I have about 30 years of experience with running Linux. Rarely as my main system (though I did use this particular laptop for a few months in between two macs at some point).

I got rid of both snap and flatpak. I like the idea of those two. But they are just too much of a PITA to deal with. I'd like this stuff to work how it works on my mac: mount .app image, drag the app to the Applications folder and done. On Manjaro, if I want something, I just 'yay ' it.

I find it very telling how commercial application developers that actually do explicitly support Linux advertise their Linux support on their websites. Mostly it does not involve the words flatpak or snap. Just not a thing. Generally you'll find some link to a deb, rpm, or tar ball (in that order). And good luck with that. Yay does a fairly good job of converting deb files for use with arch based systems. It's how I installed Chat GPT Desktop on this thing before traveling, for example.

Basically the status quo for commercial application developers targeting Linux is to: 1) ignore distros repackaging other people's software 2) ignore niche package management solutions 3) just cover the basics which is Ubuntu (deb) first and then everything else. Which means you get a deb file, maybe an rpm, and not much else typically. What they typically don't do is work with half dozen app stores, distribution specific repositories, package managers, and other walled gardens to bend over backwards to distribute their software. None of them are large enough to be worth the overhead.

This system kind of works. There's no need for OpenAI to support Manjaro with a Manjaro specific package. Yay can work with a simple deb. All the developers have to do is make sure to statically link the essentials and not make too many distribution specific assumptions.

The kernel developers are probably a bit further in their thinking then some developers. They've been dealing with many thousands of contributors for decades. Git was invented by Linus Torvalds specifically to deal with ensuring only the best patches make it into the kernel.

Somebody posted a video with Greg Kroah-Hartman last week or so commenting on how he's been dealing with all the AI generated security bug reports. His key point is that AI generated reports are meaningless unless they come with a suggested fix as well. If you are going to generate the report, you might as well generate the fix. And it's a lot easier for him to review if the fix fixes anything worth fixing then to piece together a fix from a lengthy report. The larger the report, the less likely it is to get any attention. If the person contributing can't articulate why the fix is needed or how it works, they just reject the change and toss it back. That strikes me as very pragmatic. Judge a change on its merits. Not on how it was created. A report without a suggested fix is relatively meaningless.

The fallacy here is counting barrels of oil, shipments of coal, or whatever and assuming it needs to be replaced 1:1 by what used to be called alternative energy to get the same useful energy. But of course with electrified systems, the losses from generation to use are a lot less. Things like wires and transformers have their own inefficiencies of course. But the numbers are pretty good. You end up with 80-90% useful energy. As opposed to 30-40% for typical fossil fuel plants. And far less for any combustion engine vehicles.

It's called the primary energy fallacy. As Michael Liebreich suggests, there are people using this term that genuinely don't get it. And there are those using it intentionally that do. But the bottom line is that their math tends to be off by about 3-5x.

The history of Chrome is that it first displaced Firefox as a reasonable alternative (while funding that via a nice ad deal). And then they just steam rolled Internet Explorer to the point where MS gave up and rebuilt their browser around Chromium. It was that good. Fifteen years ago.

But these days you have to put up with a lot of crap from Google. Ad blocking works better on other browsers. Even some Chromium browsers (like Brave). But the thing with Chromium is that all Chromium derived browsers outsource most of the browser internals to Google. Google decides what features to implement, what PRs to merge, what features not to implement, etc. They set the standards. Safari, Firefox, and hopefully soon Ladybird are the only alternative browser engines keeping them somewhat honest on that front.

A big part of the problem is social networks treating very non authoritative sources as if they are authoritative based on all sorts of factors that can be manipulated or based on financial gain (somebody pais to get their content promoted).

Users of these tools include lobby groups, nation states, politicians, criminals, scammers, etc. Anyone interested in promoting their cause, sowing FUD about other people's causes, spreading misinformation, or distracting from inconvenient but accurate information.

We'll always have people like that. But we might want to think about getting better tools to deal with them. I prefer getting my news from reputable sources instead of random clickbait distributors or whatever. Keeping track of reputation for domains, people, etc. is currently hard. I don't think it's necessarily a technical problems. We've had the tools to digitally sign stuff for decades. But we're not using them effectively. People can't be bothered to sign their emails, documents, photos, articles, etc. The tools to add and check those signatures are not there or an afterthought at best.

