The US president has accused Iran of extending the conflict to hurt him politically, claiming recently that the war would end “immediately” after the election.
How dare Iran extend the conflict by continuing to exist in the same place!
Meanwhile, Iran has said they would absolutely negotiate with the USA, as soon as the baboon-in-chief is out of office, and replaced by someone who is actually able to do what they promise.
Personally, I’m downvoting you because you’re posting the same I’m different formats and it’s annoying. Learn how to Lemmy please.
Small 2 stroke engines create more particulate and nitrogen pollution than big excavators and bulldozers.
Not relatively, per unit. A leaf blower or moped is worse than a 20 ton caterpillar.
The recent PISA data confirms that students who use AI a lot are about a year behind everyone else. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2025-results-volume-i_73451bc5-en.html
There’s absolutely no doubt that AI democratizes many capabilities that people otherwise would not possess,
There is so much wrong with that.
For starters, you don’t possess it. You still can’t do it because you haven’t learned.
Second, it’s not something you have inherent access too. LLMs are completely unaffordable to anyone using them, which is why the companies are running insane losses. Your use of LLMs depends entirely and fully on the availability of venture capital to burn.
Third, it was always within your ability to learn. The information to acquire the skills has been available for free.
Fourth, thanks to LLMs (and enshittification) it is becoming more and more difficult to find and access that free information.
People aren’t talking about alphafold when they’re talking about “AI” in 2026. They’re talking about chatgpt, claude and copilot.
“Could you have done it without AI?” is the wrong test. The test is whether the extra cost of doing it the old way is worth paying every time. Sometimes it is. Often it is not
I would hard disagree. It absolutely applies for super narrow applications like alphafold, but in general, LLMs aren’t remotely close to being worth it. You don’t need to look beyond how hugely unprofitable AI companies are. The only companies who aren’t completely shoveling money into the furnace are the ones selling hardware to the companies that do.
We also see that the consequences of AI use are pretty harsh. Students who use a lot of AI are a full year behind their counterparts that don’t, according the the latest PISA data.
So what we have is something that is unaffordably expensive, with dubious benefit and immense second order effects.
Let’s assume the reverse: using AI makes you dumber and slower. Actually, let’s not assume, since we have evidence: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2025-results-volume-i_73451bc5-en.html
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2025-results-volume-i_73451bc5-en.html
Students who use LLMs a lot are overall much worse off then their regular counterparts. Now, whether that means slower students use LLM more (without it having any real effect) or that LLM use is degrading their ability is unknown, but it’s pretty clear and extremely damning.
Blame covid for the first drop, and blame LLM for keeping it there right now
PISA data show that students who use AI for specific schoolwork tasks, such as summarising texts, drafting or conducting research, attain lower scores in science than students who do not use AI. In these scenarios, students who do not use AI outperform those who do, on average, by around 20 points – equivalent to being around one year of schooling ahead of their peers
Juries shouldn’t make decisions period.
They are the norm in most of europe.
Morons can easily be convinced that their lives are at risk for racist and xenofobic reasons.
This is why we can’t let the “moderate” right ruin education, it leads to shit like this.
So the other 99% of the energy that doesn’t push push against the craft body just goes away?
You’re missing the insane energy density of a nuclear reaction. The first nuke used in war weighed 4700kg and produced about 88 terajoules of energy. That’s about 19 giga joule per kilo
1 kg of rocketfuel + oxidizer produces 13 megajoule.
So even at 1% energy conversion for a nuke and 100% conversion for rocketfuel, the nuke is still 15 times more energydense.
And if you don’t use nukes from the 40s, a modern thermonuclear bomb packs 2000TJ into 200 kilos, for a convenient 10TJ per kilo, or 7700 times more power per kilo than liquid rocket fuel.
It’s super oxidative, AND corrosive. When you pour a normal oxidizer on metal, you get a thin layer of oxidized metal, and the reaction stops.
But CIF3 will dissolve that oxide, and keep going. And keep going fast enough that stuff catches on fire.
It’s a chemical used to clean vapor deposition chambers, in tiny little ampules. The idea of using it rocket-sized volumes should make every sane person run for the hills.
Whenever someone is doing, or is about to do, something stupid, simply say out loud what they’re doing, and ask what they want to happen.
Sure, but the expectations of most launches is that they work. SpaceX is the only one which repeatedly expects to fail doing the same thing.
people following such things might remember the huge amount of
explosionsRapid Unscheduled Disassemblies starting rocket projects –privat or otherwise– tend to produce in the beginning
They generally don’t. SpaceX is pretty much the only company blowing up rockets on the regular. Everyone else actually does testing.
The peak of 2007 was reached again in 2013. Not exactly the next day, but also not disastrously long.
If I feed my cats live mice, they’re going to starve.