Or for short, The Aristocrats

Who gives a fuck about voters lol, this war is unpopular in the US too. As if they care what we think about stuff.

A single diode a micrometer away from anything else is not suddenly a transformer without which a 400 um² antenna stops working.

They’re fabricating micrometer components with a 90 nm process. That’s pretty well in the classical regime. If they’re seeing substantial tunneling at that scale it would be rather noteworthy to say the least.

i remember there was a diode and transistor that were literally completely seperated from the traces of the rest of the chip, and yet they were functional pieces and the chip wouldnt work if you removed them.

If that was true they would be getting the Nobel in physics for discovering some incredible new quantum phenomena, it would be front-page news everywhere. I highly doubt it’s true.

Frustratingly, that article you linked doesn’t actually link to the paper. But it is in Nature Communications. That’s a respectable journal but not that prestigious, and it publishes a lot of over hyped stuff. Not that any journal doesn’t. But if they had really found new physics with AI chip design that would go to Science, Nature, or maybe PRL.

Edit: ah, I found it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-54178-1

Chip design isn’t at all my specialty so take my opinion about this with a grain of salt. But I think it’s notable that

Prior works in nanophotonics have demonstrated the class of inverse methods for specific dielectric-based passive structures through gradient based optimizations such as adjoint method

So, there are already known algorithmic approaches to solving for these. I think it’s also notable that these are for signal transformation and antennae, relatively simple operations.

This seems like a vaguely useful result but I don’t expect it’ll be breaking any new ground any time soon.

deleted by creator

conservatives aren’t hearing stories like this very much, they certainly don’t read the guardian

Ramos’s plight is one of only several instances that contradict Trump’s initial claims that his ongoing immigration crackdown would prioritize deporting dangerous criminals.

They really need better editing. It’s clear from the rest of the paragraph they didn’t mean the ‘only’ but it’s a rather unfortunate error.

obvious troll is obvious lol

Yes, but there is a good reason for that.

Since a small number of men are creeps, we give you the option to avoid all men". Which seems to be counterproductive.

Speaking as a man, the majority of men are creeps, but even if they weren’t, it wouldn’t be counterproductive. If it was, say, a 5% chance, one in twenty, that would be far and away high enough of a risk to make a move like this worthwhile. Hell even 1%. And we know the proportion is far greater than that.

They know how many drives a customer has provisioned without incident.

No they don’t, single digit percentages of sexual harassment are ever even reported let alone followed up because almost nobody gives a shit about it. Someone’s squeaky clean history is basically indistinguishable from that of a serial creep.

How is that OK?

Sadly, lots of things in the world aren’t ok. It’s tough out there.

Well duh, all cops

You argue like Charlie Kirk. You think you have a clever gotcha and you can probably convince children with this, but there’s no meaning. People don’t read Newton when they study Newtonian mechanics either. Unless they’re particularly interested; of course they can get something out of it, but you’d never start there. It’s not weird to name a field after the person whose ideas kicked it off.

Why wouldn’t learning about politics in depth be like academic study, though? Learning about basically anything in depth is academic study. Sure, there are valid forms of investigation or knowledge which have been shut out from academia, but even if your preferred version of knowledge is more intuitive and experience based, eventually you’ve still got to share it with people and writing is much more efficient in reaching people than one-on-one.

Why is that weird? Marx wrote in the 1800s, quite a few things have happened since then.

The money they collect is the money we pay them minus the money they pay us. If we can’t pay them more the only way to get more is for them to pay us less. Gross simplification obviously. Then the typical strategy is to blame immigrants or Jews or whatever for the decrease in living standards, and crack down on anyone who tries to improve things.

Edit: this is sort of a meme-ified version of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall which is the real theory of how economic crises in capitalism come about and not really the same as what I’m describing here, but along some similar lines. It’s worth reading about from actual scholars in detail if you’re interested in that sort of thing.

No, no, even if we get that wish I dont want the US state propping up AI longer

Funnily enough the problem with capitalism is actually that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

Which they badly need, they are in an incredibly risky position right now. It’s very disappointing, this deal might save them from collapse for quite a while.

Oh cool, AI will actually be the end of the world, not because it’s actually sentient but because some meathead who can’t tell the difference pushes the button. That’s fucking great.