And grids can actually be connected together via cables now. The cliche is that solar panels don't generate at night. But if you connect grids via a long cable running east to west you can actually have solar power at night. And when you connect them north to south you can have solar power on a dark winter day as well. And when you add batteries to the mix (on both sides), you can keep those charged as well and use that power regardless of what time or season it is.

And that's ignoring wind (on and offshore), hydro, nuclear, and other clean forms of power that we currently don't use at scale (geothermal, fusion, etc.). If you add all that to the mix. And cables. And lots of battery. Grid connected car batteries, balcony solar, and all the rest, you end up with a lot of capacity.

Gas power is not going to way. But we probably already have too much of it and it shows in the poor utilization of existing turbines. Ironically, adding more gas turbines to the grid only makes that poor utilization worse for owners of these plants.

Battery production is being invested in heavily. There are new types of batteries (like sodium ion) that are extremely relevant to the article that it barely even mentions. The pitch for those is of course no lithium, better temperature ranges, less need for cooling/heating them, much better fire safety, better durability, etc. This all adds up to lower cost when done at scale. That all adds up to a lot less cost for especially grid storage.

I agree the 33% number is meaningless. It's probably too conservative. The article actually does not talk about new battery chemistries like sodium ion. And given that large scale factories are already producing those by the tens of gwh, I think that's more than a little oversight. Additionally, there are learning effects that explain the large differences in prices between markets that the article mentions. Those are optimizations that countries have yet to implement. Some might not get around to that any time soon (like the US seems a bit of a basket case on cost/efficiency for a lot of things).

Because of the improvements in battery cost relative to the stagnating improvements in gas turbines, gas turbine manufacturers are going to be conservative in investing in new production capacity. A lot of companies that say right now that they are going to want to buy gas turbines might no longer want to in a few years. For example the low cost and ready availability of solar+battery might be persuasive for some. Investing many billions in new production capacity that won't come online until some time next decade is highly risky if the projected demand could evaporate. The reason there is a shortage is that that's what they thought five to ten years ago as well. So, it's easy to predict that turbine shortages might continue to exist.

I went through a phase where I had to be trained up a bit when I started out as a researcher. My written communication wasn't great. I went to high school in the Netherlands where I learned English. I am not a native speaker. But I wasn't able to write well in my native language either. I was doing my master thesis at the time and had already agreed to continue doing a PhD. I was writing what would be my first published article at the same time. My style and grammar were poor. Sentences didn't connect. The text was poorly structured. I was making all the beginners mistakes that somebody that is not used to writing professionally makes. I managed to get it published at a conference. But it wasn't great.

The best advice I got from my professor at the time was that anything you do systematically wrong you can learn to do right. You just need to understand what you are doing wrong. He provided a lot of feedback on what I was doing wrong and why and I got better at writing rapidly. He was very patient with me, except when he caught me doing things wrong which he had corrected me on already. After a few months, I was catching most of my own mistakes. I learned to review text at the same time. I was reviewing lots of papers by others as well as my own work. So, I got a lot of examples of good and bad papers while I was also trying to figure out my own writing.

Another insight here is that writing text is a bit like programming. You can't reference things you haven't talked about yet. There's a sequence of presenting things and an expected structure. Dead code elimination is a thing as well: remove text that no longer serves a purpose. Text needs to be logical, self contained, etc. Lots of coupling is not great. Low cohesion is bad as well. Keeping text simple and minimal and flowing naturally is an art. You can challenge yourself to say the same thing with less words. Very useful if you have a hard word count or page limit.

Long term storage has the simple economic challenge that it's simply redundant most of the time and therefore very expensive for the few times it might actually be needed. As a result, alternatives to storage tend to be more economical and practical. Having gas as a backup is a given for the next few decades. There are so many gas plants around and more are being built. Mostly short term storage is actually marginalizing a lot of those in their role as peaker-plants.

The plan for the last few percent of the renewable transition, which is what long term storage would be about is a lot less interesting than just getting the first 90-95% out of the way. Which will work fine without anything complicated or new. Burning some gas for the remaining percentages is not pretty as a stop gap solution but it's a lot better than what we currently do. We have a 3-5 decades to figure out the rest.

