Re: Hmm
There's also geothermal, which might be worth a try, if we could find a way to make deep enough holes.
94 publicly visible posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
"Together, the arrays will produce approximately 700 watts of electricity at Jupiter, or just enough to operate a small microwave oven."
The magnetrons in microwave ovens are only about 60% efficient, so a 700W microwave would consume around 1100W. This could be a problem for anyone on board the Europa Clipper who fancies a jacket potato.
The in-car conversation problem could easily be solved—with AI! If I was in charge of Uber, right now I'd be secretly recording all of the conversations going on in my vehicles, and using them to train a giant LLM so that it could hold optimal 'taxi driver' chats with passengers. "Do you know who I had in my cab the other day...?"
All modern processors optimised for themselves, with out of order execution, executing multiple instructions in parallel, elaborate branch prediction, all manner of caching, etc. I think the problem is one of diminishing returns - we've got so clever at all of this optimisation that further improvements require increasingly complex hardware and only give marginal benefits.
Where were the tests? Surely a system like Horizon would have had thousands and thousands of tests—unit tests, integration tests, directed tests, random tests, etc.—plus coverage analysis to ensure that everything was being tested, and a regression system to run the tests regularly. So Mr Jenkins wouldn't have to 'accept' that everything was working, he could just look at the most recent test results. Or am I being naïve?
I recently acquired a newish VW, and I'm already fed up with the amount of unnecessary technology in it, complete with very poorly-designed user interfaces, and so-called 'assistance' features that don't work properly and just end up being distracting, which is the last thing you want when you're driving. I don't want to think about how much worse the driving experience would be with an AI assistant trying to 'help'. It's tempting to say that I'll never buy another VW, but I fear that by the time I need another car, all manufacturers will have gone the same way.
Totally agree. We need WW2-scale sacrifices, from everyone. Unfortunately no government would ever consider this because it would be be political suicide. It's possible to get support for sacrifices on this scale if there's a really obvious and immediate threat, e.g. an evil army massing on the borders. But climate change is happening too gradually, and it looks a lot like the danger won't appear severe enough to justify the necessary drastic steps until it's too late to turn things around.
Ditto with my 41-year-old HP-11C. A beautifully-made thing, slightly battered but still working perfectly. And I remember back in the 80s/early 90s, there would be labs full of HP test gear that was totally solid and reliable. And expensive, admittedly (hence HP = "High Price") but you felt you were getting your money's worth. Those were the days!
Government departments clearly don't have the skills or resources to build their own IT systems, but what they do need is a few senior people who understand both the workflows and the technology well enough to ask the right questions, to define appropriate requirements, including for security, and to be able to monitor private sector development and deliverables to ensure those requirements are being met. I suspect that a lot of problems stem from the fact that nobody in the organisation has much of a clue about IT, so it's easy for suppliers to pull the wool over their eyes.
Quick calculation - EVs seem to get around 6..7km to the kWh, so 400km would require at least 60kWh of charge. To get that in 10 minutes would mean a charge rate of 360kW. Even the fastest chargers don't currently get anywhere near that. And I believe the highest charging voltage currently in use is 800V, at which 360kW translates to 450A, which would need a rather hefty cable and connectors. None of this is insurmountable, but it's going to need a lot of infrastructure improvements to make this new battery technology viable.
I was impressed (in a bad way) by the Amazon checkout dialogue box that said "Would you like a free trial of Prime?" with big YES and and NO buttons. On the 'NO' button in tiny text it said "NO, I don't want to miss the opportunity to try Prime!" So effectively it was another YES button. I eventually found the real 'no' option, which was even tinier, and lurking in the corner of the screen.
I sort of see the point you're trying to make, but to me the victims of these laws aren't just those who are directly affected. I would never visit one of these states—I'm not LGBTQ+, but what about my friends or colleagues? The idea that someone I know (or even someone I don't) could be punished for this is horrific, and I wouldn't want to be somewhere where that might happen. Conversely you could argue that the abortion laws don't affect 50% of the population, but only the much smaller proportion that might actually seek an abortion, but again that's not the point—these laws take away every woman's rights, whether they're directly affected or not.
"...concerns that the market might not be working well."
I confess I don't understand much about economics, but it seems to me that if you have a single monopoly supplier for an essential emergency service, that's not a market at all, and it's hardly surprising that the customer is in a poor bargaining position.
Surely Airwave should just have been a set of open protocols, plus a compatibility testing regime. Then multiple suppliers of the actual equipment could have been appointed, giving some opportunity for a competitive market to operate. Or am I being naïve?
I have a scheme for reducing aviation CO₂ emissions by 50% - fly half as much. There we are. Job done. Just organise some kind of voucher system to limit the number of flights anyone can take to (say) two return flights per year. Much easier than all these technical solutions, and could be introduced very quickly. It would only be temporary, of course - the scheme would be withdrawn once truly zero-carbon aircraft are available. I know it wouldn't be popular, but sacrifices are going to have to be made if we want to save the planet.
