npts2020

All forms of language have limitations, beginning with being able to understand said language.

Actually, I don't even have a driveway and all of the trees are maples but none of that is the point. The point is that language can be used as specifically as necessary to convey an idea completely, as you point out. Thanks.

I am still unclear as to how much smaller these chips are. .7 nanometers vs 2 nanometers would make things almost 3 times smaller, an improvement to be sure, but am I missing something? Because most announcements like this are orders of magnitude smaller. IMO the bigger + of these chips is their efficiency improvement.

IMO you are looking for exactness where it doesn't exist, we are talking about human language after all. When I refer to "the old oak tree at the end of the driveway", my neighbor might picture it from the angle he sees it from his living room and I might picture it as I see it from mine but the words have enough of the same meaning for both of us that there is no ambiguity in what I am talking about.

I don't think friendship requires shared goals. I have a number of friends I know would help me out if in need and I would do the same for them but am not aware of any particular shared goals. What we do share are similar views on things like "fairness" and "goodness".

5 hours ago, cladking said: “Meaning isn't in the words, meaning is in the receiver.” If words don't have meaning, how is it possible to communicate an idea to a diverse audience using them?

Starting with a clear definition of the difference between "understanding" and "structure". To me LLM's have perfect "understanding" of whatever they are programmed for and that informs the "structure" of its communication, meaning that it "understands" what it is communicating as much as any of us do. In both cases, we are still limited by the breadth and quality of our knowledge of the subject at hand.

This is absolutely not true. What IS true, is that the factors affecting NS in humans are different from those of other species and even those affecting ancient humans. NS still happens.

As much as I can visualize what you are talking about, it seems to me you are saying objects that have changed the most are the farthest advanced in time, which actually makes some sense even if not strictly true. However, (ignoring speed effects on time) doesn't that mean said object would have moved more through time rather than less?

Just doesn't reflect too well.

IMO this is wrong. What is true is that the factors applying to natural selection have changed (in some respects by humans themselves) over time. In modern societies, social skills are far more valuable than the hunting and foraging skills required for survival even as short time as 50,000 years ago. (Maybe not the greatest example but should outline my, and I believe the scientific, definition of "natural selection") A good accountant who has never been out of the city or learned survival skills would have been unlikely to survive long enough to pass on their genes at that time. A caveman would likewise almost certainly find themselves killed or incarcerated by authorities for breaking some law or norm they are unfamiliar with today and will thus not be passing on their genes. I would argue that both cases are natural selection (even if some of the conditions are human-influenced) in accordance with the environment either being is exposed to.

Being an elected official in America, I can state affirmatively there are a lot of good, smart and caring people in our government. The problem is it seems to be a growing minority of those who wield power on a national and international scale.

Leaving aside the fact that the term"superpower" is not very well defined, there are still limits to what even the most powerful entities on Earth are able to accomplish.

The problem with this is overpopulation. Can you imagine if half of Brazil's population (pop. ~203,000,000) moved into the Amazon basin and clearcut forest to do subsistence farming? We have long since abandoned an agrarian based existence and need other solutions.

IMO The problem in the US is very much capitalism, or rather, the mindset that says a person should try to gain as much as they can from every interaction and the sole measure of "gain" is money. As a result, one can never have "enough" and other people don't matter if they can't be of some monetary benefit. The above, unfortunately, often gets conflated with entrepreneurship, which is simply trying to make a living by providing a good or service and I think ought to be encouraged in any system.

This statement cannot be true in real life. I can conceive a state of nothingness in my mind but like the red fire-breathing dragon I can also conceive, it has no bearing on reality other than how I wish to act on the fantasy. Simply by having the statement or notion that "all things are absent" makes it a falsehood because the statement/idea/concept exists. I can imagine the idea to not exist but, like the red fire-breathing dragon, it will never be reality.

For them the economy IS just fine. When corporate profits have more than quadrupled since 2000 and average people's wages are not or are barely keeping up with inflation, is it any wonder why there are two nearly diametrically opposed views on the state of the economy?

This is your problem. You describe a "situation" as being something then you also want to define" nothing" as that same something. IMO it is impossible for "nothing" to exist because as long as you can conceive of "nothing" that concept is something that if done away with would cause existence itself to cease.

I would try what Phi suggests and contact a local courier or taxi service. If the service won't do it, you may be able to get one of the drivers to help (which is what I would try anyway). Not sure what you are shipping but I know NO is one of the most expensive places in the US to ship anything LTL (less than truckload) to or from, so I feel for you. It is not likely to be cheap.

Ya, water is great because of its high latency during phase change. It kind of depends on what you want. If you want speed, the engine block should be faster at discharging but will not stay charged nearly as long unless heated to a much higher temperature. From the sound of it, you will be adding the same energy regardless and discharge can be regulated as required, so it really should not matter much which method you use. Just do whatever is easiest.

This discussion is very much couched in terms of human experience. What if said aliens had a lifespan measured in millennia instead of years? Also, turning mass into energy is likely not the most efficient method of interstellar travel. One method I have not seen discussed is solar sails, using a star's output similar to the way a ship uses the wind. With much of the known universe being way older than our little corner of it, I think it is not only likely that if there are any aliens with a high degree of technology, they know about our solar system and quite possibly have visited us. Whether that has happened in the time of humans and with anywhere near the frequency of sightings, I am highly skeptical.

Logging in and going page to page is very slow. At first I thought it was my ISP but other sites seem to load at normal speed.

I wonder if slide rules and abaci had the same effect as calculators?

I don't think efficiency is much of a consideration if they aren't using outside sources for power. The competitive advantage is in cost of the medium, basically waste vs rare earth or other expensive materiel. Steam generation will substantially raise the cost (but has other advantages), which is why they didn't try it to begin with I would imagine. Please repost where I ever said or even implied that any of this, especially steam power generation, is "simple".

Which has more to do with the fact that once the steam has been produced, it is relatively easy to add energy to it for more efficient extraction than whether or not it can be done. So the guys doing this must not be serious, because they have plans to do exactly that.