No mercurial support so it's a downer compared to gitlab/heptapod, but I'm keeping an eye on them for their pioneering of forge federation (though they are still far from it).
Couldn't you just install nextcloud and none of the apps you don't need? I mean, it's pretty modular..
Yeah, screw them. Let's also not pretend that China is the bar to pass either. Two things can be bad.
Who is "we" exactly? Most developed countries have reduced their emissions so much that they've been producing less CO2 per Capita than China for a very long time (like, a decade for the whole of the EU if I remember correctly).
And I see you coming, no, it's not because China exports lots of stuff for the rest of the world: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?country=CHN~OWID_EU27
One can hope! Or maybe that's just the economy slowing down, as anyone walking the streets of Shanghai pre and post COVID could tell.
Yup, and I remember clearly a whole army of plausibly state sponsored shills downplaying/voting the story
It doesn’t really matter if Microsoft/OpenAI are the only ones with the underlying technology as long as the only economically feasible way to deploy the tech at scale is to rely on one of the big 3 cloud providers (Amazon, Google, Microsoft).
Yup, but as the "no moat" link I posted implied, at least for LLMs, it might not be required to spend very much in hardware to be almost as good as ChatGPT, so that's some good news.
Are you saying you’re cool with neofeudalism? Or just agreeing that this is yet another inevitable (albeit lamentable) step towards it?
Oh, crap, no, sorry if I wasn't clear. I believe we are at the crossroads with not much in the middle between our society evolving into extensive interventionism, taxation and wealth redistribution (to support UBI and other schemes for the increasingly large unemployable population) or neufeudalism. I don't want billionaires and warlords to run the place, obviously. And I'm warry about how the redistribution would go with our current politicians and the dominant mindset associating individual merit to wealth and individualistic entrepreneurship.
Sure, now which pre-existing piece of xmpp based software checks all the feature boxes as noted by both Signal adherents and myself regarding Session?
All of those. Essentially you would have to go out of your way looking specifically for incompatible clients.
And "incompatible clients" is simply the natural state of any technology that's been around long-enough. The only way Signal fends itself from this is by mandating its own client and version (and banning anything else, technically or from its ToS) which is terrible for a bunch of reasons (you must agree with Signal's direction and whatever features they might decide to add and remove for your own good, you cannot use Signal on devices/platforms that Signal has no resources/interest to support, etc). If Session is in any way open, and assuming it ever becomes successful, it will face the same challenge (just like Matrix does).
To help you out with the monopolistic/capitalist concern: https://simonwillison.net/2023/May/4/no-moat/tl;dr: OpenAI's edge with ChatGPT is essentially minor (according to the people from within), and the approach of building ever larger and inflexible models is challenged by (technologically more accessible and available) smaller and more agile models
Imagine a future where most fast food jobs have been replaced by AI-powered kiosks and drive-thrus.
Funny you bring this one up :)https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
Imagine a future where most customer service jobs have been replaced by AI-powered video chat kiosks. Imagine a future where most artistic commission work is completed by algorithms.
To a large extent, we have been there for a long time:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
This, and the theory of bullshit jobs:https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/
were formative reads to me.
The end-game is pretty clear: we have reached the limits to the model on which our current society is built (working jobs to earn money to spend money to live). We now have excess supply of the essential goods to sustain lives and scarcity of jobs at the same time. We will have soon to either accept that working isn't a mean to an end (accept universal basic income and state interventionism), or enter a neofedalism era where resources are so consolidated that the illusion of scarcity can be maintain and justify the current system (which essentially the bullshit-jobs is all about).
It's perhaps the most important societal reform our species will know, and nobody's preparing for it :)
Imagine a future where all the news and advertising you read or watch is generated specifically to appeal to you by algorithms.
This is already the case today:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble
And this is already weaponized (e.g. TikTok's algorithm trying to steer the youth towards education and science in China and towards … something completely different in the rest of the world).
That’s been your argument this entire time. You kicked around all this time till now saying really weird things like how batteries are inefficient or that green hydrogen is from hydrolysis but then tell me what your point is all along when your point has been wrong from the start.
