BaCl₂ (barium chloride) melts at about 963°C, but they were running at a higher temp:

  At 1000 °C, this voltage was above the decomposition potential of BaO (2.21 V) but below that of BaCl2 (3.414 V), allowing electrochemical regeneration of the reactive medium without decomposition of the solvent salt

  So we train a second copy of Claude to work backwards—reconstruct the original activation from the text explanation. We consider an explanation to be good if it leads to an accurate reconstruction. We then train Claude to produce better explanations according to this definition using standard AI training techniques.

You be a human who's brain shifted into LLM mode (chainneling Markov?).

Or perhaps you're an LLM impersonating humanity.

I often wonder how much LLMs are just mirroring our own brain's patterns.

Exactly: certifications were irrelevant and toothless. Unfortunately so were the laws.

Similarly in the UK no individuals or engineers have been formally charged or convicted for any offenses relating to the Grenfell Tower fire. The causes were distributed more widely in that situation.

We need heavy criminal penalties for managers and other responsible people that are irresponsible.

And the corporations should not be able to hide behind limited liability. Additionally I suspect NZ lacks a good legal framework for chasing civil liabilities.

The bigger pattern is that organisations have systemic safety flaws, so instead they want to blame their frontline staff: pilots, teachers, engineers. Every time.

If the strongest incentives result in unsafe decisions, then the incentive to not sign-off will fail (because it won't trump the other incentives).

And professional indemnity insurance undermines some negative incentives.

Certificates are for the patsies. And certifications don't work across borders.

The consequences of criminal decisions are not nearly as bad as they should be.

Basically, within NZ certifications just don't seem to have the effects we imagine they should. Unfortunately the fix should be criminal negligence laws, but they seem to fail for other less obvious reasons some of which you mention (my further guess is that negligence would tar too many people involved including politicians, so every incidental person is keen to avoid doing the right thing).

Idealists believe in civil certifications. Realists believe in a criminal code.

Criminal negligence laws should also be able to deal with deadly software (although perhaps Facebook is too nebulous).

Watch mechanical engineers design plastic rubbish.

Watch some electronic engineers design circuits that don't work.

Watch some geotech engineers make up overspecified bullshit: because they're paid per hour and their work is often just a glorified tickbox (where they have no real consequences for most of their failure risk).

Even with egregious design failures by engineers, they often get away with it for a variety of reasons. A building collapsed due to the Christchurch earthquakes - failures by different engineers with little harm to them.

The irony of China beating us at capitalism

Rich (developed) countries created the CO2.

Marginal arguments that poor countries need to do their bit is insulting.

Most poor countries have never been able to afford to burn much oil and if us rich countries want them to change behaviours, we should be paying them to help clean up our mess.

Coal matters too. Methane is a temporary plaster over the main issue.

Instead of trying to move forwards, we need to look backwards: a root-analysis of the font of hand dryers (beware d'evil Dyson).

Who is to blame: democracy is not the right tool.

The same issue seems to occur with "deep" thinkers in other areas (e.g. trying to understand French intellectuals).

The trouble is that it can be worthwhile thinking about something without depth, or paying attention to a smart persons' thoughts on something shallow. And a priori we can't always know what is worthwhile.

E.g. I liked the blog, because here's a smart guy who has explained a little of what he gets out of a few divergent works.

  Political parties are responsible for checking the source of loans and donations over the value of £500 to ensure they come from permissible sources.

  Foreign companies and individuals who are not on the UK electoral register cannot make political donations.

Other countries likely have similar restrictions e.g. New Zealand disallows foreign donations, and the source of larger donations much be known although I'm not sure if public (i.e. no anonymity above $X). Two digit millions is a significant amount in NZ politics.

If insects are high protein, then you're not solving the problem.

Eating foods that reduce obesity and diabetes. Active living and exercise to keep the heart and body healthy.

Medical care is more about having an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Lifestyle is about avoiding falling.

You think we should punish countries because they should be cleaning up the CO2 generated by other countries?

A silicone sponge seems so oxymoronical: that was my responsible impetus.

Hard to avoid commercial interests. Sell poets on the block.

For business, our purchases clearly reveal self-deceptive practices, and dark marketing patterns certainly take advantage of that.

For government, our voting preferences reveal that we want to be deceived. Although we often say good things that our social group memes us.

I'm not sure when I learnt to be so cynical.

The number of buyers remains the same, so although the prices of homes shift, that often doesn't actually change affordability.

Yes, interest rates do affect the price one homebuyer will bid to.

He tried to argue that if we had more preventative/proactive health decisions then A&E wouldn't be overrun with sick people. He implied they should be the dying of old age instead.

He said they failed to save an 8 year old girl who ate a button cell, because the department was overrun with people with acute emergency issues due to lifestyle. She died after arrival (he talked about how the electricity can cause fatal damages).

I didn't find his conclusions made sense to me, but I still felt the video was worthwhile watching (especially if you are middle aged like me).