HN user
Possibly a case of a non-native English speaker using AI to translate or help them do their write up. In either case, it sadly makes the reading experience less enjoyable.
I get your point _and_ I do empathise with it.
But that said, for a UX'er I believe there should be a bit of shame in just doing the obvious amalgam of whatever 2-3 most popular things that already exist.
If you take on the UX lens, there's a lot of flaws in a lot of popular products, but they are accepted by the market because competition is not perfect. Copying that is not great, and I do think there is a point to be made on how "fine" shouldn't be the goal.
AbbVie | AI/Software Engineer | Remote, UK/US/Canada ONLY | Full-time Are you a great coder (Python/Typescript, but great skills are usually transferrable), who enjoys close collaboration with end-users in solving their hardest problems?
Do you have a solid foundation in the AI/LLM-world - or are you great at the above and willing to learn?
Are you well versed in data engineering concepts, and excited to work with the latest GenAI models and bring these solutions into production? Then I'd love to hear from you!
We are a small team who care deeply about our work as well as about each other. We iterate fast, and err on the side of prototyping and presenting something real, rather than spending hours in meetings and only producing slides.
Our vision for this project is extremely ambitious, and you will be a crucial part of making this a reality. We've been expanding the team over the past 6 months, and are currently looking to fill a few extra roles only in UK/US/Canada (location, not timezone).
If you fit the above description, hit me up at jakob.hoppermann@abbvie.com with your resume + a little bit about yourself!
AbbVie | AI/Software Engineer | Remote, UK/EU/NA | Full-time
Are you a great coder (Python/Typescript, but great skills are usually transferrable), who enjoys close collaboration with end-users in solving their hardest problems?
Do you have a solid foundation in the AI/LLM-world - or are you great at the above and willing to learn?
Are you well versed in data engineering concepts, and excited to work with the latest GenAI models and bring these solutions into production? Then I'd love to hear from you!
We are a small team who care deeply about our work as well as about each other. We iterate fast, and err on the side of prototyping and presenting something real, rather than spending hours in meetings and only producing slides.
Our vision for this project is extremely ambitious, and you will be a crucial part of making this a reality. We've been expanding the team over the past 6 months, and are currently looking to fill a few extra roles in UK/EU/NA.
If you fit the above description, hit me up at jakob.hoppermann@abbvie.com with your resume + a little bit about yourself!
AbbVie | AI/Software Engineer | Remote, UK/EU | Full-time
Are you a great coder (Python/Typescript, but great skills are transferrable), who enjoys close collaboration with end-users in solving their hard problems?
Do you have a solid foundation in the AI/LLM-world - or are you a great at the above and willing to learn?
Are you well versed in data engineering concepts, and excited to work with the latest GenAI models and bring these solutions into production? Then I'd love to hear from you!
We are a small team who care deeply about our work as well as each other. We iterate fast, and err on the side of showing a quick prototype of an idea, rather than spending hours in meetings talking about it.
Our vision for this project is extremely ambitious, and you will be a crucial part of making this a reality. We've been expanding the team, and are currently looking to fill a few extra roles in the UK/EU.
If you fit the above description, hit me up at jakob.hoppermann@abbvie.com with your resume + a little bit about yourself!
AbbVie | AI/Software Engineer | Remote, UK/EU | Full-time
Are you a great coder (Python/Typescript, but great skills are transferrable), who enjoys close collaboration with end-users in solving their hard problems?
Do you have a solid foundation in the AI/LLM-world - or are you a great at the above and willing to learn?
Are you well versed in data engineering concepts, and excited to work with the latest GenAI models and bring these solutions into production? Then I'd love to hear from you!
We are a small team who care deeply about our work as well as each other. We iterate fast, and err on the side of showing a quick prototype of an idea, rather than spending hours in meetings talking about it.
Our vision for this project is extremely ambitious, and you will be a crucial part of making this a reality. We've been expanding the team, and are currently looking to fill a few extra roles in the UK/EU-timezones.