Towards the end of that period, most remaining gas plants will be running less and less. There are a lot of other solutions than long term storage btw. Including using cables to move power around over long distances. Connect sunny areas to dark areas. Or windy areas to calm areas. There are some plans in various stages of progress to connect e.g. Singapore with Australia, Morocco with the UK, the east coast of Canada with Europe, etc. Each of those projects adds many GW of power import and export capability. Add things like flexible demand to the mix and we gain the ability to turn things on/off selectively depending on power availability.

It was slightly funny because I configured my phone to use a weird chipmunk voice to read stuff out loud apparently (not a feature I use) and it actually started reading out the message. Big WTF. moment until I figured out. Grabbed my attention though and it was the first real alarm I've received. We get a practice alarm message every few months.

You have to be realistic of course. There are a few months in the winter where they don't perform well and returns drop well below a single kwh of power. But then you might start getting some bright winter or early spring days and you go back to getting many kwh per day worth of free power as early as February or March.

It's better if you have a battery and if your local energy supplier has favorable contracts.

Long term storage seems to be a be a hobby horse that comes up in a lot of theads like this. The reality with batteries is that the overwhelmingly vast majority is for dealing with short term supply/demand fluctuation. The supply spikes are as important as the demand spikes here. Empty batteries can absorb those.

Anything beyond four hours drops off rapidly in terms of economics. And a few hours is all most energy companies need for planning to spin up or down gas (or coal in some cases) plants or decide to import/export power via cables.

As for nuclear, it's is a lot less flexible and very expensive. And in any case very little of it is coming online for the foreseeable future (next 1-2 decades). We'll get probably quite a few TW of battery, solar, and wind deployed over that time. Nuclear is going to be a rounding error on that even in the best case.

While that won't help most current truckers, the shift to electrical trucks is going to create some opportunities for the companies that buy them to undercut diesel trucks on price. Electrical trucks are still scarce and expensive and infrastructure is also lacking (in the US at least, EU/China is a different story). But of course with diesel prices spiking this high, it only exaggerates the benefits. And it looks like price uncertainty in general is could be here to stay with e.g. Russia probably needing many years to rebuild their oil infrastructure and the middle east also needing a lot of time if/when some sense of normality is restored there.

There are likely to be a lot more EV trucks on the market over the next years. China is already heading for 40+% of trucks sold (of all types, including heavy trucks) to be electric. They are way past the testing and experimenting phase there.

Transitioning the whole truck fleet in the US will take many years of course. But with Tesla bringing their factory online, other truck companies are likely to also increase production. This could quickly go from thousands of trucks sold per year in the US to tens of thousands. Tesla alone has the ambition to do 50K semis per year. We'll see if they manage. But it's going to disrupt truckers that are highly dependent on diesel prices when whole fleets start becoming immune to diesel price uncertainty.

Spoiler alert:

The protagonist is a person with severe brain damage that is AI enhanced to become this useful but also severely autistic individual that has no emotions. The novel features also features a genetically engineered vampire with psychopath tendencies. These and a few other characters end up being send on a deep space mission to combat an alien intelligence.

All this obviously requires a bit of suspension of disbelief. But as a psychological take on AI and genetically enhanced intelligence, it touches some interesting topics.

For example the Dacia Spring that is selling for around 17K Euros in Germany. And then there are tax rebates, discounts, etc. that are causing some of these cars to be available for a lot less occasionally in some markets.

Markets where EVs have been available in larger numbers for a while now have a sizable EV market. Australia is relatively early with its adoption, so the second hand market is a lot smaller there. The EU as a relatively early adopter has a lot of EVs from 2020 or earlier that are still under warranty and being traded in quite large numbers now. In the last few months these been a very hot commodity as lots of people are feeling the pain of high fuel prices.

All these new small cars will become a large part of the second hand car market in a few years. There will many be millions of them on the roads in a few years. And they last quite long.

There's a long history of various companies doing patent license deals like this in the telecom industry. Nokia still earns a lot of money this way, for example. Apple settled with them on a few occasions.