The speed with which Cruise analysed and rectified the problem is impressive.
But I wonder how many other 'unique' situations these vehicles are going to encounter. I reckon that pretty much every time I go for a drive, I see some weird event that I've never encountered before. Some random recent examples:
(1) When joining a large motorway-junction roundabout, met a vehicle that was reversing back round the roundabout.
(2) Had to slow down to let a peacock cross in front of me.
(3) Had to go the wrong way round a traffic island because someone had parked in such a stupid place that I couldn't get through on my side.
(4) Had to disobey a red light at some roadworks, as it became obvious that the lights were stuck on red in both directions.
Really not sure how a self-driving vehicle would have handled any of those. And they're just a few examples.
Education is a two-way process - real students ask questions, whereas the current crop of AIs don't, and you can tell a lot from what questions they ask. Perhaps this could be the basis of an AI-proof exam, where the question doesn't provide all the necessary information, and the student is expected to ask for it.
I was also taught not just to allow enough stopping distance for me, but also for the vehicle behind. So if something is following too close, I try to allow extra space ahead of me so that I can give the idiot behind more chance to stop. A rear-end crash in those circumstances wouldn't be my fault, but it would still be damned inconvenient.
This seems like a precaution that 'full self-driving' software could handle quite easily.
I'm not clear how taking £48.6 million away from the bank is going to help them to improve. Won't this just impact their customers, in reduced services and/or lower investment returns? It seems to me that we should be directly punishing those responsible, rather than the bank. A year of community service for whoever made the decisions and/or ignored the warnings might make those in a similar position in other organisations sit up and think.
Any software should start with some requirements. In this case, one of those would be "only the legitimate owner can unlock the vehicle." Then there's some software engineering to implement the requirements, then a coder can write the code. And then, crucially, it's subjected to a barrage of tests to ensure it meets its requirements. For anything security-related, that should include penetration testing. So there's a whole bunch of fails here, but the lack of proper testing seems the most egregious. This software is protecting a valuable asset, and ought to have been treated accordingly. Or am I being naïve?
When my friend's Vauxhall Viva was stolen around 1980, the police found it abandoned and managed to get into it with a Ford Cortina key. Pretty much any small flat piece of metal would unlock it. On top of which, it was possible to open the Viva's bonnet from the outside, and under the bonnet was a button labelled 'push to start engine'. Since then car security has steadily improved, with proper keys, alarms, deadlocks, immobilisers and so on. Until recently, that is, when technology seems to be returning us to the 'push to start engine' stage.
How about this... all self-driving cars must have a safety driver. The car logs every occasion when the safety driver has to intervene. When every car in the fleet has logged no interventions at all for a period of, say, a year, then maybe we begin to think about allowing vehicles without a safety driver.
Sadly I can only give one upvote. This is exactly what I've been saying for years, not because I have any special insight but because it's the obvious thing to do, supporting genuine competition, and not allowing any one company to monopolise things. But when did common sense ever play a part in major government procurements?
I still use my seven-year-old TomTom GO. It works pretty well, it still gets map and firmware updates, it has a much better windscreen mount than any phone bracket I've been able to find, and it doesn't constantly report my location to Google or Apple. If it broke, I might even consider buying another.
I'm sure I remember Josephson junctions being 'the next big thing' back in the ... 90s, or 80s, was it? It's nice to see them back again. But I'm now wondering how big your supercomputer has to be for the energy saving of this new technology to outweigh the energy cost of the substantial cryogenic cooling plant that would be needed to get everything down to 4.2K. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
I've used Facebook for 12 years or so, and have never seen a "tidal wave of hate". A couple of overly-heated discussions, but that's about it. But then I choose my FB friends carefully. All that's needed is a bit of education in how to use the platform and guard against abuse. Take care over sharing settings. Unfollow or unfriend people if necessary. Problem largely solved.
Isn't this just a new sort of compiler? We used to write assembler, but now a compiler does that for us, based on some input in a high-level language. This AI is doing much the same, translating an even-higher-level description into something that can be swallowed by a traditional compiler. If this catches on, the programmer's job will become the writing of that natural-language description, in a sufficiently precise way that the AI can understand and solve it.
One area where this might get interesting is in software testing. If the AI 'understands' the problem, it should also be able to generate suitable test cases. But would you trust a system where the code and the tests were derived from the same source? Or do we assume that the AI's code is always correct, and therefore doesn't need testing?
Some things that would help the situation:
1. Standardised cables/connectors so any EV can charge from any charger.
2. No 'account' or special card needed, so you can just turn up, charge and pay, just like with petrol.
3. Breakdown services (AA, RAC, etc.) have a mobile recharging service, so that if you do run out, you can call them out and get given enough charge to make it to the nearest charging point (or, alternatively, just get towed there).
If most people are onside, then make the process opt-in. Have a form that states what will be shared and with whom, and have people sign that form and send it to their GP. This should be fine if most people are so strongly onside with the plans.