If you fit the above description, hit me up at jakob.hoppermann@abbvie.com with your resume + a little bit about yourself!
AbbVie | AI Engineer | Remote, Europe or US | Full-time
Are you a great coder (Python/Typescript, but great skills are transferrable) with a solid foundation in the LLM/ML world? Are you well versed in data engineering concepts, and excited to work with the latest GenAI models and bring these solutions into production with us? Then I'd love to hear from you!
We are a small team who care deeply about our work as well as each other. We iterate fast, and err in the side of showing a quick prototype of an idea, rather than spending hours in meetings talking about it.
Our vision for this project is extremely ambitious, and you will be a crucial part of making this a reality.
If you fit the above description, hit me up at jakob.hoppermann@abbvie.com
AI Engineer (Remote, UK only)
We're building out the AI team at AbbVie UK.
Are you a great coder (Python/Typescript) with a solid foundation in the LLM/ML world and well versed in data engineering concepts, with an excitement to work with the latest GenAI models and bring these solutions into production with us, then I'd love to hear from you!
Our vision for this project is extremely ambitious, and you will be a crucial part of making this a reality. We are a small team who care about our work as well as each other.
If you fit the above description, hit me up at jakob.hoppermann@abbvie.com
SM has been producing good quality hardware for decades. I remember them from catalogues of my childhood. Obscure is not the right word here.
Possibly, but this is the situation we're faced with here in Denmark, as our cartel of unions have divided the market in such a way.
I agree that this is not necessarily what "unionization" means specificly, but this is the concrete case here, and thus my caveat as to the importance of the exact definition.
Thank you, great point.
(Also, I am thankful that you are descripting the SU correctly; one gets paid to be enrolled at a qualifying educational institution - paid to study, not paid to get an education, even though this is luckily what happens most of the time.)
In Denmark, our deliveries are currently not unionized, although there is a large debate around it. Denmark has no minimum wage either.
The people doing the deliveries for e.g. Wolt earn at minimum of 120 DKK an hour (~18,5 USD) on a scheduled shift and can often earn more, depending on how much they are willing to work. The last average I read is around 150DKK an hour (~23,30 USD) for delivery personel in that company.
The main issue with unionizing in Denmark is that it would require the companies to sign the delivery people to fixed-hour contracts (think nine-to-five), which doesn't work with the business model and isn't what most of the delivery people have expressed their wants about. Most of them enjoy the freedom and many in creative industries (e.g. musicians) use it as a way to supplement their income.
I think it is important to recognize what unionization actually means and whether or not that solves the problem, and before that; figure out what the actual problem really is.
Perhaps that’s the next cool idea for a business?
While not wanting to sound too negative in this response, I didn’t even consider the file size, but rather the creative possibilities that opens up when one successfully breaks with an otherwise common format and merges it with a new one.
Many legal systems allow limited retribution, if it can be seen as proportional to self-defense.
That said, there's an overarching idea that one shouldn't try to "get even" by lowering oneself to the other person's level. Proportionality as a legal concept makes it legal to defend yourself, but illegal to escalate the threat.
E.g. one can use fists against fists, but if B stabs A to death, it will be hard to claim it was in self defense, since there is no obvious proof that A was looking to murder B by punching B to death.
If it is possible to refrain from violence and use the justice system to replace it (by having B press charges against A), then that ought to be a more civil outcome.
One could argue that the reason to have a legal system is so that B does not have to go around preparing to punch back, but can spend her time doing more productive things and that is how we end up with a civil society, with a high level of productivity and freedom of expression, and a minimum level of violence.
It seems like you are missing an important aspect of UBI: What level of income will it provide?
If a (perhaps more fulfilling or “fitting”) life on UBI is to rival that of say a stockbroker, UBI must provide more freedom than one can get by working in that position, while perhaps saving up for early retirement.
