

Revenge porn is absolutely a serious method of harassment that does routinely end in suicide even for adults, and it is absurd to compare making it so easy that kids can do it to someone they’ve never talked to in minutes to fantasizing about their classmates.

As someone who unfortunately understands the original post, carbon credits could at least theoretically be made useful if they were verified and actually covered the cost of removing carbon from the atmosphere, which is more than can be said of the rest of the post or using web 3 for anything.

So? OpenAI is to my knowledge open about incorporating conversations into future versions of GPT, and you can often get it to replay training data in full, so your effectively publishing your conversations to the open internet anyway. This feels more like saying that my lemmy comments are stored in plain text on my phone than any sort of security violation.

But we could have an average of 684 9/11’s a hour, the actual number of car crashes per hour in the US, driven purely by the piloting skills of the average Amarican driver given command of an aircraft, who wouldn’t want to live in that future?

“A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.”

Even more importantly when it comes to assessing properly, machine learning, now referred to as AI, has been continuealy shown to not just repeat the biases in its training data, but to significantly exaggerate them.

Given how significantly and explicitly race has been used to determine and guide so much property and neighborhood development in the training data, I do not look forward to seeing a system that is not only more racist than a post war city council choosing where to build new moterways but which is sold and treated as infallible by the humans operating and litigating it.

Given the deaths and disaster created by the Horizon Post Office Scandel, I also very much do not look forward to the widespread adoption of software which is inherently and provablly far less accurate, reliable, and auditable than the Horizon software. At least that could only ruin your life if you were a Postmaster and not just any member of the general public who isn’t rich enough to have your affairs handled by a human.

But hey, on the bright side, if Horizon set UK legal precedent than any person or property agent is fully and unequivocally legally liable for the output of any software they use, after the first few are found guilty for things the procedural text generator they used wrote people might decide its not worth the risk.

They are definitely to simple to represent the entirety of an concepts meaning on their own. Yep, I don’t believe it’s likely that such an incrediblely intricate thing as a nuron, much less the idea of conceptual meaning, can be replicated by a high school math problem. Maybe they could be a part, but your off by about a half a dozen order of magnitude at least from where we are now with love being a matrix with a few hundred numbers in it.

No part of a human or animal brain operates on subtracting tables of cleanly defined numbers from each other so I think it’s pretty safe to say that no matrix calculation is done on a handful of numbers as part of much less as our sole means of understanding concepts or objects.

I don’t know exactly how one could tell true understanding from minicry, far smarter and more well researched people than me have debated that for decades, i’m just pretty sure what we think an kindness is boils down to something a bit more complex than a high school math problem discribing a word cloud.

Generally the term Markov chain is used to discribe a model with a few dozen weights, while the large in large language model refers to having millions or billions of weights, but the fundamental principle of operation is exactly the same, they just differ in scale.

Word Embeddings are when you associate a mathematical vector to the word as a way of grouping similar words are weighted together, I don’t think that anyone would argue that the general public can even solve a mathematical matrix, much less that they can only comprehend a stool based on going down a row in a matrix to get the mathematical similarity between a stool, a chair, a bench, a floor, and a cat.

Subtracting vectors from each other can give you a lot of things, but not the actual meaning of the concept represented by a word.

To note the obvious, an large language model is by definition at its core a mathematical formula and a massive collection of values from zero to one which when combined give a weighted average of the percentage that word B follows word A crossed with another weighted average word cloud given as the input ‘context’.

A nuron in machine learning terms is a matrix (ie table) of numbers between zero and 1 by contrast a single human nuron is a biomechanical machine with literally hundreds of trillions of moving parts that darfs any machine humanity has ever built in terms of complexity. This is just a single one of the 86 billion nurons in an average human brain.

LLM’s and organic brains are completely different and in both design, complexity, and function, and to treat them as closely related much less synonymous betrays a complete lack of understanding of how one or both of them fundamentally functions.

We do not teach a kindergartner how to write by having them read for thousands of years until they recognize the exact mathematical odds that string of letters B comes after string A, and is followed by string C x percent of the time. Indeed humans don’t naturally compose sentences one word at a time starting from the beginning, instead staring with the key concepts they wish to express and then filling in the phrasing and grammar.

We also would not expect that increasing from hundreds of years of reading text to thousands would improve things, and the fact that this is the primary way we’ve seen progress in LLMs in the last half decade is yet another example of why animal learning and a word cloud are very different things.

For us a word actually correlates to a concept of what that word represents. They might make mistakes and missunderstand what concept a given word maps to in a given language, but we do generally expect it to correlate to something. To us a chair is a object made to sit down on, and not just the string of letters that comes after the word the in .0021798 percent of cases weighted against the .0092814 percent of cases related to the collection of strings that are being used as the ‘context’.

Do I believe there is something intrinsically impossible for a mathematical program to replicate about human thought, probably not. But this this not that, and is nowhere close to that on a fundamental level. It’s comparing apples to airplanes and saying that soon this apple will inevitably take anyone it touches to Paris because their both objects you can touch.

