There is very little actionable information here. Nuclear is still worth building, in countries that don't overregulate it (China is doing it, even while they export the solar panels that everybody is buying). Solar is hitting pretty steep marginal returns on the value of generated watt, because it's all running at the same time and not necessarily when energy is most needed. We still haven't solved cheap battery storage. etc.

I think it's just complicated. I'm pretty sure dentists go to the most conferences per year, possibly way above any other specialty. And since I doubt whatever perks they get are worth the trouble, I'm forced to believe them that they're constantly finding out about new stuff.

And the one piece of actionable advice I got from my own experiences: ReminPro melon flavor is a wonderfully tasty toothpaste, and it will actually remineralize your teeth. I no longer wince at hot/cold stuff. Downside is that it's somewhat pricy, and you'll probably need to order online from specialty shops.

Also get a water flosser.

I know it's a small example, but it's a real effect that languages/libraries/frameworks become less and less important, when intelligence and code generation get better and cheaper.

That's exactly why we convert things to money - so we don't use arbitrary measurements. An energy use is not "wasteful", it can only be expensive. Which is worth or not, depending on particular conditions.

It's not about needing to trust proofs (or treatments) to use them. It's about goal alignment.

For starters, a VPS for each claude code project (with a simple orchestrator and project creator).

I'm also playing lowkey with small ESP32 powered automations, and having a VPS to monitor them, show a web interface and push updates. And I've just added a small REPL like module.

And how did you intervene? Does it have permissions to send emails, or it only created the draft?

This is a pretty interesting example and highly relevant, but details matter a lot if we want to use it as a lesson.

I'd like to know that when I'm reading a comment, it's written (or at least endorsed) by a human being. Currently that's.. debatable, and it's only going to be more so. Entities with cash and resources can focus on the topics relevant to them and drown the conversation. I'd like to at least know that the idiotic replies I'm getting are real human idiots, and not astroturfing in one shape or another.

An example would be the european reaction to AC. It's a way of using technology to solve warming, its costs are perfectly acceptable, but it is still frown upon because... well, it's beyond the scope of a HN comment to diagnose why, but it's an example of technology being able to mitigate a problem but not being allowed to.

And it's FAR from hopeless. Again, global warming is obviously happening. But the amount of adapting and reacting to it is virtually nil. Installing AC. Tree cover in every city. Start serious discussions on what level of risk we want with geoengineering.

Because yes, there absolutely is an acceptable risk level with geoengineering. Planting trees is that. Carbon capture is also that. And better and more effective tech will definitely be available.

But we're in a social climate where I don't even dare write down examples of what those more effective methods would be, because if you're not luddite enough you're the enemy.

You're very likely to use those tools for other things as well, so keep the MCP as just a layer.

You can add a lot of things you wouldn't usually bother with, like telemetry, detailed logs, read only database access (you can even add a llm powered query builder on top) etc.

And if you take off the rose tinted glasses, it's the same... um... what's the word? retardedness. when it comes to the environment. In order to... do what exactly? count carboard boxes better? they created yet another bureaucracy.

This is exactly what I meant by not giving a shit about other people's money (or time=money, in some instances).

I've played with entrepreneurship most of my life - I know how "a solution looking for a problem" looks like. Any VC would laugh them out of the room.

Edit: don't get me wrong - there is a part of this that is almost free and only requires a bit of enforcement. That part is good, and it's exactly what governments should deal with. But anything that imposes direct or indirect costs should go through serious cost/benefit analysis.

By any metric imaginable, it's making the information more accessible, not less. First, it's taking a single copy of a 10k physical print and it's making it digital. Is it "locked"? Yes, by copyright laws, if you don't like that lobby to have them changed. But it's _closer_ to being widely available, not farther.

Plus having the info part of a LLM makes it immediately available to literally billions.

I happen to actually actively shop second hand bookstores, so I am potentially affected by this - as opposed to most people complaining because they don't like the idea. And I still absolutely support it.

Current deal is pretty clean and a win for both parties. US gov won't be drawn into a lengthy trial, RWE gets their money back, US gets a similar value investment, RWE gets a safer investment and a likely friendly government. US made some 40mil from the deal, or more likely 1-200 mil considering inflation; on the other hand RWE didn't lose their whole investment.