The income level will have to be moderate at the very least, to rival that. Since it is supported by tax revenue, it must be part of a balanced budget. This can quite easily be matched by a reasonable income, where a good amount is put into savings each month.
I agree, that this is not an option for a lot of people, as their monthly expenses won’t allow to save like that. But then that isn’t something that UBI will fix - given its “basic” nature. If all else equal, the higher the level of UBI, the higher the price level as demand increases.
I do support some models of UBI. It could help in replacing the myriad of different welfare programmes that are only about money here in Denmark, where billions of USD are either wasted or swallowed by bureaucracy each year.
However, I find it almost fraudulent how UBI is being misused as a “Trojan Horse” by some people and especially by politicians.
UBI, like most other insurance schemes, will only work if most people are net-positive contributors. This makes UBI mostly into a welfare programme - something that’s limited in its use.
But if the idea is that it’s something for everyone, most of the time, I’m hard pressed to answer how it will work on a societal basis, without the use of force.
I don’t believe that is what you argue for, so please don’t take this as a straw man argument against your point.
The Danish legislation is setup in such a way, that all electricity consumers pay a tariff to cover the guaranteed electricity prices to owners of wind farms.
Still, Denmark often sold electricity for pennies on the dollar – or literally for free – to Norway, who in turn used the energy to pump more water into their hydroelectric dams. This energy was then sold back to us, at (higher) market rates, whenever the wind died down and Denmarks needed to import electricity, due to its inability to produce enough electricity to cover its own demand.
Often, when Scandinavia is getting a lot of wind, you can even see electricity prices going below zero. In some of those cases, you can sometimes see a group of wind turbines, where some are spinning at great speeds and other are completely still. This is in order for the producers not wanting to pay to get rid of their electricity.
While it is a shame that the storage problem isn't solved yet (except in the case of our shrewd Norwegian neighbours), I don't really fancy waiting for that to happen, when other options are (or rather should be) on the table.
> Not only are our energy prices among the highest in the world - how does 40 cents pr. kWh sound?
That sounds like a great way to reduce carbon footprint. All renewable power is used, so every extra (marginal) kWh used comes 100% from CO² producing generation. A price high enough to affect consumer's usage will reduce the carbon footprint.
I disagree; itis a rather backwards view and a misunderstanding of how cheap and plentiful energy has made the human experience less harsh and more meaningful for billions of people.
In Denmark it means that many Danish homes are being heated with wood stoves, wood pellet boilers, natural gas or even old oil furnaces. Neither of these have any meaningful filtering and emit CO2, whereas cheaper electricity would make heat pumps and other electric heating much more meaningful.
Remember: Cheap energy is not the problem, unless the low price point is due to political legislating, not requiring the producer to pay the entire "bill", e.g. by not compensating for emitting CO2.
Vestas and other wind turbine producers have done some clever lobbying by getting legislators to buy their "cheap" power, while leaving the issue of baseline stability to somebody else.
Better how? Scientists and professors with decades of experience in this exact field, disagree[0].
Burning wood even discharges more CO2 in the atmosphere, than coal[1] and we haven't even started to talk about where all those trees must be grown to keep up with the demand of an energy policy based on solar/wind + biofuel backup, like we are planning in Denmark.
It is not a terribly good idea and it is infuriating how little science and facts matter to a political discusssion that one would think was based around those elements.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/opinion/pruitt-forests-bu... [1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa512/...
As a Dane, I am slightly offended by the dishonesty of our politicians, especially concerning our energy policy, which makes no sense.
Yes, this is a big deal, but only because of the publicity value of the decision, as the environmental impact will be negligible. But this is the root of the problem: Denmark's energy policy is almost solely about publicity!
Since the end of the 1970s, our neighbours in Sweden have consistently followed an energy policy, that deliver cheap[0] and stable energy from hydro- and nuclear power, while emitting much less CO2 than us. Check at any time of day, and I can assure you that the emmissions from our electricity consumption will be higher than in Sweden[1].