Like say, treating a program that shows you the next most likely word to follow the previous one on the internet like it is capable of understanding a sentence beyond this is the most likely string of words to follow the given input on the internet. Boy it sure is a good thing no one would ever do something so brainless as that in the current wave of hype.

It’s also definitely becuse autocompletes have made massive progress recently, and not just because we’ve fed simpler and simpler transformers more and more data to the point we’ve run out of new text on the internet to feed them. We definitely shouldn’t expect that the field as a whole should be valued what it was say back in 2018, when there were about the same number of practical uses and the foucus was on better programs instead of just throwing more training data at it and calling that progress that will continue to grow rapidly even though the amount of said data is very much finite.

Except when it comes to LLM, the fact that the technology fundamentally operates by probabilisticly stringing together the next most likely word to appear in the sentence based on the frequency said words appeared in the training data is a fundamental limitation of the technology.

So long as a model has no regard for the actual you know, meaning of the word, it definitionally cannot create a truly meaningful sentence. Instead, in order to get a coherent output the system must be fed training data that closely mirrors the context, this is why groups like OpenAi have been met with so much success by simplifying the algorithm, but progressively scrapping more and more of the internet into said systems.

I would argue that a similar inherent technological limitation also applies to image generation, and until a generative model can both model a four dimensional space and conceptually understand everything it has created in that space a generated image can only be as meaningful as the parts of the work the tens of thousands of people who do those things effortlessly it has regurgitated.

This is not required to create images that can pass as human made, but it is required to create ones that are truely meaningful on their own merits and not just the merits of the material it was created from, and nothing I have seen said by experts in the field indicates that we have found even a theoretical pathway to get there from here, much less that we are inevitably progressing on that path.

Mathematical models will almost certainly get closer to mimicking the desired parts of the data they were trained on with further instruction, but it is important to understand that is not a pathway to any actual conceptual understanding of the subject.

At first glance I thought it was reuseing the coal plants turbines, but looking though the article the only connection I can find is that it’s located several miles away and the only connection is that it plans to hire a hundred or so people from the coal plant it’s replacing and that Wyoming’s powder river basin is nearby and its associated highly automated low sulfur coal mines are in the vauge area.

All this to say, yes it has practically nothing to do with coal.

Those little electric Pipistrels have been getting more common for instruction and pattern work down here for a bit too. I’m told they’re great fun if you just need to do a lot of sub hour flights every day.

Then by definition the employees are perfectly compensated for the value of their labor, as that labor can only be worth exactly what the company pays for it, and there is absolutely no reason why they should get any more. That’s actually one of the reasons why the value = money theory tends to be pretty rare outside of the far right libertarianism.

Please explain to me how any of the child level explanation of the stock market is obfuscation, or again how you think the market cap, a purely theoretical number, could possibly be redistributed to employees outside of things the company already does to some extent, and finally why it applies in this case with a company who’s stock price is based purely on speculation about what it could do in the future and not anything it’s employees are currently doing.

Also from your comment about how share price literally is the only measure of value for a company I’m taking it you follow the theroy of value that value directly equals the amount of money paid for it, which seems inherently contradictory to this entire conversation.

Technically, they don’t even make the actual graphics cards, they just design them and then outsource manufacturing to TSMC.

But don’t you know that doesn’t matter, because by 2028 every singe company in the world is going to need a data center filled with tens of thousands of AI accelerators turning their own scrape of the internet into a chatbot, and so one of the companies that makes thouse accelerators is definitely going to have as much business as companies that make half of everyone’s phones or computer software./s

Firstly it shows the value of individual shares multiplied by the number of shares, not the company as a whole. Secondly, in this case Nvidia’s share price is based on what the company may be able to expand to do in the future, not what it currently does. Thirdly, where would this repersentive percentage come from? If it’s, issueing new stock to employees, A Nvida already does that a lot, B, creating new stock is not practically reliant on overall market cap so why is it relevant, and C, would employees also be punished for destroying the valuation if it turns out that every company doesn’t actually need a data center full of several thousand AI accelerators scraping the internet to make unique chat bots and Nvida’s market cap falls back down to what it would be based on how much money the company actually makes?

Again, Nvida primarily makes chip designs for outsourced fabrication, not market cap, that three trillion isn’t like revenue for Nvidia. In your painting example, market cap would be like if two unrelated billionaires bet 10 billion on whether or not that painter would be successful in selling a hundred different 1m paintings in the next six months, the painter might have an easier time say getting a loan for new supplies from a bank if they can point to the billionaire betting so much on them, but you know it’s not like the painter was actually paid that 10 billion that makes up the bet, right? So it’s kind of weird to say that the painter’s work as a whole is definitely worth that 10 billion bet.

I’m saying that while a companies market capitalization is a real number that can tell you things about a company, it is not like anyone involved has a three trillion actual dollars. The company doesn’t see any of that money directly unless they directly issue more stock which would devalue the current stock, though there are some other ways for a company to use it to their advantage. Investors might be able to get a small percentage of that by selling, but only because someone else bought in with an equal amount of money, and a large sell will drive down the price.

