gmueckl

You are ignoring the US and EU politics about regulating access to and distribution of and legal use of models. From my admittedly slightly limited perspective, it looks like China is politically more laid back about those developments than the western nations are.

Did Russia or China already map out US AI data centers as nuclear first strike targets? The more these companies brag about "cyber capabilities", the more likely it becomes that ab adversary sees a need to take those capabilities out physically.

How manypeople have deleted another user's hone directory, though? That's s the proper analogy IMO.

Approaches to stylisation different a lot. Feature animation works a lot with physically correct rendering as a starting point, for example. But when a hyper stylized look is the goal, approaches start to differ a lot. For example, algorithmically flat shading and outlining 3D characters to give them a manga/anime appearance is an art form in itself at this point.

AO is derived from full GI with some extremely crude approximations. Anything that simulates full GI more accurately is implicitly a more physically accurate replacement of AO. Still, AO is not dead because it is still a rather simple and cheap cheat to add more visual definition to concave corners and highly shadowed areas. Sometimes, artists decide that their scene should have this extra touch.

One theme that is common to almost all visual art that strives for some form of realistic appearance is that they start out with real material appearances and physical lighting behavior. Both are inescapable parts of the reality in our physical world, anyway.

By extension, this means that it is highly desirable to have a renderer capable of reproducing the real world as a baseline for highly controllable aesthetic tweaks. When you look especially at VFX specific tools, they have - almost without exception - two layers of tools: the first creates a realistic simulation (e.g. water/fire/shattering...) and the second layer allows for tweaks to control the final look.

While the resulting looks and aesthetics are very different, the same physical model for light scattering can be used to describe both. Any approximations of that are a concession to available computer performance.

It's rather an indicator of a system that is so broken that a digital copy of a single form of ID document is sufficient to impersonate someone well enough to do financial damage.

It's probably a complexity and cost thing: heating the wheel just requires heating wires in the wheel connected to a switch. Cooling requires a some cooling medium getting pumped into the wheel and back out into a heat exchanger or vented outside. You need pipes of some sort inside the wheel and wheel hub.

Let me be a devil's advocate here: you have essentially two options.

1. You write release notes thet contain technical details. Less than 1% of your customers understand them. More than 90% probably won't even care, let alone understand the document. And then there are the folks who get confused or scared and reach out to customer support with weird questions. This generates extra workload.

2. You explain nothing. The release simply is. The technically minded people are mildly annoyed. A few customers affected by open issues wonder if it's fixed now. The rest of them doesn't even care that there is an uodate and carries on with their lives. Customer service continues to complain about the usual bunch of random and weird customer issues.

It's quite natural to start doing (2) in a consumer facing business, isn't it?

An include with a HTTP URL is a scary abomination straight put of hell. Please tell me that this is a compiler explorer specialty (which would still be cursed, but in a cool way) and not a GCC feature (which would be an absolute nightmare).

You are following a structured course. I meant unstructured in the sense that topics are not chosen based on a properly designed curriculum or syllabus, but based on personal preferences alone.

If I had time, I would go down a different route: I would to let an agent come up with a tool assisted speedrun for a hackable game. The agent would be nudged in the prompt to analyze the game and write custom tools to help it optimize. Inwonder if that would lead to anything meaningful. I highly doubt that the agent can comprehend an unseen complex game and optimize for a whole graph of objectives.

On the contrary, this is best description of what conservation of energy means: all externally generated forces acting on the system do vary with time. Im other words, this is a closed system as defined in thermodynamics.

The nature of energy is really just a result of this property.

The difficulties with energy in GR are related to the fact that those equations alone allow for space-times that are truly bizarre. Some that are technically solutions to the field equations are clearly nonphysical (e.g. Goedel's solutions). There is also a priori no reason why e.g. expanding metrics should actually yield proper conservation of energy.

Conservation of energy is simply the invariance of a system to translation in time: the system shows the same time evolution from a well defined starting state regardless of whether that state exists at a time t or a time t+t' with an arbitrary t'. This is one application of Noether's theorem.