While Denmark has almost phased out coal power, we've replaced it with "biofuel"; imported wood from Brazil, Estonia and the US. This is especially neat, as a technicality in the IPCC emmissions ratings views wood as a sustainable fuel, as the forest can be replanted and the emmissions will be stored in the wood until this is cut down and burned anew.
Our strategy was described as "accounting fraud" by IPCC scientist William Moomaw and "climate fraud" by Daniel Kammen, professor at Berkeley and a former IPCC lead author and Obama advisor. Denmark's seemingly incredible track record has even fooled our population: 78% of Danes believe that our primary source of renewable energy was windpower, when this was actually just 22% of all renewable electricity generation (biomass being 68%), which accounts for 35% of total electricity consumption [2].
This is problematic to say the least: Not only are our energy prices among the highest in the world - how does 40 cents pr. kWh sound? - we aren't making any real difference. The Danish strategy has always been sold as "a job creator" and "an export adventure", but isn't that just the same type of corporate greed, now in sheeps clothing?
Danish wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, was the primary recepient of billions of dollars in state aid, tax excemptions, etc., but every downturn resulted in layoffs, which always struck Denmark first.'
As CO2-levels have risen to a record level, we Danes keep on burning wood, straw and trash, while calling ourselves a "green leader", while our strategy has also left us wholly dependent on electricity imports from Germany, Norway and Sweden.
The inability to act sensibly is depressing and I hate how the entire issue of climate is being politized in such a way, that a civil discussion is close impossible, while lobbyists are having a field day.
So please spare me the praise of Denmark's policies. If nothing else, our deceptions are making things worse.
[0] Electricity prices in Copenhagen are ~ 50% higher in Denmark, than in Sweden. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... [1] https://www.electricitymap.org/map [2] https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2019-09-06-danmarks-klimaregn... (Google Translate should be able to translate most of the article pretty accurately)
I wonder which type of phone you're using...
Quite an odd thing to say. While it can be easy to think that someone looks alike due to the "overall appearance" of their faces, closer inspection usually sets things apart. Their completely different chins are one example.
Secondly, his DNA didn't match the missing person's database, which you are getting your "match" from.
There's no reason to be defensive. You've done nothing wrong. Wrong starts only if it is impossible for one to accept that one's theory might not be correct. That can ultimately end in throwing off the real investigation, if one were aggressive enough.
I know you're only trying to help, but they look nothing alike. And going missing on a shrimp boat leaving Texas, to then hike from up north seems too odd for Occam's Razor.
Where is it, then?
What I think you mean is that politicians have spoken and the market saw the open coffers and took advantage of that.
If I go to the market and ask for 240TWh of stable energy each year (Danish electricity consumption), without any carbon-based sources as backup, which technology will provide that the cheapest?
Oddly enough, electricity is 50% more expensive in windmill-rich Denmark, than nuclear and hydro-powered Sweden. One wonders what the market is trying to tell us Danes...
You are simply not correct.
I have read the study you cite. I don't question whether you've read the full study or only the news story, but the study has quite a few flaws and (what I view as) false assumptions. I'll argue against the news story, so I'm sure not to exclude anybody.
Nuclear and other renewables don't co-exist well, and both lead to lock-in and path dependancies
Why should they co-exist? If you have 100% of your electricity generated by nuclear power, that is literally zero sense in buying wind turbines.
The path dependancies are obvious: Wind farms require infrastructure that can handle 100% of the total power output, but will only see around 30-40% average capacity used. This requires a larger, decentral power grid, with a ton of resources poured into additional load balancing, as well as storage in times of low wind.
Modern nuclear power has a capacity factor of >90%. It requires the grid to be dimensioned to the needed power; not huge spikes in production. It doesn't require storage and it doesn't require expensive balancing systems, needed for intermittent sources of energy.
