RandomLensman

Zero excess capacity makes things quite unstable and estimating what revenue could potentially be had isn't necessarily easy or so reliable (and what about future revenues from using capacity internally vs revenued now?).

So every business should measure any client fungible resource that way? Should a bank put a revenue number to any capital held in excess of regulatory requirements, for example?

Where can you get superior AI surgery currently?

Feels like on boundary of surgery (injecting as opposed to cutting, moving, sowing, etc.) - but maybe I am missing something.

Maybe. Are we seeing any indication of increased success rates in stage 3 trials already for "AI drug candidates"?

Could also be that some things are not possible in some ways. I wonder if there is some general theory on "shortcuts".

I really depends on what is needed. If you know that something quite "coarse" is enough to create/uncover room temperature superconductors with high critical current - fair enough. Again, we'll see what happens.

I am aware of advances, but I think a large chunk is a stretch in various ways. We'll just see what happens - simulating even a glass of water fully is tough.

I have my doubts there, but we will see.

Why would that necessarily be accessible by thinking only? Or do you see them running or directing large laboratories of various types?

Why is using domestic energy sources much more not another choice now or in the recent past?

Which country is economically benefiting from needing to increase defense spending as opposed to incurring the opportunity cost from needing to do it?

I think we can agree that people are not in general making purely statistical decisions when it comes to what risks are acceptable and which ones are not.

Are you? Trying to understand your position... the only good policy is energy independence?

Edit: what is your point? Being able to criticize? Sure, but so what?

Scale of fallout would be huge. People were kind of shocked by the analysis (trying to remember what come out then... Fetter, early 1980s, Scientific American?).

Chernobyl did deposit radioactive material over Germany. Fukushima also happened, btw., and that led to an acceleration of the exit then.

So any nation state needs to be energy independent? Is that your point? Or have cheap energy and energy independence? If people want low growth, expensive energy etc., why is that like alcoholism? What is intrinsically bad there? Not like life expectancy in Germany is low, for example.

A nuclear strike on a larger fission reactor could create an awful result unlike any other power plant. There were some studies during the cold war (something about the effects in West Germanyin the early 1980s, IIRC).

It's a bit more complex, I think. When gas imports started from the USSR, nuclear power plants were still being built in Germany, for example. There were gas imports for a long time.

If Germans don't want energy independence - you can criticize that but that's how nation states work or is there some UN Charter violation in there, for example?

I was trying to point out that societies make and are free to make decisions that others don't like or that aren't great for them by some metric - and that there is nothing wrong with that. Why is that not relevant when it comes to energy?

Interesting. I'll have a look - thx.

If Germans don't or didn't want, e.g., nuclear power plants, or fracking, or transmission lines, or ... then they are allowed to decide that way, no?

I reckon there would probably still be some if else system going on the body of a newly dead person.

Where in Germany could one build a new nuclear powerplant without noticeable local opposition (or opposition to new power lines)?

Yes, I think, emergence is the currently prevailing view.

I was thinking more that something like this:

> any system capable of doing an if-else is intelligent to a certain degree

could probably be getting quite broad in terms of things covered (chemistry, physics), hence making it much more intrinsic.

Maybe, but making intelligence an intrinsic property of matter feels like a bold step.

So intelligence is an intrinsic property of matter then? It's not a mainstream view now, but who knows.

Sorry, but if everything is intelligent then why is a word for it even needed like it is used today - stating that intelligence is an intrinsic property of matter, moves the discussion quite a bit, I think, as it changes what we denote there.

Unlike "artery" which certainly isn't every blood vessel or "yellow" that isn't every color.

If basically everything is intelligent (e.g., incl. rather simple chemistry), does that word mean much then/is it a useful term?

Who has switched to a war time economy? Who wants such an economy for economic reasons and not security reasons?