More to the point, the evaluations people are doing with Nvidia don’t have much to do with what the company actually produces and puts out into the world today, but the assumption that it can turn its current leadership position in AI accelerator chip designs into growing massively in size in the future when every company needs a large data center or two to train their own individual LLM’s.

A individual stocks price is driven primarily by what people think that individual stock certificate can be sold for in the future, and effected by things like how many people are trying to sell, adding all of those certificates up at current market price doesn’t actually give anyone involved much information, nor does it reflect the actual quality, quantity, material, or labor taken to make things, in this case branded computer chip blueprints, that a company puts out into the world.

Now there are a lot of competing theories of ways to try and measure labor’s value, but my work being only as valuable as the speculative amount my organization as a whole might be theoretically sold for as a whole in the future if no one tries to undercut anyone else isn’t one of the more popular ones.

I don’t think many people would claim overall valuation has much of anything to do with the value labor brings to an organization.

In this case I think all it indicates is just how much the company’s stock price is driven by speculation about possible demand for generative AI, and even then I’m not sure that current price per share times number of shares divided by number of employees is a clear indication of that.

Not really trying to argue, just trying to help explain the high current DC battery systems I have experience with and to someone how seems to have some conceptual understanding of what individual components do, but not how and why they are used or where the limitations come from.

Them being confidently incorrect doesn’t help of course. :)

That being said you haven’t really given me much to work off of as to where these misconceptions are coming from beyond a journalist confusing applications for batteries and capacitors and this really seems to be going nowhere, so bye.

Again, there are no capacitors car side to be produceing thermal load in the first place during dc fast charging in the first place, and that thermal load is not the primary barrier to how much current can go into the battery without degradation anyway. After all, if it was we would just upscale the cars heat pump and be charged in five minutes.

Car charging is not coordinated to the point where they all plug in within a few seconds, and if it was a few second randomizer on when eqch timer actually starts charging would accomplish the exact same effect without hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in new grid scale capacitors and inverters.

This is also unlikely to become a significant problem because a lot of the grid is moving to battery backed solar and wind, where the limit is price per megawatt hour and as such said batteries can provide far more current than the grid could consume. You might be limited by inverter capacity, but storage capacitors are also fundamentally a DC technology so you would need them anyway.

This may turn out to have benefits for electronics that rely on already specialized supercapacitors, but it can by definition not have any impact on processes that are not currently limited in any way by capacitor technology like battery bulk charge current, the thing that actually limits how fast a car can fast charge.

Obviously nearly every electrical circuit board uses capacitors in some respect, especially for filtering and smoothing, but it is extremely rare for them to be used for bulk energy storage outside of things like adjusting power factor.

Given we are talking about charging times, which are primarily limited by the batteries charge current vs degradation curve and not at all by the various small capacitors in the charger’s electronics, there is fundamentally no effect on charge times unless you are replacing the energy storage medium itself with supercapacitors.

We can already supply enough dc power to charge an EV battery at its maximum designed curve via dc fast charging stations, which involve some contractors and shunts but actually don’t even involve any size of capacitors at all in the car itself on the HV side.

No, it doesn’t effect devices of all sizes, only devices that might use this specific bulky capacitor, all other devices will show exactly zero improvement because there is no real point to mixing capacitors in with a large battery. Being able to quickly get three minutes of charge per whole hour of battery capacity you replace with capacitors just isn’t that useful because you might as well just stay plugged in for an extra few minutes and get the same charge plus that extra hour before needing to find a charger at all.

As for EV’s the problem is even more pointless, as being able to go a half mile the street from a charger massive enough that it can output a small power plants worth of electricity is similarly to specialized of a use case to be worth the loss of range and greater degradation of the rest of the battery.

The researchers who wrote the paper only mentioned possibly applying the tech to very small things like wearables and Iot applications where a large capacitor might be relevant. It’s the journalist summarizing it that makes the wild claims about phones and cars, which don’t tend to use capacitors for a bunch of reasons, not least of which is that they tend to be physically twenty times larger than a given battery of the same capacity.

If people are able to deal with batteries anywhere near that large, then I’d imagine most of them would choose twenty times the battery life/ range over being able to charge fast enough overload a wall outlet/ small power plant.

While I think in this case they won’t have an effect because no Amarican company is even trying to compete in the space, I feel like claiming “history says tarrifs rarely work” is pretty misleading. The high tarrifs caused by the US generating nearly all federal income by tarrifs in the 17 and 18 hundreds are after all widely credited with being the reason the northern US went from being a minor agricultural nation dependent entirely on european industrial goods to becoming one of the largest industrialized nations so quickly.

Indeed that was why the WTO blocking third world nations from putting tarrifs on western goods was so heavily criticized by the left a few decades ago, before China proved you could do it without said tarrifs so long as your competitors were greedy enough to outsource their industry to you.