Countries with high GDP and nuclear lower their CO2-emissions slower than similar countries with other renewables
In Denmark, our taxes on energy has increased tremendously alongside the roll-out of "cheap" renewables. This obviously changes demand, which is why the study is indeed correlative.
And in Denmark we're cheating right now: Our biofuels (mainly wood from Estonia and the US) count as zero emissions, since they "grow back in 60 years". This type of fraudulent behaviour changes our balance sheet. And even with our massive expansion of wind energy, our average CO2-emissions per kWh of electricity used is still around 3-6x that of Sweden.
To the question of something being "true 50 years ago, but not true in the last 30 years", look to figure 2 in the link below and you will see how your statement is not correct.
The figure (and the article it originates from) clearly argues that e.g. my country of birth, Denmark, which has spent an incredibly large amount of money (relative to the size of our economy) propping up the wind industry and constructing large wind farms, have been much* slower at adding non-carbon energy sources to the production of electricity.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6299/547.figures-...
I know how Sweden produces its electricity, but I don't know what makes hydro relevant here? I am purely talking about the Swedish expansion of nuclear power, which was the fastest expansion of stable green electricity production in the world, to date. That it happened more than 30 years ago only begs the question, as to how no one has caught up to that yet.
Having asked the Swedish state nuclear authority about the possibility of expanding nuclear power, they state that given a positive political climate (e.g. removing red tape and vetocracy, but keeping a high level of safety), they could roll out new reactors in around 5 years, at $4100 pr. kW capacity. This is 10-30% cheaper than 2020 off-shore wind farms – without solving the storage issue!
For me, climate change is a serious issue, requiring serious solutions. This is where I see nuclear energy. All the talk of "slow roll-out" simply goes against the facts and oddly enough, the same people are also against rolling it out – talk about correlation!
Nuclear has the stability, economics and climate factors right. And newer technologies will only make this better. It must be done in a safe way. We can't have old plants not being maintained properly.
No new power plants have been built in the EU or US for the last 30 years, which has lead to brain drain in the industry. Newer plants might cost more in the start, but that too will level off. The same argument that one uses for their own preferred tech mustn't be forgotten for the opposing side.
I understand that you are invested in this debate, but it is simply indefensible to make these types of straw-man arguments. If you want to criticise nuclear power, try making a steel-man argument and argue against that. This is far more efficient – and respectful to your debate partner - than speaking against concrete facts.
There has been no other technology faster at decarbonizing the energy sector, than nuclear power. France and Sweden still hold the record for that exact same reason.
Where was this? I feel rude to object to your personal history, but no major, trustworthy institution has reported anything like this.
The worst nuclear disaster, Chernobyl, had around 50 casualties. This was mostly due to the handling by the Soviet Union, not something inherent to nuclear power itself (other than the obvious radiation involved, but the secrecy, lack of knowledge, etc. is 100% a political issue).
Batteries are not cheap. And current tech doesn't scale to the massive scale needed to fix the problem "cheap" wind and solar : unreliability.
I agree that "the Iran deal" is a sore issue. But that is not the issue. Regarding climate change, I would focus much more in China and India getting nuclear power plants (which they are building right now), rather than worry about proliferation, since that ship sailed decades ago.
Interesting (albeit expensive). I usually take any specs provided by the manufacturer with a grain of salt – including the idea, that you can get 1,2kW/hr of energy from the (static and encased!) solar panels on the roof alone! That seems quite far fetched, to say the least.
"This incredible range will be achieved through efficency improvements rather than just a bigger battery pack."
What an interesting statement! "Bigger" – compared to what? A Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD? That can do around 296 miles (EPA/Highway) – so the Mercedes-Benz will need to be 2,5x as efficient.
The drag coefficient is one area that could be improved. C(d) for the Model 3 is 0.23, which is pretty good for a production car. Lower than that and you are in experimental territory – which is probably how this project might end up for Mercedes-Benz.
Not bad, because these types of projects usually teach us something new. But not good, since this will be another "promise" broken, due to this inflationary PR-approach.