lompad

Maybe I phrased it badly, the scenario I have in mind is this:

you have a house, taking power from the grid. Then you want to become more self-sufficient and add solar, but don't want to sell to the grid, just for yourself. If the solar installation and its circuit is not _fully_ separate from the one connected to the grid you have to get a permit even if it's a "Nulleinspeiseanlage".

Yes, technically you could make everything completely separate, then it would be fine. But I haven't seen that in the wild a single time so far.

Regarding reliability: Absolutely. I honestly didn't experience a major blackout in my entire life in germany. I always forget just how big of a problem that still is for many countries and areas.

On grid-scale this very much has an influence. Obviously not on individual scale. Is the influence big enough to warrant needing permits? Not sure, but I certainly see the problem.

In many areas solar panels get turned of by grid operators remotely for many hours on sunny days. In an area in the south I worked in around 50-70% of the produced power of larger installations (>30kwp) is essentially thrown away because the grid simply doesn't have enough capacity.

For germany:

For balcony panels you only have to do a very small registration, but no large bureaucratic process or getting a permit.

For larger ones you still must get a permit for a very simple reason: even if you don't get your power into the general network, you still affect it by using less, which might cause issues with grid stability.

We have so much power on sunny days now that we can barely deal with it. Which in turn occasionally even causes power prices to go negative - you can get paid for drawing power.

Yep. They are the Slopfather, basically.

Well, not the kind of land where you can just massacre the natives and steal it for free without ever seeing consequences for that abominable behavior. Which is what I suppose they're referring to.

It just gives a taste of what we are all going to have to pay soon, once the model providers actually have to make money. And the era of "let's charge a dollar for every 10 dollars running the infra actually costs" is rapidly coming to an end.

And you can bet GLM is still ridiculously subsidized, just not as ridiculously as Anthropic and OpenAI.

It's the wrong way to go about the issue. Instead, mandate control over the recommendation algorithms. Now THAT could actually change something. And is for good reason the worst nightmare of TikTok, Facebook and Twitter.

While they obviously have no significant issue with age control. Because it doesn't hurt them.

In case you want to enjoy it anyway, I've got a recommendation: there are quite a few mods for the game, including one which quadruples the time limit, essentially making the time between major events 4 times as long.

In that configuration, the mechanic is still there but you aren't feeling on a clock anymore and can explore and play around with stuff at your own pace.

As someone hating any kind of timed missions in games, that's what made a frustrating game into a masterpiece for me personally.

Relevant paper [0] "Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer, an Abacus, and a Dog"

[0]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/1237.pdf

The reason why they aren't much of a problem for the grid is solar. Right now we already have the issue, that in some areas we're throwing away the majority of the produced electricity. Very common in e.g. southern germany.

Conveniently, cooling is especially needed when the energy production from solar is at its maximum.

I've been part of projects building 20-40 MW solar installations in southern germany and on average we throw away >50% of what we generate.

There is SO MUCH SOLAR now, we don't know what to do with all the energy.

>Asthma looks to be mostly caused by gas stoves.

Do you have a source for that? Because as far as I can see, asthma isn't _that_ less common in countries where gas stoves are barely used, such as germany. Still has like 60-70% of the asthma cases the US has. There's also a ton of other pollutants the US hasn't yet forbidden, but the EU has, which could also explain a lot of the difference in rates.

Don't get me wrong, it's certainly a good idea to get rid of gas stoves. I just think it's a bit much to declare them the primary cause of asthma.

Or the existence of your tongue.

Raw milk _can_ be kind of okay under very specific circumstances. (But knowing the state american farms tend to be in regarding hygiene and controls, it's a ridiculous gamble.)

1) extremely closely controlled cow health

2) minimal storage time

3) minimized chances of cross contamination/reasonably clean cows <- that's the big one

4) healthy immune system to minimize infection chances

If even one of those isn't there, it's basically sickness in a cup. Why take a risk if there's no benefit?

In germany, there's the concept of "Vorzugsmilch", which is raw milk from specifically controlled farms with super tight regulations with regular and intense controls and testing of milk, e.g. monthly testing of every individual cow's milk.

But even then, it's an - albeit small - risk without benefit, with the exception of raw-milk cheese, which can't be made in any other way. I just don't get it, practically none of the claims of the raw-milk-gurus could be proven under controlled circumstances. Why needlessly take risks?

Link doesn't seem to work, at least from EU.

I won't go through everything, but just as an example:

You are not mentioning the greenland situation - why? That's the really big one and the one that made the US much closer to "enemy" than "friend". After all, friends don't threaten to annex your territory.

Regarding propagandists and financing of antidemocratic forces: this refers to a current issue. US is deliberately financing spreading of its ideology in the EU, as they confirmed themselves. [0]

With the genocide, that discussion I'm going to stay clear of, as nobody will be convinced of the other position anyway, too heated. Shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place, as this always leads to flamewars. mb.

Regarding honoring of treaties: let's start with the budapest memorandum - I think that was the first really big one. Then, the 1967 Refugee Protocol which forbids third-country deportations. Then, the UN Framework Convention On Climate Change. Violation of the UN charter, withholding of promised funds. The Convention Against TOrture.

Then all the broken/ignored/overturned trade treaties, all the promises made and not kept - how would anything rely on their word at all anymore?