This is an example of a topic that unstructured self study would likely skip. But it is included in every properly structured course because this theorem puts a fundamental explanation to all conserved quantities that occur in classical mechanics.

Maybe it will not have any mmediate application. But guess what? It's still cool! And that can be its very own reward if you let it.

Oh, btw: electricity was a novelty toy for several long decades with no major practical applications. But that eventually changed because people kept researching it. And it changed the world.

There is no handwaving involved. The layman explanations of these phenomena are not that good. The quantitative derivations that leads to those results are totally fine, but hard to follow without deep knowledge of the subject.

Physics education sometimes aligns with historical evolution of the theories, mostly because that builds intuition and because the mathematical founsations of the improved theories need to be taught first. That leads to the "but in this case..." moments, but you need to realize that what you get taught as a "fix" is practically always a careful evolution that also reproduces all predictions from the less complete earlier theory.

Where is physics chock full pf exceptions?

No, this is a valid point. Court cases are usually playing out slowly amd carefully. So, in order to prevent harm to the parties involved caused by that slowness, injunctions can be issued by the court that can provide reasonable relief from immediate damages from the dispute that can't be compensated for or reversed later. In Germany, getting relief through an injunction really is about proving that lasting damage is caused while the case drags on. The full merrits of the case are explicitly excluded from consideration.

The power is checked in multiple ways: confirmation by the parliament is required in many cases and the court can overturn council decisions. The only issue is that one check is weak amd the other one is very slow.

For doing actual work? Getting in touch with constituents, listening to them, faction internal coordination, working on committee specific stuff, understanding proposals and motions of others, maybe filing their own... when taken seriously, this can be an intense job.

Most of the work of an MP is not sitting in plenary sessions looking bored. The normally important bits are in-between - committee and office work. This specific event here is an example of a plenary session suddenly being made extremely important by a procedural trick.

Remote Attestation has valid use cases. I assume that you see problems with e.g. RA backed DRM or tamper protection on consumer devices like smartphones. In an ideal world, a political decision would have to be made about allowed use cases for RA that sets up limits where it conflicts with consumer protections. This isn't a technical problem.

Not all computing that is useful must also be absolutely secure. Maybe we just have overextended the use of computers into areas where using them generates too much risk? If so, where is the boundary?

I have news for you: those systems already exist and they work. The "insurmountable" development work has already been done. How long you can safely look away from the road is determined mostly by physics and has hard bounds. More than ~5 seconds is never OK while the vehicle is on a public road. At speed, a single second can be a second too long. The problem isn't that the road looks clear now. The problem is that this can change instantly, without warning and in the most surprising ways at any moment. A kid running into the road from behind a car, an object falling onto the road, an animal jumping onto the road from the brush/ditch/tree-line... the list goes on. Forcing the driver to pay attention is good. There is no massive situational leeway.

Those nudges are gentle and totally safe in every car I've ever had. And no "random" nudges outside road construction work with dubious lane markings where you need to have a grip on the wheel anyway. A regular firm grip always overrides lane keeping.

This hyperbole is barely worth responding to. If someone really triggers alerts on such a regular basis, then I have to question whether they have a road legal driving style based on the quality and accuracy those assistants actually have now achieved.

Oh, and the dashboard in my newest car is smaller than any dashboard with analog needles could ever have been. Dashboards probably have gotten smaller, not bigger with the switch to LCD screens.

I need to call bullshit on this. I own the same system and it totally allows looking around for normal driving. Stare to the side or the center console for more than a few seconds and it will alert you - exactly at the point where it becomes recklessly unsafe to do so.

Owned a Ford Mustang Mach-e with BkueCruise for about 3 years now. No obvious false alarms about missing attention. Interestingly, it doesn't get confused by my sunglasses and still catches me looking aside for too long. I think it is a rather good implementation overall.

It also allows inclusion of client side scanners in E2Ee messengers. It seems that nobody did it (yet), but as far as I can tell, it is within the scope ofthe exception.