skew-aberration

Servers are locked down these days too, are they not? They may have an encrypted boot image, with keys in TPM, and boot from a PXE provisioning system. Would this offer a path to modify that boot image?

Awesome. Wish I could work on a project like this. I wonder how it scales compared to a long linear assembly line with lots of preloaded pick and place machines. I've been expecting the next stage of electronics automation to look more like an amazon warehouse. Parts distribution and assembly happening under the one roof, fully automated.

It is really only the perceived value which matters to a business - that's the value at which you can sell or replace your asset on the market. Offers above that price, you sell (and replace if needed). Offers below that price, you don't.

If it costs more to produce (and sell) the asset than you can sell it for, you're losing money and assets go down. If it costs the same, then in this example the net change in S&P assets would be zero.

What's wrong with this though? Value was created (a physical GPU), so assets go up.

Different people/orgs get a different slice of that value.

LLMs can reproduce the training data verbatim, under some circumstances. They have to be trained not to.

Godel sentences are only true if you assume consistency. And once you add that axiom, the computer can prove them too.

G is independent of your original system T (cannot be proven true or false).

If you create T+ with added consistency axiom, then G is true and provable.

But G is never true and unprovable in the same system.

It's a lot like is/ought or theology.

I think you're right, I'm conflating two separate things.

EDIT: I am wrong (it's been a while) but there is nuance.

I said any computer program fails to prove some true statements. In fact, some 'true' statements cannot be proven by any program, as others have said.

But for those statements G, you can prove 'G is true if our system is consistent', just not 'G is true'.

So when we say G is 'true', we are really just asserting the consistency axiom that our computer program is denied.

We don't have to speculate; we know the republicans' positions on privitization and selling of assets during this period.

That's not that how that works btw. The incompleteness is a property of the algorithm which does the proofs, not the theorems. If a theorem is true it has a proof and a program which proves it (printf("the proof verbatim")). But no computer program can successfully prove all theorems. The space of potential proofs is too big to search systematically, but you can still get lucky.

It's heavily implied the owner had them generated by a bot, potentially as part of his day job in SEO

RAM on package or on die is common for laptops now.

My lenovo work laptop is crippled by poor cooling and can only sustain ~1GHz clocks on extended tasks. An old personal laptop 10 years older outperforms it.

Persistence hunting is speculative as a guiding force in evolution. It is a very rare practice amongst modern hunter/gatherer and there's no archaeological evidence that it was common enough historically to be important.

Compare this to game drives/trapping which are both mentioned in this article and have significant archaeological and anthropological evidence.

They even cite physiological differences themselves extensively (namely the role estrogen).

> Mounting evidence from exercise science indicates that women are physiologically better suited than men to endurance efforts such as running marathons. This advantage bears on questions about hunting because a prominent hypothesis contends that early humans are thought to have pursued prey on foot over long distances until the animals were exhausted. Furthermore, the fossil and archaeological records, as well as ethnographic studies of modern-day hunter-gatherers, indicate that women have a long history of hunting game.

Emphasis mine.

> Overall, females are metabolically better suited for endurance activities, whereas males excel at short, powerful burst-type activities. You can think of it as marathoners (females) versus powerlifters (males). Much of this difference seems to be driven by the powers of the hormone estrogen.

There are some pretty wild claims but overall, a fairly interesting article. I think they've just exaggerated an otherwise interesting point - that gender differences in hunting are not explained by differences in long-distance running aptitude (which are very small).

The examples of extant hunting techniques they themselves cited are not related to (ultra) long distance running anyway, so the connection between hunting and running is tenuous.

Technically speaking, maintenance is a capital investment.

Use of some rare natural consumable (lubricating a machine with whale oil?) would still require a) labor b) capital and c) paying rent to whoever owned that slice of nature. So consumption, broadly, may take from nature, but the returns (if there are any) go only to people - as rent, interest, or wages. If there are no returns, then it is just consumption proper.

All (the value) of the things produced goes ultimately to either labor (wages), capital (interest), or land (rent) - Adam Smith. (tax being an intermediary for the same).

If wages are down then rent or interest returns are up.

Market interest rates are trending up in recent years but in line with / below long term averages.

So obviously rent is doing the heavy lifting. GFC, housing crisis, etc, are all products of the extreme rents and land speculation.

Where does rent go? It can be consumed (luxury goods, etc) but most of it 'grounds out' in labor and capital through subsequent investments.

So higher share going to rent actually looks like larger luxury consumption by the landowners, more services consumed by them, and (probably most significantly) larger capital investments domestically and internationally - huge AI and semiconductor investments, robotics and EV factory build outs, complicated R&D programs, etc). These go on to employ more laborers globally - with the key change being that the return to laborers within any one investment is historically low.

Money is only an intermediary. It is the flow of goods produced (machines built, technologies developed) and services and resources which really matters.

I'm fairly centrist in my views actually, thanks for asking, but I am generally against mass immigration for economic reasons - it transfers vast wealth to rich landowners at the cost of working people, on the order of several hundreds of billions of dollars per a year. Immigration is the reason the US is now run by Trump/Kushner/Witkoff landlords from hell, and landlord donors are the reason every major party is pro mass immigration. The irony is that you would not consider these huge sums as 'foreign backing' since it goes to the supporters of the party rather than its members (who then donate to the party). Follow the money.

