25% is not low overhead, but perhaps this example is the worse case and other tunings actually are low overhead. There's no exact definition I don't think, but anything much over 3% starts to feel like a lot of overhead to me.

Reading on:

> Our main technical insight is that the check whether an allocation should be sampled can be made free. This is done by folding it into the bump-pointer allocator check that PyPy’s GC uses to find out if it should start a minor collection. In this way the fast path with and without memory sampling are exactly the same.

That is cool, and means you only pay for the samples you produce = something you could leave enabled confidently, with a low-enough sample rate at least.

That explains why the swimmer, at least, looks a bit fake.

which is it? you contradict yourself in a single sentence.

cyber perhaps not so much...

I really like the free lunch / free launch pun here, intentional or not.

There is definitely a stupid game where people don't tell it like it is, but in my experience it's because people don't want to deal with HR at all, and so don't do or say anything that might bring a tut-tut from HR. Because people in HR are beyond annoying...

And HR fears a wrongful-termination lawsuit, not a defamation lawsuit.

This is all in the US, though. The UK has quite different libel laws and so maybe lawsuits are more common there.

You are taking about gas cars, though. Nobody, of any generation, has "range anxiety" in a gas car. People might be afraid they will hit empty, or not trust their fuel gauge, but that's not "range anxiety" that's "running out of gas is a PITA". Those things are different, one is a commonplace that has always been true and the other is new and EV-specific for good reason.

An EV is much harder to recover from an empty battery than an ICE car is from an empty tank. There is no red jerry can you can fill that will give an EV the 10-30 miles you get from a gallon of gas, and there is no guarantee that a refueling station is close by and conveniently located. And ofc if your EV is empty, it will take hours to refill. Hence range anxiety.

I have an EV, I love it and have done 7 hour road trips with it no problem, but planning the battery charge level is something you have to think about in a way that is qualitatively different than with gas cars.

That's not what I was saying. I was expressing surprise at the lack of spell- or grammar-check in a blog post about detecting slop. I think an AI would generate better text than that of the post, and I'm wondering if the errors are purposeful signifiers of "hey this was a human writing. this busted sentence"

I guess the sloppy writing ("I do it. A lot now" and "if they AI came up with") made me stop reading early, but: is this part of some big reveal? Sloppy grammar as a sign of not-AI? But it's still slop.

The stated energy density is "> 500 watthours/liter".

But higher on the page we see a relative-energy-density bar graph shows lightcell at 5x the energy density of lithium batteries, and (38/5 =) 7.6x less dense then petrol. This implies an energy density for lightcell of 1250 Wh/liter, as (according to Google) petrol clocks in just under 9500 Wh/liter, and (again according to Google) lithium batteries can reach 300 Wh/liter so let's call it 250 for the math to work out.

I'm curious which number is closer to truth: 500Wh/liter, or 1250? Is 1250 the theoretical max and 500 the current output in a test rig?

100%

> and they hate spending even one dollar extra on roofing when they know a taxpayer-backed insurance policy will cover their substandard construction

That just doesn't follow. More likely is that people building the homes (possibly on spec) are motivated by their bottom dollar, so only do what is mandatory (per your first point) or that people who own the homes simply _don't know about these mitigations_.

Blaming all behavior on a last-resort insurance fund misses a lot of steps between, and I don't think tracks to how people actually behave in the real world.