The site suggests it is "7 weeks into 2025" but as of today (Feb 25th, 2025) we are in week 9 (according to MS Outlook calendar at work)

EU citizens badly need AI systems that are open and privacy-respecting. Getting together this rather large coalition of experts with quite some money and (importantly) access to compute power is a nice first step.

Let them play around, train some models, fail-and-get-up-again, start over, write papers and hopefully get some useful output. Remember, for the involved PhD students it will also be a learning experience!

Yes, it's only the first step. But yeez, it's a press release indicating the start of a scientific collaboration! Let's hold back on the negativity for a couple of years until after they've had a chance.

I, for one, hope this will lead to success and wish the team the best.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43018551

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

1) your actual scientific sources are not by climate deniers, but instead point to scientific progress on very specific points of climatological research. You are quoting them out of context and unfairly representing their conclusions. Even reading the abstract of the papers makes this clear.

2) your non-scientific links are a mix of unsourced claims, strawman arguments and pop-sci works that have very little scientific value

3) yes, you can cite scientists but can you cite scientists with degrees, papers and credentials in relevant fields to the presented claims? Certainly John Clauser isn't one, see summary below.

4) science is not done by consensus, as much as any media outlet will try to convince you. It is done by hypothesizing, experimenting, analyzing, reporting/publishing, correcting (each other) and learning/iterating. The 99% figure may be wrong (or right) but it is mainly irrelevant to correctness.

" The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 was awarded jointly to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger "for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science" "

Now, I don't speak or read Chinese and couldn't immediately find a way to change the setting back to English. Could probably find it on the internet but .. Oh well, I don't really use LinkedIn so it's just stayed that way now.

This culminated in a made-up addition to the timeline entitled "Matt announces acquisition of Bullenweg.com" complete with a "quote" from Matt (there is a footnote within it mentioning it is fake).

This seems to have been the last straw to the lawyers representing Matt to step in and threaten a libel suit (or similar). The result is Bullenweg.com folding (for now) since this could get real expensive real quick.

The above is my interpretation of the events - I have no further inside insights.

If Sable dedicates their patents to the public, what does it mean for CF to be granted a "royalty-free license to its entire patent portfolio"?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41409337

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

I don't think this is accurate. Are you saying that in digital computers each individual transistor switches faster than the clock rate of, say, 3 GHz? I think there is one clock signal that is distributed to all transistors and they turn on/off synchronously at this rate. The GHz number on the processor advertisement is the switching rate of all transistors, not some hypothetical 'system rate' which would somehow be much lower?? Please clarify or correct me if I am mistaken.

This THz comment relates to analog circuits, which is supposedly around a factor 10 higher with this new tech.

If you want to learn more, read about Fmax and Ft of transistors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37478497

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

"The story made headlines in The New York Times [note: this is your NYT article]. Shortly afterwards, Schneider became aware that he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974."