I'd be first in line to hear about the more nefarious side of a party like AfD (or One Nation here in Australia) - but neither the article (nor most of our resident experts) have gone to the effort of explaining them to a layman. In fact, the article implies they are actively filtering out such people. I'm just supposed to know based on the vibes, and people like yourself who follow this stuff won't deign to explain it either. I guess I'll just wait for mainstream media to do it justice. 'Foreign backed' is too broad a term without actual comparisons, and calling them nazis for wanting lower immigration is an absurd hyperbole - something you already admitted by changing your reasons when I pointed this out.

Of course, by that logic every country is fascist and China is the fourth reich.

If you prevent the discussion of popular policies like reducing immigration, then you end up with parties like the AFD. Same thing here in Australia.

Well this is an emerging story, there may be more here.

The Corbyn case was transparently a factional fight with pro-banker neoliberal faction (Mandelson). It was a rallying cry for likeminded people to organise against him with a more respectable excuse for dislike of his policies than 'it might upset bankers'. That's essentially public record now, thanks to Epstein.

Sure. So who are you voting for?

From google translate of TFA's link https://taz.de/Website-veroeffentlicht-tausende-Mails/!62228...

> It is about a party exclusion procedure against an AfD district executive who is said to have expressed Holocaust denial and glorification of Hitler. About a local leader who had to resign because of a "Heil Hitler" Christmas card, or about a member who is said to have written about "Muslims" and the "dirty monster Merkel". Another documented email subject is: "Sale of swastika flags and drugs at the information booth in Bottrop by district board member - measures required."

So it's all about the party correctly applying procedures to keep out the people supposed to make up too large a portion of the party?

We are in an era now where media publish leaks without having gone to the effort of compiling the facts into a story, just AI summaries. And in past cases where there have been revelations with even global significance, we get silence from authorities too.

Maybe there's a better write up somewhere, or a month wasn't sufficient for media to work through it all, but I just got a bad Groundhog Day kind of vibe from the vagueness in that article. Is this what news is now? All the information, none of the journalism, none of the consequences.

Piss bottles are easily explained by rent though. You get more productive, so the landlord ups the rent, and you have to produce more for the people owning the scarce land (your landlord, the grocery store's landlord, the farmer, etc).

Software doesn't have this scarcity dynamic. People will use LLMs to build better sounder foundations (as rust is 'better' than c) and code quality will improve as we migrate to them. You won't get screwed on your rust++ license though to the point you have to piss in bottles.

I agree with the observation but not the extrapolation. After all, RLing on sufficiently hard problems might cause agents to adopt better proof strategies emergently.

Coming at it from another angle, we have historically made distributed systems manageable / 'verifiable' with RTOSs which give deterministic scheduling and locking primitives. We know that a task's max duration is its uninterrupted duration + max duration of all higher priority tasks which could pre-empt it, and so on. Deterministic pre-emptive scheduling and locking alone could be enough to prove a lot of invariants without full temporal logic, and writing code in 'RTOS logic' might be more natural for humans/LLMs than the more expressive and powerful alternatives.

1. The coral slowly starves to death. Like a tree without leaves 2. It's complicated but the algae essentially start damaging the coral in these conditions. Their photosynthesis mechanism runs into overdrive, generating too many electrons. With no way to consume this much power it dumps the energy into making reactive oxygen species which it ejects. These damage the coral (and the algae). The same thing occurs in plants - a fern growing on the forest floor can't handle full sunlight (photodynamic stress). Plants are less temperature sensitive though because they have active cooling (transpiration). But temperature and quantity of light both affect the photosynthesis machinery.

I'm not an expert, but yes we can and we do.

And so does the coral!

If a species of algae cannot handle high temperatures without generating chemicals like hydrogen peroxide which trigger the bleaching, then that species is ejected sooner and more frequently during warmer months, creating selective pressure for species that can.

To survive these conditions without getting ejected, the algae need to essentially run their photosynthesis process more slowly. They produce less chlorophyll per cell and create sacrificial 'photoprotective carotenoid pigments' which act like sunscreen and dissipate that potential sunlight energy as useless heat (coral has a few tricks too fluorescent proteins).

So the coral is actually in a delicate balancing act, selecting the most aggressive/productive algae which won't also try to kill it during summer. Corals will learn to be more conservative in their selection and algae will get more conservative themselves. We want this process to happen quickly enough so that we don't lose coral coverage and diversity in the coming decades / centuries, but we can be confident that on longer timescales the coral will adapt, assuming we don't get runaway warming.

Corals are killed en masse by other events, particularly cyclones. These have a much bigger affect on coral coverage, in the short term, than ocean temperatures / bleaching (which is transient and more localized).

Bleaching is not death of the coral, it is the expulsion of algae (typically in high temperatures). The coral can find a different species of algae, or the algae can return once temperatures drop.

There are corals living in regions of the ocean with different temperatures, so it is not that high temperature alone would kill all coral, but populations adapted to a given region (like north vs south GBR) are being affected by the speed of the changes.

Not necessarily but they do measure diversity too, and it has not changed dramatically.

Typically the biggest change in diversity is due to cyclones which kill of the delicate and fast-growing corals like staghorns, which are also the fastest to grow back.

High temperatures affect the algae itself. Transferring the algae to another live coral (bleached coral is alive) a) already happens in nature, if conditions return to normal b) does not protect the algae