The first two people you mentioned co-wrote a paper titled "Towards decolonising computational sciences" and certainly anyone at DAIR would also be in that ideological cluster. I don't think an absolute majority of the signatories have those sorts of associations, but a good many do. What's puzzling me is why so many are Dutch?
The easiest way (perhaps the only practical way) to favour the aneutronic reaction is to run a helium-rich mixture. The trade-off is lower power density.
It's not perfect but it does make speech easier to understand, which is the ostensible purpose. There's a slight uncanny valley effect. Latency requirements are very tight, and Indian English is actually timed differently to American or British English, so it's a hard problem.
The company should consider targeting RP instead of General American. In my experience attempting the latter with a slight Asian tinge makes you sound like you're trying to be a WASP, while speaking the former with the same small errors makes you sound like you studied PPE at Oxford.
That's possible in general but not for this application; a chat interface to an LLM isn't very useful unless you can tell it whatever you want—including GDPR personal data—and then pick up the thread of conversation later.
It is kinda possible to do store that in browser, but as I've been finding with my own browser-based front end for the API, the browsers seem to clear this data a bit more than one might expect.
A similar ITAR restriction on controlled reception pattern antennas means that GPS jamming is still much more of a problem than it needs to be. Three antenna elements are all you get, according to this: https://www.gpsworld.com/toughen-gps-to-resist-jamming-and-s...
Interesting article. I wonder if any progress on the ITAR issue has been made since 2022? If Brad Parkinson can't steer ITAR in the direction of common sense, nobody can. (For those who don't know, he was the principal architect of the original Navstar GPS system.)
Sure, it's getting increasingly easier to just buy China made for ITAR-protected products. Night vision cameras, thermals, drones. They're fine, way more user friendly, often cheaper too.
If the topic is tissue damage from sharp ice crystals, it's pretty handy to draw the distinction between cooling methods that cause that and ones that don't.
Yes, that's the relevant distinction in fact. Cryonics are the former, not the latter. Multicellular cryonic suspension is an unsolved problem after roughly the blastocyst stage.
As of last year we're up to doing rat kidneys. They're "heavily" damaged but they recover within a few weeks. To be sure, there's a long way from that to near-perfectly preserving a human brain, let alone a whole body.
Yes, that is a living rat-sized kidney. Not a dead human-sized brain. And on a pass-fail grade, I'm giving that experiment a fail. Promising, yes.
Cryopreservation of corpses is a scam designed to fleece rich people with an extraordinary fear of death. Some justify it to themselves as supporting research which might lead to effective corpsicles, but to support such research they could simply donate to it. Not waste their money on an elaborate and expensive embalming with no hope of salvation.
By that logic, computers are a dead end because Babbage's Difference Engine No. 1 never really worked properly... Or that space travel is impossible because a lot of early rockets blew up on the pad.
It might work someday, maybe. But it won't work now. The corpsicles which currently exist are just as dead as if they were cremated. I understand, sort of, the psychology of people who lie to themselves about this, but that's all that's happening.
You don't know that because you don't know the physical limits of reanimation technology. In 2014, a human brain was vitrified with no ice crystallization or fracturing for the first time. Certainly, the first viable preservation will occur (if it has not already occurred) long before the first reanimation, and eventually discovering that we began to preserve people too soon would be much better than discovering that we began not soon enough. Even the primitively frozen might be retrievable centuries from now.
You don't know what future technological capability will be. Current Alcor and CI patients are preserved well enough that their bodies and brains could in theory be repaired by technology at the physical limits of possibility. The information is there.
You are saying that existing technology is unable to fix the issues of vitrification. That is correct, but irrelevant.
I'm a little surprised that Shenzhen doesn't seem to be churning out ITAR-busting anti-jamming systems. The tech is pretty old by now and the market is there.
The mathematical notation isn't very useful here. It's OK to use words to describe doing things with words! Apart from that, neat idea, although I would wager a small amount that quining the prompt makes it a much less effective defence.
Space-based geoengineering is technically superior to stratospheric aerosol injection, but the latter is practical almost immediately, and is likely to be much cheaper no matter what. In my view that outweighs concerns about the ozone layer.
It has also been pointed out that launching enough space-shades with chemical rockets would itself deposit a considerable amount of particulate matter in the upper atmosphere, so to be really atmospherically 'clean', one would need to complement geoengineering with a radical new launch technology.
