Looks to me like a mob of humans, angry they've been deceived by ambiguous communications, product nerfing, surprisingly low usage limits, and an appallingly sycophantic overconfident coding agent
Whether you store it or not, getting free energy from the sun for half the year is better than getting no energy from the sun. Every marginal reduction in fossil fuel usage helps.
Scandinavia is actually seeing a pattern where in the summer, there is so much electricity produced that it's approximately free, and in the winters, when solar panels produce nothing, there's not enough to go around so prices are sky high.
It's a very weird situation where it's financially difficult to build new power because you'll be doing it entirely for free half the year, but then you get 4-5 months that are an absolute goldmine.
Which is pretty much the ideal conditions for coal plants, so they make a killing during the winter and then shut off during the summer.
We need something that works throughout the winter so we can finally get rid of the coal plants the whole year!
We do not need more power in the summer though, that's covered by solar already.
Free electricity in summer and high prices in winter is not a bad place to be really — it provides a good incentive to develop long-term storage. Batteries are probably not it. Pumped hydro is good — not in Denmark (too flat), but maybe in nearby Norway. Maybe synthetic fuels could be produced and stored economically?
A mix of renewables definitely seems like the way to go, but I also wonder whether we might start to see some seasonal industry based on power prices - bitcoin mines, or even aluminum smelters, which only run during summertime? Though I suppose less capital-intensive processes would make more sense.
There is lots of talk of green steel in Sweden. The basic concept is to use the cheap energy during summers to produce hydrogen, and then burn that hydrogen to melt iron and make various alloys.
So far a few attempts have been made, lots of investments, but unfortunately it hasn't worked out yet.
In most places photosynthesis is limited by (1) the availability of water and (2) the availability of bio-available Nitrogen. Sunlight is less limiting by far.
For plant growth also very important is the ambient temperature, which in Denmark higher than for example in Canada at similar latitude. This caused by Gulf Stream. Its carrying warm water northeast across the Atlantic makes Western Europe and especially Northern Europe warmer and milder than it otherwise would be.
Sorry for my ignorance, but what exactly is the distinction between hn and social media? Is it the personalization that distinguishes the two? Does "social" mean "feed depends on graph neighborhood"? So collaborative filtering + ranking algorithms + moderation is not social media until you add graph neighborhoods?
I think the distinction is pretty easy imo. HN is topic centered, Social Media is person-centered. Before MySpace there was a pretty big proliferation of forums and other topic centered discourse. The profile was such a minor part of those tools.
When MySpace came out, the profile was the home page for a lot of people, and the content orbited around that. Coupled with the mass movement to represent oneself faithfully online as in the real world, (maybe for banking, maybe for surveillance), I think social media sort of operates as a trap. On facebook, you are encouraged to upload your real photos of drunken night out, family vacation, or whatever IDs you in life. On LinkedIn this is mandatory, your "avatar" must mirror your physical self. I have a lot to say on this, but I think I'll just leave it at topic vs profile.
>On LinkedIn this is mandatory, your "avatar" must mirror your physical self.
Huh? On LinkedIn, the only thing that's mandatory is to have a profile that maybe looks like your resume, and that's about it. A photo helps too. Lots of people do nothing more with it than that, and use it to find jobs.
Create a false identity on LinkedIn, misrepresent your identity, create a Member profile for anyone other than yourself (a real person), or use or attempt to use another’s account (such as sharing log-in credentials or copying cookies);
> You can use an illustration, caricature, or other artistic rendering of yourself, but your profile photo must reflect your likeness. We may remove profile photos that don’t comply with our User Agreement and Professional Community Policies, including images that consist solely of the following:
I'm pretty sure even this has been updated to accommodate all the Ghibli AI avatars that people use.
hn is largely a technology oriented link aggregator with discussions, and probably some would also classify it as a forum. Or as social news site as goes on wikipedia among fark, slashdot and reddit. But beside a voting system, simple profiles there's nothing else - this is nearly an experience unlike anything large social network services offer.
A typical social media platform mainly exists around main stream/feed, sharing content and building profile or groups dedicated to particular topics or around known brands. That's of course the perfect unstained image because everything falls apart when we start getting into the details, such as algorithms in the work, content quality and moderation and so on.
There's a somewhat silly sense of superiority on this site over itself along with a deeply held belief that social media is bad, which makes commenters here try IMO in vain to distinguish HN from other forms of social media. After all, if you are the bad thing, how can you not fall prey to the same problems of the bad thing?
I think in reality "social media" is a set of properties all of which lead to different effects in the discourse on the site. This site may not have individualized ranking algorithms but it has open registration and crowdsourced ranking which gives it a lot of the same benefits and failure modes of Reddit. Unlike Reddit, HN has a professional (meaning: paid) mod staff, which leads to different behaviors than Reddit.
It's all just a spectrum and I think it's more rigorous to think of these things as a spectrum rather than trying to play this silly intellectual game of defitinioneering to make the social media you don't like sound bad and the ones you like sound good. Focusing on cause and effect can be a more effective way to craft intentional social spaces rather than finger pointing.
I would say yes, that's a good way to make the distinction. It's even more than that: the feed is different for every single user.
With a site like HN, everyone sees the same front page at a given time. What makes it to the front page is primarily determined by all users voting up articles or moderating them. Yes, there's some algorithmic sauce behind it that weights votes and flags differently based on some other criteria, but the dominating factor is user votes and flags. And, again, everyone sees the same ordering of articles if they load the page at the same time.
HN is centered around topics and articles. Social media is centered around individuals and what they personally choose to post and promote.
well moderation is ubiquitous , but yeah -- personalization/targeting/social graph are essentially the things that people expect out of a social media platform.
I do personally think the karma thing is an aspect , because it's gamed everywhere to huge advantage -- but the altruistic view is that its a branch of moderation, an effort to democratize the removal of obviously bad actors while still facilitating dissenting or contrary speech.
In social media the algorithm determines what you see. On forum boards, everyone sees the same set of posts. I do think it is an important distinction but I understand if others don't. At least we are all in the same reality on a forum board when we post. On a social media site, we see different sets of posts.
I've also seen a glue-less paper binding trick where two pieces of paper are finely crimped together with some high pressure tool in alternating v^v^v^ patterns, actually making tiny tears in the paper. Does anyone know what kind of tool does that?
The problem with these staple-less staplers is that they permanently damage the paper. With a regular staple there are two tiny holes and that's it. You can bend open the staple to get back your individual sheets (e.g. to scan a particular page) and if you want to put them back together you can push the same staple or a fresh one back through the existing holes and bend it close.
You can repeat the process as many times as you want and there won't be any new damage to the paper. With a paperless stapler you would have to do new damage to the paper each time. Also, a regular staple is pretty much forever while these crimped folds can eventually come loose again.
> We seek to fight two forms of overfitting that would muddy public sensefinding:
> Task-specific overfitting. This includes any agent that is created with knowledge of public ARC-AGI-3 environments, subsequently being evaluated on the same environments. It could be either directly trained on these environments, or using a harness that is handcrafted or specifically configured by someone with knowledge of the public environments.
Whoops, I assumed it was a proper noun the way I read it. Like a company that does data collection or something. Whatever, I'm not gonna bother to look at it again, I'm quitting the internet.
reply