In western countries every couple of years we elect a new clown show, which then proceeds to destroy whatever the last clown show tried to accomplish. That has happened again and again for decades, truly awesome "our democracy".

We are talking about Marxist philosophers. These weren't some scholars of Christianity, who would have insisted on the inherent worth of human life and the injustice of state intervention deep into personal lives, these were the same "philosophers" who justified extermination programs based on the insufficient revolutionary spirit of the exterminated.

Because batteries are very expensive. But they aren't particularly complex.

This argument just does not make any sense at all. Of course simple components can be more expensive. The cost of ownership is even less relevant, since it depends almost entirely on outside factors, which vary by region and government.

>It's a standard combustion engine, nothing special.

This is totally false. The hydrogen storage alone is enormously complicated. Hydrogen, especially at the pressures needed for a car to be viable is far more complex to store safely then fuel storage for a regular diesel/gasoline car.

Pretending this is not the case is just delusional.

No. We should embrace the technically most feasible, which opens up new technology to the most people.

EVs are the clear winners. Every cent spent on hydrogen infrastructure is a cent wasted, because it could go to making the one feasible technology better. Arbitrary openness to technology long after it has been clearly established that the technology is inferior is not a good thing, it is a path to stay on ICEs forever.

Hydrogen is a bad idea. The only way to defend it is by pretending modern EVs do not exist, since they solved all the existing problems and offer numerous benefits over hydrogen.

Additionally the customer has already chosen and he has chosen the right technology, because the value proposition of an EV is far greater than that of a hydrogen car.

An EV is a clear simplification of an ICE. Add a Battery and replace the mechanical complexity of a combustion engine with a relatively simple electric motor. So many components are now unnecessary and so many problems just go away. EVs also make charging simpler.

Hydrogen cars on the other hand are very complex and also quite inefficient, requiring many steps to go from hydrogen generation to motor movement. And they require a very sophisticated network of charging infrastructure, which has to deal with an explosive gas at high pressures. Something which is dangerous even in highly controlled industrial environments.

I just do not see a single reason why hydrogen cars would catch on. EVs are good already and come with many benefits.

Of course they do. And if you read the article in the OP you also realize why.

Polygraphs are an interrogation tactic, you can force a subject into a somewhat ridiculous procedure and ask them threatening questions, creating an disorientating situation. Afterwards you can accuse them of having "proven" that they are a liar. Polygraphs work, it just does not matter whether the machine is on or off.

To me this made it clear that the German Nation has been clearly defined over the last thousand years and just how similar the people who wrote and enjoyed that work are to the native Germans right now. Can only recommend people do something like that if they want to dispel the delusion that people of your Nation who lived a thousand years ago were in any way fundamentally different from you.

Phone batteries are already replaceable with standard tools. Instead of having waterproof phones, the EU wants to mandate back phones which die when you are caught in a shower. Reliable water proofing is only possible with gluing in seals, I really hope some lobbyist can actually show them what the consequence of their actions will be. I do not want to have to import a phone from the US to get a usable device.

Saving the environment by creating mountains of dead phones, killed by water, is such an incredible EU move.

Here in Germany private corporations provide APIs for this. Google maps straight up tells you the price at nearby stations.

Maybe the UK government should focus on things such as their crumbling infrastructure, their almost non existent GDP growth or getting rid of their knife murderer and rapist population?

>And very rarely, this kind of thing might happen naturally.

It is not a question of rarity, it is a question of the stability of the numerical problem. Luckily most of the computation in an LLM is matrix multiplication, which is s extremely well understood numerical problem and which can be checked for good condition.

Two different numerical implementations on a well conditioned problem and which requires much computation, differing significantly would indicate a disastrous fault in the design or condition of the hardware, which would be noticed by most computations done on that hardware.

If you weigh the likelihood of OP running into a hardware bug, causing significant numerical error on one specific computational model against the alternative explanation of a problem in the software stack it is clear that the later explanation is orders of magnitude more likely. Finding a single floating point arithmetic hardware bug is exceedingly rare (although Intel had one), but stacking them up in a way in which one particular neural network does not function, while other functions on the hardware run perfectly fine, is astronomically unlikely.

I highly doubt that you could have a usable iPhone with a broken neural engine, at the very least it would be obvious to the user that there is something very wrong going on.

The conclusion, that it was not the fault of the developer was correct, but assuming anything other than a problem at some point in the software stack is unreasonable.

What other interpretation of your words could there be except you believing that people in high political offices are above average students.

We had student council elections, where the candidates were listed by degree and the semester, the trend was overwhelmingly that the candidates were in semesters after the usual graduation date, often having studied for more then 5 years.

There is enormous value in letting humans communicate freely through the internet and any harm which comes from the misuse needs to be very carefully weighed against the benefits.

By the way, fossile fuels are partly responsible for the greatest uplift in human quality of life. Pesticides are essential in creating a sustainable food output.

This is just a lie and has nothing to do with the research, which in a baffling decision does not appear to be linked in the article. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.00181

Just to be clear, the evidence seems overwhelming. This is not some novel research field, but this questions has been researched for long enough to have been pretty conclusively answered.

>1) I've yet to see evidence that the medium is the problem,

This is not relevant to the claim. The claim is that the specific usage pattern of young adults is harmful to their development.

>I'm not convinced that these social media bans are solving a real problem.

I largely agree.