Speaking of which; Apple has its own 5G chips now so they are a bit less dependent on Qualcomm now. Huawei and Apple both have a lot of their own in house technology at this point. But of course Qualcomm always was a strong IP company with lots of patents and its impossible for either to make phones without infringing on at least some of those patterns. And vice versa, a lot of Qualcomm's stuff would necessarily infringe on some patents by others.

That's why these cross licensing deals like this are usually the outcome of disputes around IP.

This article deliberately confuses things by conflating it with the discussion around bio fuels. Which, as you point out is largely redundant given that we now have decent EVs for literally anything with wheels commercially available. Anything from the tiniest scooters to the largest vehicles operated in the mining industry. And everything in between.

The fallacy with this debate is the focus on disproportionately small parts of the challenge of de-carbonization. If we manage to electrify most road and rail transport, heating (industrial and domestic), some shipping and aviation, etc. that would make an enormous dent in fossil fuel usage. After that we might focus on harder things like plastics. I'm not against people focusing on that now. More power to these people. But put it in perspective: it's relatively small part of the problem. And we have alternatives.

This fallacy is a recurring theme in fossil fuel lobbying materials. By spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt, they hope to slow down the accelerating implosion of their primary revenue maker: fuel sales. So, they talk up hydrogen and bio fuels. Sponsor studies on the impact of windmills on wild life. Etc. I can't help but look at this article and wonder who payed for it.

- Retail 2D codes are being rolled out at scale from next year already in many markets; 2d codes will be on many products in the supermarket. Preparations for this have been ongoing for quite long. Mostly scanners have been ready for this for some time. Most recent hardware should handle all this fine. Scanners that don't handle 2D will rapidly disappear.

- For industrial use, QR codes are already quite common. Use of QR codes is much less about replacing existing bar codes with QR codes and more about completely new uses for QR codes. You are right that most factories won't do invasive changes in their setups unless there's a good reason. But efficiency improvements tend to be a good reason.

I was at the Logimat fair in Stuttgart earlier this year. Lots of companies demonstrating scanners, sticker printing, camera modules, and all the rest. There are a lot of companies actively pushing all sorts of solutions around 2D codes.

What if email existed on your laptop? Like was common before we moved to using web based applications? What if your local email client had a local database with a proper search API. That sounds a lot like what Thunderbird, Outlook, etc. did a quarter century ago. And still do if you still use those. Digging through a local database is a lot faster than dealing with relatively slow API access. LLMs are really good at doing stuff like that.

I run a small company, I've taken a sledge hammer to many of the SAAS tools we use in our business in the last years. We got rid of Hubspot, Slack, and many other tools we use for financial planning, etc. These got replaced with self hosted open source things or simple file based repositories in some cases. This has several huge advantages: 1) it's stupidly easy to get to the data for LLMs now 2) LLMs can administer these things for us 3) we saved quite a bit in licensing fees. 4) removing obstacles means LLMs can do complex things we used to do manually in dreadful SAAS tools.

Once people started using iron instead of bronze, the first use was probably creating tools used for farming, food production, and other important things: Axes, hoes, spades, etc. And they did not just substitute bronze tools but because iron was cheaper, they probably created more of them, and new tools. And it also enabled things like nails and other construction material.

So, the economy and power structures shifted as tools enabled more economic output. By the time steel became good enough for weaponry, the bronze age was effectively already a thing of the past as the economy would have shifted to using iron for most tools long before.

And then later of course, having cheap and good enough steel weaponry enabled the creation of larger armies too. So towards the end of the Iron age, you get e.g. the Romans creating huge legions that were simply not economically feasible in the bronze age. And given that hand to hand combat was basically the way people waged wars, the ones with the bigger armies would tend to win.

With Fermat's theorem, the genius was in the original theorem. Which then caused generations of mathematicians to break their heads over trying to prove it correct. Fermat didn't write down a proof. His theorem was famously just a scribble in a side line of a book. Probably it was something that he had an hunch about that he couldn't quickly falsify.

I don't think AI is being used much for coming up with new problems yet. But I don't see why that would not be possible either. It's the obvious next frontier after AI clears the backlog of existing theorems. I imagine scientists are already using AI to find new interesting problems to work on and generally explore the problem space. But fundamentally, the reflex of asking or imagining "if this is true, what else could be true" is something that distinguishes people from AIs. For now at least.