swansont

That must be why nobody puts wind turbines just offshore, or on the coast. Except for all the ones that are just offshore, and on the coast. There is a link in the article, which shows a rather nice picture of the wind and solar farm, and the exceedingly flat land around it. The generation there ensures the transmission lines are in place, so no new ones are needed. AutoNotionA windowless concrete tower 40 stories tall on the China...China has a third option up and running on its coast now, and it doesn't look like either one. North of Shanghai there's a 148-meter concrete tower that

And if you don’t live near a mountain?

“China built a 40-story tower that stores wind power by stacking concrete … Surplus wind power hoists 35-ton blocks cast from recycled concrete and industrial aggregate toward the top. When the grid needs electricity again, the blocks descend and spin the generators. The tower stores 100 megawatt-hours and can deliver 25 megawatts for about four hours, at a targeted round-trip efficiency above 80 percent, with a 35-year lifespan and no chemical degradation.” https://boingboing.net/2026/07/06/post-china-built-a-40-story-tower-that-stores-wind-powe.html I did a rough calculation in my head and realized you’d need around 10k blocks to do this, and that seemed like a lot, but apparently it’s what they do https://s203.q4cdn.com/692145866/files/doc_news/CNTY/2024/Rudong-100MWh-Gravity-Storage-Project-of-China-Tianying-Inc-CNTY-Gains-Spotlight-on-CCTV-Translated.pdf

This was already being done, before modern ai. The big battles in LotR used digital characters with crowd simulation software called Massive, so this dates back ~25 years. https://www.cnet.com/culture/entertainment/features/how-lord-of-the-rings-used-ai-to-change-big-screen-battles-forever/ But battles aren’t the same thing as acting, with close-ups and dialog, etc. I guess we’ll see how well its received, since Tilly Norwood is set to appear in a film https://variety.com/2026/film/global/ai-actor-tilly-norwood-movie-debut-misaligned-1236802325/ The wikipedia page gives some insight into the pushback within Hollywood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilly_Norwood

Pretty sure this is false; there are examples of animals (e.g. crows) trying to solve problems - some multi-step problems - by trying things. “Will this work?” is an experiment. Few of your pronouncements here have been backed up with citations that support them. I know you can’t prove a negative, but if you had checked you might have found your claim to be incorrect. It can’t agree. You agree based on the possibly flawed information you were presented. You’ve assured us that you are just being sloppy with your language, but if you’re being sloppy with this it doesn’t give a lot of confidence that you aren’t being sloppy elsewhere. As said in the philosophical treatise*, [people] Who can't say what they mean don't mean what they say *Wordy Rappinghood, Tom Tom Club I started a short one, but I recall longer ones https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/140316-the-ways-we-think/#comment-1306600

One analysis I read claimed that the pipe liner shrinks slightly while curing, which is okay in pipes, but on a flat surface it’s going to cause it to crack and/or detach

All because the Cubs won the World Series in 2016

But “my headache is painful” implies that it’s painful to the person saying that. The truth of that statement does not just exist for that person, even though only they experience it. Being personal means that the truth can’t be independently verified.

Thanks! That makes sense. And saves me a dive into the rabbit hole

“NASA has bought a little more time for Swift, turning off all scientific instruments to slow its descent.” I’m trying to think what the connection is between the two, unless there’s something being left out of the non-explanation, like turning off means retracting things, and thus reducing drag.

No. I’m not sure what I said that would lead you to raise the issue. But I don’t really care to know. We’re trying to hash out the difference, or there is a difference. Without having agreed on any distinction, any conclusion on my part would be premature. You gave examples of statistics, but you also said you didn’t trust statistics because people might make stuff up and that bias is present. If so, why do you consider them to be facts? If someone lied and said that they had visited Greece, is that a fact? I don’t consider it to be a fact. So if some statistics are incorrect because they’re based on lies, how can they be considered fact?

