I'm not saying it is or isn't written by an LLM, but, Yegge writes a lot and usually well. It somehow seems unlikely he'd outsource the front page to AI, even if he's a regular user of AI for coding and code docs.
I'm not trying to insult you, but think about this. Musk has a reputation of actually delivering on the things he showcases- Cybertruck is real, it also failed, but he delivered it. Starlink is real, and it is winning spectacularly and probably has saved countless Ukrainian lives at this point. Yes FSD is not there yet, but I can pretty much guarantee you that it will be the first car that (is not a taxi) that has it.
And breaking apart my own statement slowly for you:
Tesla robot will be the most advanced consumer grade product ever made
^ product ^
will have vision, grip, communication,
ability to agentically think and perform physical tasks
^ Yes it is "a consumer grade product"
that will literally not have
real viable competition for a while
So please stop with the MDS so we can actually discuss the REALITY of the world.
>You can't possibly believe Musk's fantasies after a couple decades of hilarious (and occasionally dangerous) lies.
Eh, betting against Musk generally seems to be a losing proposition. Starlink alone would have given me faith in his abilities, what Tesla's done with Models 3 and Y and SpaceX with Falcon 9 gives me all the more reason to believe him. Yes, despite the absurd timelines, which I'm generally okay with. (Not OP)
I happen to agree with you but for different reasons.
I will never bet on Musk, but I’m also not dumb enough to bet against him, given TSLA’s stock growth. The board has set a wild target for him before, and he hit it.
It’s too easy to say “he’ll never achieve that!” from the comfort of an armchair internet comment.
Ok, if you really believe that, step up to the line and place your bets. Because if you don’t believe it enough to put money on it, you probably don’t believe it that much.
(Eyeroll) I didn’t feel like I needed to state my disagreements because I felt like they weren’t relevant enough to spend time on. So I agreed with his point that I’m not betting against Musk, but left out the reasons.
But leave it to the pedantic internet commenters to take issue with even a minor inconsistency.
I promise to do better next time, thank you for your feedback. I know I’ll make you proud one day, dad.
This is a remarkably ignorant take. Literally every detail is wrong.
They aren't major chords, they're mostly power chords, which are neither major nor minor (no third and the third provides the major/minor tonality). They often function as minor chords because of the melody or other parts, or just because of how the progression fits together. They aren't unique or new with Cobain, he was part of a long history of punk and rock and roll.
Cobain was a good songwriter in the rock and roll tradition. He was not particularly innovative or doing something technically unheard of, and he wouldn't have claimed to be. He wanted to be a good songwriter, and he succeeded. That's it, don't make up bullshit about it.
> Cobain was a good songwriter in the rock and roll tradition.
He wasn't even that. He was a pretty bad songwriter. His music was by and large mopey, plodding monotonous work that is dreary to listen to. Apart from Smells Like Teen Spirit, I don't think he wrote a single song worth listening to.
How is that new information "challenging old ventilation doctrine"? It confirms old ventilation doctrine: monitoring CO2 remains a good proxy for general air quality, including viral and bacterial threats, and reducing CO2 via ventilation reduces other threats. That's doctrine, and now it has stronger evidence to support it, and another possible explanation for why and how well CO2 is correlated with other air quality issues.
Ventilation good. CO2 bad. No challenge to old ventilation doctrine detected. (The article and the research seems much more nuanced than the silly title.)
The old doctrine was that CO2 was a proxy for air quality, and the (somewhat overblown title) is about seeing CO2 additionally as having a causal effect.
For example, under the "proxy" model, if you're worried about infection risk it's sufficient to filter the air, but under the new model filtering will work less well than you'd expect because the viruses you miss will stay active longer.
"The old doctrine was that CO2 was a proxy for air quality"
That's not accurate, though. CO2 is, on its own, an air quality concern.
It has also been known, or at least part of the conversation, since Florence Nightingale's time, that fresh air reduces infections (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9300299/). This research makes a small tweak to our understanding, but it's also something that's been suspected/suggested by others for decades.
This research isn't "challenging" anything, it's merely expanding our understanding of causation about previously observed correlations. It's good to know what's happening. It's silly to make it out to be something it's not.
Listen. You don't get tenure confirming centuries-known ideas. You get it upending known doctrines. So if your research doesn't upend the doctrine, find a way to make your title say it does
One way it challenges old doctrine is that 1000ppm CO2 was considered good air quality in the past. Now it seems 800ppm or perhaps lower should be considered good air quality. They haven't tested other viruses yet (both colds and flu viruses are now considered airborne I understand, and other respiratory viruses probably are also), and each virus may react differently, so nobody actually knows yet what an optimal value is. It is even possible that the optimal CO2 value is somewhere below the current average concentration of CO2 in the air around the world when taking all airborne viruses into consideration, but nobody knows. More research is needed. But at least for covid, 1000ppm CO2 should probably no longer be considered good air quality (though replication of the study would be good.)
If supermarkets and other public spaces had installed CO2 scrubbers on their ventilation output/exhaust, could we have expected to lower COVID's r-naught?
In what we did over the pandemic with masking, we drove some flu variants extinct. Is this an alternative to accomplish the same effect?
Are hospitals already doing this with existing ventilation?
CO2 scrubbers don't exist in an economically feasible form. Rather the trick is just ventilation, replace indoor air with ourdoor air. If supermarkets and other public spaces just installed ventilation systems that exchanged their indoor air with outdoors air (preferably with heat exchanges so as to avoid air-conditioning or heating the outdoors), it would absolutely have helped. Ignoring this very interesting study, ventilation still just flat out works to reduce the amount of covid in the air.
Increasing ventilation is unsurprisingly recommended by the CDC, the EPA, and basically every other relevant group. The EPA has a list of papers here if you're interested in scientific measurements backing this (but can I also say it's just common sense?): https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/indoor-air-and-co...
Or just the critically undersupported infra fail. The world will not end, and the money will magically appear out of thin air, guaranteed, and the public wouldn't even have to pay for it.
I do realize that living without uber eats/electronic banking/social media for a few days is unfortunately, untenable for the vast majority of the population.
reply