I could go on for multiple pages. Why do those not count? Why do they have to be "propaganda"?

It is unbelievably difficult being reliant on the US in any way right now. And that's what I'm talking about. Not, which is the "better" country. Reliability and ... well, utility to its partners is the basis of it all. Which right now - compared to china - is rapidly sinking. So where is that ignorance you are speaking of?

[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20260716141817/https://www.thegu...

You did not offer me an alternative. Please don't move the goalposts.

And I'm still not rooting _for_ them, I'm rooting for choosing their services above american ones for the time being. That's quite a different thing, as should be obvious. Respond to things I actually said and not things you think I might possibly think.

And then I'm of course going to root for getting rid of them.

What alternative would you propose? Currently, there's no alternative I know of, either you rely on the US or on China or both.

Me and many others are doing our best building that alternative and promoting local solutions in all areas, but it takes time. And until then, I'd like to use the one that isn't threatening to steal our territory, thank you very much.

The thing is - as a European, I can choose between plague and cholera.

One has mostly been reliable, stayed peaceful towards us and is primarily concerned with their internal matters and the countries right next to it. They have long-term strategy and understanding of win-win situations.

The other one keeps threatening to invade/steal Greenland. Keeps waging an economic war against the entire bloc. Positions their propagandists right in our middle and does the best to influence our elections. Exports fascism and finances antidemocratic forces. Supports the genocide in that certain country. And still have their soldiers in our country, against the wishes of a majority of the population. Oh and they don't honor any treaties if they feel like it.

Easy choice.

Does that make china an angel? Hell no, they are still committed to enslaving the Uyghur people, keep threatening neighbors and are mostly han supremacists. Human rights are seen as merely a suggestion by them.

But at the time being, one is clearly more reliable than the other. Long-term, I'd like to avoid both the US and China.

Where do you see actual alarmism? Please have a look at the older predictions and realize that it's actually significantly worse right now than those "alarmist" models predicted.

e.g.:

[0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01332-8

[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42143-3

The only place you find actual alarmism in are third-rate news rags.

There won't be any kind of international framework, because by now countries have learned that the US' word is pretty much worthless, similar to Russia's. They now know from experience, US-ratified treaties will only be honored if they feel like it on a particular day. If it's inconvenient, it will simply be ignored.

You'd have major protests in most large economies if they deliberately put themselves under the boot again. Even in "friendly" countries the US is disliked enough to be effectively considered a hostile country. E.g. in Germany, there is large public support to finally get the US bases closed and the soldiers removed.

Lots of things changed in the last years. And international major treaties being widely ratified just because the US asks for it is no longer a thing, at all.

A country that threatens to annex parts of your territory is not a friend, full stop.

This feels like deliberately misunderstanding.

Obviously the planet won't die. The current biodiversity and the civilization depending on it however might.

In my country, streets are literally melting now, because they were never built for temperatures this high. We had 5000 heat deaths within 2 weeks. Temperatures never seen before in almost 250 years of consistent measurements of weather and temperature.

It's bad. And the data is available for everybody, including you, to see.

E.g. here, they've got tons of raw data available too (german): https://www.dwd.de/DE/leistungen/zeitreihen/zeitreihen.html

Don't know what you see there - but it sure does look like an exponential curve, doesn't it?

That looks interesting. I can't comment on the validity of the methodology of testing coding skill used here. But in general, I'd say we desperately need some way to track changes in our own skills caused by AI usage.

However, this would of course be a financial threat to OpenAI & anthropic in case serious, long-term atrophy of skills can be proven consistently. So I'd expect this to be buried quickly, unless supported by an academically significant institution.

They don't just need healthy margins, they need to make back almost a trillion dollars in a couple of years. Comparing that to elastic search and redis doesn't make much sense.

Hyperscalers work because it actually has value compared to free offerings and because of the absolutely massive cost of switching providers.

Similar with Windows and macOS. Extremely high cost of switching to something different, if possible at all.

Same with office. Extremely high cost of switching due to compatibility issues and retraining of staff.

Your post primarily shows: It's all about lock-in. So far, it doesn't look like LLMs have any of that. So I don't think your points are valid here at all.

Damn. Well, if that gets confirmed I'm going to get my company off mullvad.

You really don't seem to understand what a model is. A model is essentially an approximation of reality capable of making predictions. If those predictions get confirmed, the model will be accepted.

Barely anybody with reasonable education in physics would confuse a model built for humans to understand reality with actual reality. Models are not reality, they are a tool used to describe it, nothing more and nothing less.

Let's take Newton's laws as an example. Obviously, there is not a literal force vector manifesting and pushing objects. But it's a good predictor of behavior and allows building of understanding.

The Higgs Particle did exactly what it was expected to do and works just like Higgs predicted. If you look at click-focused press and think their bad explanations properly describe the state of physics, you're simply mistaken.

However, to understand that, you have to actually learn. And, if you intend to revolutionize physics, you also need to be able to make better predictions. Which is ... unlikely, to say the least.

Again: Models in physics approximate reality. They do not actually exactly describe fundamental reality, only how it works within the limits of the model.

This really reads like some american lawyer used an llm and never questioned whether legal precedent is even a thing in germany aside from the highest courts.

Have seen several like this in the last months, though in much more niche areas and with barely any publicity.

Try canceling your NYT subscription.

Any idea what's happening? This sounds _bad_.