In order to speculate on how ghosts are able to interfere with people's active dreams, one would have to establish that ghosts exist. Without that, the idea does not qualify for discussion here. You can’t bootstrap your way past it. If you want to discuss how actual existing people/devices/technology might be able to interfere with dreams, you are free to open a thread on that

Yes, and it points to why “now” isn’t a well-defined notion. As to motion through time and space, there is the four-velocity, which has an associated invariant which is c

I don’t think that believing something to be true makes it so; that describes an opinion. It’s neither true nor false. In another thread I asked for an example of something that’s true that’s not a fact, and something that’s a fact that is not true. I don’t think it was answered there. Any takers?

I want to know how easy it is to cut or tear that material. I imagine the defense will do some tests, and if it’s difficult to do, they’ll go with “If it’s hard to split, you must acquit” or some such.

John Barron! The former olympian who was arrested has now been indicted by a grand jury https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/02/politics/former-olympic-rower-indicted-for-felony-related-to-reflecting-pool

On the internet, nobody knows if you’re a chickadee

Humans only parse and no procedural languages can be parsed? I think one issue here is that “parse” has three definitions and some equivocation might be going on here. If you apply the same definition, this implies you are claiming humans can’t look at computer code and understand what the code will do, because it’s procedural. How do you know that bees don’t parse the waggle dance?

Not if your claim is true. “All” and “some” are in conflict. Not always, but it can be done. You can rearrange addition and subtraction, and also multiplication and division. Operations that commute can be done in any order. Paraphrasing is restating in different terms but keeping the same meaning. There are lots of ways to write different code that achieves the same output. e.g. multiple sorting algorithms exist. Again, this is in conflict with your claim that you need all of it.

Which is it? Are they unparsable and we “must understand referents, all the referents, to understand any utterance” or do we understand some of the waggle dance? Waggling isn’t? You “know” this, even though we haven’t figured it all out yet? You “know” the movements are literal?

If we share no referents and you can’t understand unless you know all referents, how did we decipher the bee dance? You say it’s symbolic and therefore and yet we have been able to parse it. How is it not symbolic while sign language allegedly is?

0.7 nm vs 2.1 nm would mean 1/3 the size in each dimension, which means 9x as many transistors per unit area. Most announcements I recall (when I was paying closer attention to AMD vs Intel) are similar kinds of jumps. They went from 90 nm — 65 nm — 45 nm — 32 nm — 24/28 nm — 22 nm — 20 nm — 16 nm — 14 nm — 10 nm — 7 nm — 5 nm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_scale_examples Roughly doubling the number of transistors seems to be the point where it’s been economical to switch scales. Chip manufacturers aren’t going to wait and get left behind while a competitor comes out with a significantly faster processor (edit/rant: I tried just giving the numbers with no units and the board software kept parsing groups of them as phone numbers)

I’m looking at an incremental ejection of mass If you change the exhaust KE, you change the KE imparted to the rocket. Momentum is conserved. But the point is that you must give a lot of energy to the exhaust, even if the energy conversion in the engine is 100% efficient. This is about the energy budget of a rocket - most of it doesn’t end up as KE of the rocket. It’s a ratio, so there is no “right side” of the equation OK, but the situation under discussion is something that triggers a UAP sighting report, which means you are maneuvering and leaving the planet again.

Friendship (and any relationship) may have certain psychological and sociological commonalities for most people, but it’s also very dependent on the individuals and their personalities. What’s true for you might not be true for others. Examples abound of people who have very publicly erred because they assume that what motivates them and what they value is what motivates others, and what others value

That verbal communication can be garbled. The telephone game is strictly about reproduction errors; the words need not carry a message purple monkey dishwasher. Authors are conscious and can understand the message they conveys. LLMs are not and cannot. We are intelligent. What does this have to do with LLMs? Emphasis on WE (meaning intelligent humans) Any intent you see in a message from a LLM is something you are projecting on it. As I said, you’ve expressed thos more than once. Yes. Why did you feel the need to write several paragraphs arguing the point if you agree? Presumably you use it as a translator because you are not fluent in one of the languages involved, so I don’t see how you can see, much less clearly see, if it went wrong. Similarly for its use as a collaborator if it’s used for expertise you lack.