Let's keep this simple. It all started with your affirmation that energy storage is a solved problem. When I asked how you would go about implementing the solution, you brought-up pumped hydro. And we ended-up with enough data pointing towards this problem being all but solved (cost is one aspect that you are quick to dismiss, but engineering/practicality is a major one).
In all, we agree, we are in the same boat, we want more budget being allocated for the energy transition. But where we diverge I that I don't see how turning a complex problem into a caricature (bordering a conspiracy theory) helps anyone. The physical world we live in doesn't care about opinions, and isn't affected by digital money. You don't have to believe a random stranger on the internet (who happens to work in this field), if this is your crusade, there should be people near you, academics, scientists, engineers, who would be pleased to educate you on the subject. This is pedant, I don't see where's the belligerence.
Not only have I made an argument, I even provided detailed sources supporting it https://lemmy.ml/comment/5942658
What are you talking about? This isn't a response to me nor OP, this isn't even a response you posted in this thread, and your response is no longer even listed on the source article thread. You are just throwing insults faster than you can read, apparently.
Meanwhile, you provided a wikipedia link to autocracy and then said that’s what Chinese system is which is what actual trolling in this thread is.
No, it is not. I am entitled to my opinions, which I substantiated, and you should accept that not everyone agrees with yours. But more importantly, I'm not criticizing you for not agreeing with me (like you do), I'm criticizing that none of your posts contains anything of substance other than insults. You really can't turn that into a problem "with me".
If you cannot tolerate comments about China, from someone who spends a fair amount of their time and life there, I guess you can just block me? Bye.
I really don’t understand the obsession here in comparing energy storage to energy production.
The storage of electricity doesn’t have to meet energy consumption
why, in your opinion, is this more an obsession than "pulling power cables" and "tugging floating wind turbines"? This is very much part of the grid transitioning towards more intermittent (and renewable) energy sources. We can't just keep putting wind and sun without offsetting the intermittence (since we are also removing carbon-heavy sources), which means either adding low CO₂ base-load (nuclear), but we are not going there fast enough, or adding more storage (and neither there do we have a solution).
The first comment I posted shows how if you had 100 the size of the bath county plant you could run the entire US for hours. In just 100 of them. For the cost of the F35 it could be 300 or more but I am accounting for nothing but problems.
It's funny, because my link https://sandia.gov/ess-ssl/gesdb/public/ shows that there are 1693 such projects in the world, with 739 by the USA. China, with a more important landmass and not bothered by F35s (or whatever) doesn't even cross the 100 threshold. So the onus of the proof is on you to demonstrate that we can actually build hundred more pumped storages in the USA for it to make a difference.
From the perspectives of the grid operator, renewables represent risk that destabilizes power delivery. Although weather forecasts are steadily improving and provide more leeway to prepare for sudden changes in the power supplies, the degree to which grid operators can turn on alternative power sources or alert customers to adjust their power demand is limited. In a truly “fossil fuel-free” energy system that relies exclusively on various renewable energy sources, the only viable means of addressing intermittency is to deploy energy storage.
Your source even agrees with me.
This isn't even contentious. What is, is that you believe that we have this silver bullet of pumped hydro to cover our upcoming energy storage needs. And that's not nearly the case.
Once paired and optimized for cost, the model returned 11,769 sites in the contiguous United States, as well as an additional 3,077 sites in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, where closed-loop PSH technology can be best deployed in the future. https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/articles/wpto-studies-find-big-opportunities-expand-pumped-storage-hydropower
Which was my point all along
It is a solved problem. The solution is just extremely difficult and expensive.
I don't want to argue about semantics. If the solution is too costly to be implemented, then it's not a solution. I don't think there's more to be said here.
Don't be too worried about AGI being a thing in the short. And the only thing which I find to suck with respect to consolidation is that contemporary AI requires a lot of hardware thrown at it while cloud services (providing this hardware on demand) are practically the same triopoly. That sucks if you want to be the next AI startup. But academia is mostly unaffected, and far from lagging behind (multiple open source LLMs are compelling alternatives to chatgpt and not benefitting from OpenAI's millions of marketing and hype doesn't make them less valuable)
The potential energy is determined by elevation difference and mass.
