constantcrying

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.

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.

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.

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.

You should read the license, it seems somewhat insane to be honest: https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I said that student activists struggled academically, your counter point was that at your school student activists made it into high political offices.

What other interpretation of your words could there be except you believing that people in high political offices are above average students.

Why do you think that it is a given that politicians perform better in school? Here in Germany many prominent politicians were academic failures or dropouts.

We had student council elections, where the candidates were listed by degree and the semester, the trend was overwhelmingly that the candidates were in semesters after the usual graduation date, often having studied for more then 5 years.

In my experience of University much of student activism was done by students who struggled the most academically and often made it part of their agenda to ease academic standards.

You are posting this on something which can only be described as "social media".

There is enormous value in letting humans communicate freely through the internet and any harm which comes from the misuse needs to be very carefully weighed against the benefits.

By the way, fossile fuels are partly responsible for the greatest uplift in human quality of life. Pesticides are essential in creating a sustainable food output.

Autonomous cars, drones cheerfully obey prompt injection by road sign

This is just a lie and has nothing to do with the research, which in a baffling decision does not appear to be linked in the article. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.00181

For the reasons outlined in my post I believe that it is hard to show specific causal claims which relate overuse of mobile devices and especially social media to specific problems. Although I think for some specific cases this could still be reasonably inferred.

Just to be clear, the evidence seems overwhelming. This is not some novel research field, but this questions has been researched for long enough to have been pretty conclusively answered.

1) I've yet to see evidence that the medium is the problem,

This is not relevant to the claim. The claim is that the specific usage pattern of young adults is harmful to their development.

I'm not convinced that these social media bans are solving a real problem.

I largely agree.

This is of course a trend in many western countries. With some, like the UK and Australia, leading the way.

At this point I do not think it is reasonable to deny the harm that certain modes of social interactions over the internet have caused. At the same time these bans should not be considered reasonable options. They exist to cover for the decade of inaction of politicians in addressing youth dissatisfaction and dysfunction.

A reasonable approach should not assume that the root cause of this dysfunction is youth interacting with social media, but should consider what lead to this in the first place. Apparently most adults seem to be capable of dealing with this situation, if they are not why would this ban, or at least some regulation, not extend to social media for adults.

In general I believe that dysfunction in the youth has multiple causes and that overuse of social media is just on part of the puzzle and that unhealthy use of social media is often caused by other problem and used as a coping mechanism.

These bans will not be effective and they will be assaults on the free internet, as the bureaucrats establishing the laws are also seeking to control the internet for themselves and will use this as a backdoor.

People do not realize how dire the current economic situation is. Many of the large traditional businesses are on the verge of becoming unprofitable.

The monumental task of ripping out the IT systems they have built up over the last few decades, to move away from the US will actively threaten the existence of some of these companies.

People are living in a fantasy land where e.g. Germany has an enormous automotive industry which can be arbitrarily regulated and still be profitable enough to keep the German economy afloat. This is non longer the case and many EU companies are currently struggling for their existence.

Many European companies are already struggling financially, especially the large traditional businesses which form the backbone of the European economy at large.

Now you demand that these companies should rip out decades of the IT systems they have built up, which form the backbone of their day to day operations and replace them with third rate alternatives, nowhere near in capability, support and coverage?

Yes, I love open source and I wish to see it succeed, but this proposal is suicidal. Even if a superior and less costly alternative did exist (and it does not, just to be clear), just the effort of switching over would ruin these companies.

Expecting the crash of the most important economy in the world based on two graphs, where you do chart astrology, is such an insanely stupid argument it is hard to fathom.

With all these charlatans predicting imminent collapse it is always imperative to consider how strongly they believe in their revealed preferences, based on how much they have invested in their position. That said, how much money does OP have invested e.g. in shorting the S&P 500? Or any equivalent. Let me guess, zero dollars.

don't really understand how could anyone imagine a world where MS could just refuse such a request

By simply not having the ability to do so.

Of course Microsoft should comply with the law, expecting anything else is ridiculous. But they themselves made sure that they had the ability to produce the requested information.

This is just absolutely insane. Why are you publicly humiliating your most successful founders on the home page of your VC firm?

"Here is an awful photo of our star founders. Look at how terribly they looked and what awkward nerds they used to be, when they came here."

You need to fire whoever green lit this.

Germany is rapidly deindustrializing, caused partly by high energy prices. Whenever I see a headline like this, I only see that I will soon be out of a job, together with millions, and prosperity in Europe will come to an end.

To be honst I think state run lotteries are a pretty good idea, if they would replace other forms of gambling, which apparently is becoming less and less true, especially with the rise of the completely under regulated prediction markets.

Regarding the subject at hand, I think a very obvious and necessary first step is banning children from participation. Obviously this is easily circumventable, but at will at least be some form of harm reduction.

I think another possibility as a first step is a forced limit on how much an account is allowed to spend in a given time, e.g. the company is only allowed to add digital goods not exceeding X euros to the owners account, together with restrictions on how these items are traded, this will make whaling impossible, which is apparently the most important demographic for developers. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjI03CGkb4 ]

The problem is not "spending too much" on videos games. It's the reward structure designed to incentivise one to spend unbounded amounts - just like a casino.

I do not think you understand how these games work or how they incentivize spending. Lootboxes and gachas work very different to a Casino and equating their reward structure just makes no sense at all. Psychologically they work in very different ways.

I hate to be defending lootboxes and gachas, but the psychology behind those is very different to how a Casino works. Gambling addicts are at an especially high risk of suicide, because they expect some amount of returns on their gambling activity, if those returns fail to materialize the player can be in immense debt. This just can not happen with a gacha, where you know upfront that every euro you spend is a 100% loss. Again, this should not be a defense of lootboxes, but we have to be honest about these mechanics.

And the psychological mechanisms are also different, gachas and lootboxes appeal very much to a collector mindset, where people play until they get a certain rare digital good, but playing after that would be pointless. This is a different mechanism to gambling in a casino.

And just like a casino, I don't know that making them fully illegal is the correct way to go.

I see no reason why either should be legal, to be honest. We exclude kids from casinos, because their ability to make informed decisions is limited, but the same is true for a gambling addict. Letting people just ruin their lives for whatever reason seems a pretty insane policy.

You want to support Hitler, Stalin, or Mao? Yeah, that's a tougher sell here. You're probably going to get downvoted to oblivion for it.

This is not true, which is the worst moderation decision about the site. This site would be greatly improved, if this actually was how it worked.

If you post any actually extremely anti-consensus opinion here you get one or two down votes, your post gets flagged and everyone ignores it. This is obviously an anti-trolling measure, but obviously people will just abusively flag anything they really do not like.