That's correct, those are Joules in SI. Now if you turn this mass into mass per second by introducing the flow of water through the dam, you get the power (Watts) produced through the release.
But here we are talking about energy storage (Watt.hours), which is, for how long will you be able to sustain emptying your container while delivering the desired power. And obviously this is a function of how large the container is because eventually you will run out of water no matter the elevation difference.
So, now that we are back 3 messages up thread
could you estimate the amount of water this container would need to be able to retain in a scenario where the grid relies primarily on intermittent energy sources?
To help you out with the scale, again, your example from earlier (Bath county) has a storage capacity of only 24GWh, annual hydro production of the USA is 256TWh. Bath county has a reservoir of 34•10⁶m³, Oahe dam has 29•10⁹m³.
Anyway, this is a good tool to keep an eye on this "solved problem", and relate to how the world is dealing with it, independently from the regulatory dissatisfaction you mentioned: https://sandia.gov/ess-ssl/gesdb/public/
And this paper goes neatly through the variables at play and why oversimplifications are not helpful: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1076830/full
I mean, you don't answer the billion dollar question here. Let's not call it a dam, but a container, and let's not mention the need to pump anything. The amount of (potential) energy you can store is a function of the volume of the above container, isn't it? Then, could you estimate the amount of water this container would need to be able to retain in a scenario where the grid relies primarily on intermittent energy sources? And can you propose an engineering solution to contain this much amount of water?
The intuition here is that you are re-inventing dams, without the room to build more.
I don't agree nor disagree with the rest of what you say, I just can't get beyond the "energy storage is a solved problem" point yet.
well, if there's one troll in this discussion, it's probably the only person making personal attacks and refusing to engage in a constructive discourse:
"When you definitely know what autocratic means."
"Nice try though, keep exposing yourself as an utter clown."
"spend your time doing obvious trolling" "Seems like you’re doing a bit of projecting there bud."
"Perhaps you really don’t realize you’re a troll."
I don't see any argument being made here nor the discussion going forward as the exchange progresses.As I wrote before, you are entitled to your own ideas, and this place is to share them. But if you keep repeating that others are trolls and insulting them 5 messages in a row, well, that's some serious waste of electrons.
Pumped hydro storage is not a dam, it’s not a power source, it is a power storage system.
In technical terms, could you lay out what's the difference? You've got a water retention system that empties into a generator and a capability to pump some of the water back upstream. What larger storages and generators do we have besides dams? None, and there's no topographic feature that could be at an advantage there. Because the problem at hand is one of scale: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?country=~USA
Assuming that energy demand remains the same (instead of increasing, which we know will be the case with more electrification), and that, to keep targetting those 4000TWh produced, we replace coal and gas by wind and solar. That would mean having to store what amounts to 2000TWh of production (under an extremely optimistic assumption of 80% storage capacity for the replaced energy only). That would mean that, just to buffer out what solar+wind require in storage, we would have to surpass what current hydro produces, 8 times over.
I know this isn't accurate (storage ≠ production, grid can be balanced out geographically, etc), but we are one order of magnitude in trouble already.
Who is trolling here? Who is posting uninformative comments? Mine were on topic, yours jumped on my neck with insults. It's your right to disagree with what I have to say, though none of what you posted here has any argumentative value.
Attention à Element/Matrix, la fondation a de gros soucis de financement qui présagent un avenir incertain (et à plus forte raison avec le changement de license qui a eu lieu tout récemment avec la volonté annoncée de passer en opencore et l'enshittification que ça préfigure). C'est devenu intenable à gérer parce que Matrix est un protocole pourrave et inefficient qu'une décennie d'efforts n'a pas réussi à stabiliser/optimiser.
SimpleX a le même souci de centralisation de sa gouvernance (une seule entité définit et implémente le protocole du client au serveur et contrôle toute l'expérience utilisateur) donc je recommande logiquement XMPP qui n'a aucun de ces problèmes, et les mêmes avantages, et qui plus est a une communauté fr active via jabberfr.org .
Does that qualify as a dumb phone though? Symbian could do a lot more, and better, in the area of productivity tools, multitasking, customization and apps management than android/iOS did, and for a very long time. The form factor wasn't putting as much emphasis on the screen real estate but that doesn't make it less smart.