From what we've seen, so far the (not projected to be underwater) coastal areas might be the areas spared in this scenario too, because being by the water still moderates temperature swings.
It's everywhere else that'll be getting record breaking heat/drought and snow, which have been far more damaging. The disaster radius of hurricanes reaches far more inland than just the coast.
I don't even bother with forwarding mail from Gmail, it's just a black hole for marketing emails that I'd only occasionally glance at when I'm looking for a discount code.
> I HOPE people aren’t spending money on AI writing emails. That’s definitely not worth it.
The engineers use the coding AI for everything they don't like to do that distracts them from doing what they like to do. So that's certainly a lot of writing emails, status updates, meeting notes, journaling, Slack messages, and prettifying slide presentations and so so so many docs.
So if you're aghast that hundreds of dollars of AI tokens per engineer per month is being spent on writing emails, you should be even more offended that the more expensive human engineer time used to be wasted on those tasks.
The new Tundra TTV6 had a manufacturing process defect that allowed shavings to get into the engine bearings, which causes catastrophic engine failure.
They still don't have a solution to the problem. The shavings amount/size is supposedly common among all engine manufacturing processes, but the new engine design has such tight tolerances that it's now problematic.
I'm the same way, I hate using Google search for searching because it's basically useless, and their other ecosystem offerings generally get enshittified over time so it's not worth paying for or relying on.
But if they're letting me using AI for free without logging in and I just need a dumb AI slop answer, then I'm more than happy to burn their tokens instead of my own. Any serious work goes to a different LLM provider. The switching cost for moving to a different LLM provider in the future is practically zero.
I was thinking maybe have those chemicals sitting in a glass or temperature sensitive container inside the tank. So when there's too much pressure or heat, the container containing the neutralizing chemical is broken like a fuse and the chemical is automatically released.
Well then... make a matrix of such fuse-containers? (say every 20cm or whatever)
I guess manufacturing such a matrix would be pretty expensive though, you'd need to carefully automate its production I think. It would also definitely interfere with flow of fluid in the tank.
I was thinking multiple long skinny tubes with etchings that make them more likely to split lengthwise. Maybe with a spring loaded/powered agitator so when the tube breaks there's some mechanical flinging/mixing of the inner chemical.
But I'm not a chemical processes engineer, so I don't know how much mixing is needed. But the existing emergency plan was to inject the the chemical through a single valve, so it seems like the dispersion and mixing requirements in this case seems to be low.
I am imagining some sort of regulations that enforce the creation and installation of appropriate safety systems upon all similar sites in the affected jurisdiction.
And a standard to prevent similar danger elsewhere in the world.
Or is that too fantastic? Perhaps I should stick with the distopian fiction I so love. Why haven't flying cars taken off yet?
I always wondered why people don't also ask the AI to generate code comments/documentation, summaries of those documentation, overview of the system, and re-review them all for correctness for the changes they asked the AI to do.
What I've noticed reviewing all my colleagues' AI generated code PRs is: it really is just code, and the rare comment here and there is still added by the human.
We're already trying to light tokens on fire as fast as possible to stay on acceptable required use leaderboards, why not light some more for system understanding and housekeeping.
The docs/summaries part I can get behind if reviewed and improved by a human, but at least when working in pre-existing codebases, I tend to steer models away from writing comments, because I find that almost all comments they write are "not even wrong".
That is: they either reiterate what the code does, or would if the code were slightly clearer, or they tell half truths that are more confusing than helpful. Mostly they fail to emphasise the salient things, like the why over the what, that are not obvious from the code.
yes it makes sense that it's AI all the way down, but also the "why not just…" answer is because it's exhausting.
Being reduced to an inconsequential middle manager is more exhausting than being reduced to a code monkey is the hot insight i've been hanging my hat on.
To be clear: This is really horrible in an IC for the paycheck role. I quit my job on principle because of code/token maxing. Very few are in the place to do this. I've been enjoying AI as an independent, but i still mean to fight the good fight for every line engineer.
> I always wondered why people don't also ask the AI to generate code comments/documentation, summaries of those documentation, overview of the system, and re-review them all for correctness for the changes they asked the AI to do.
I now on all of my projects have an ai journal that stands as a ledger for every change the ai has made, and why it was made. I don’t read it that hard personally because I spend so much time planning with my agent before letting it code. However I have found it very useful in sharing code between people, or having Claude look through the journal to gain context when modifying or adding a feature.
I see people asking LLMs to omit comments, but comments like PDL (Program Design Language) could be helpful for interactive development: ask the LLM to write pseudocode comments, review them, and then ask the LLM to expand them to actual code. People say comments should explain why, not how. That seems useful for both human reviewers and LLMs.
What harness? In my experience, Claude shoots out tons of very low-quality comments. It's always too hyper-focused on the exact specifics of the bug as presented to it, with no higher-level generalization of the concepts involved. In a big codebase, this means the comments are meaningless without a human rewrite, but it definitely writes them.
I’ve have amazing, amazing results through composing an “ADR” skill hook. It knows contextually what they are for; how to write them; when to include them as steering.
For major new features, I do ask it to do those things. Why is it that you think people don't do that?
Even for most small changes I will ask it to do a simple "production review" then I use my experience and judgment to decide on which items need to actually be addressed or not
> When exposed to a trigger -- such as a small amount of heat or a catalyst -- the molecule snaps back into its original form, releasing the stored energy as heat.
From the paper abstract, the catalyst is HCl. I don't have access to the full paper, so I don't know how they separate the HCl from the MOST to neutralize it to be rechargeable again.
From what I've seen of the paper, it seems like the catalyst is needed for a full energy release reaction. Regular batteries also have rapid energy release with unintended contamination of a chemical (water), and we still generally have no problems during regular usage.
The reaction triggered by heat doesn't release all the stored energy, which would be the bigger concern for unintended runaway reactions.
As a sibling comment says, in the paper the catalyst is acid and I can't find the release using heat in the paper. Is that an hallucination in the press article?
(Note: At high enough temperature the thermal energy will be high enough to go over the energy wall from the high energy isometric to the normal one. So it's plausible. But with high enough temperatures a lot of nasty things can happen, like total decomposition or just burning. So it may not be a good strategy to make a rechargable baterry.)
Just make the punishment the seizure and full release of the game assets (all source code, version control history, tooling, and release of copyright/trademarks).
It's always going to be a wild goose chase trying to take money when there isn't any (actually or by design), just take the product and let the public update it as a last resort.
Costco is for bulk staples and commodities for me. Products that I really don't need the best of the best for, good enough is good enough and as long as I can use it all before it goes bad, I'd rather not waste more thought than needed for it. Milk, eggs, flour, flowers, microfiber towels, batteries, salt and pepper.
Then for all the niche stuff that I do truly care about, there's the specialty stores or really the farmer's market. That's where I'll indulge for the first press seasonal olive oils, all sorts of pluot/apriplums/plumpicots combinations, short shelf life wild berries, blueberry/orange/mint blossum honey and whatnot.
> Costco is for bulk staples and commodities for me
> Milk, eggs, flour, flowers, microfiber towels, batteries, salt and pepper
If you can walk out of Costco month after month with just those essentials, and never pick up any of the nice-looking and reasonably-priced goodies there, I think it's safe to say that you have the level of discipline required to be financially successful and not have to care about whether you're getting the best price per unit of whatever it is you're buying. :-)
It's everywhere else that'll be getting record breaking heat/drought and snow, which have been far more damaging. The disaster radius of hurricanes reaches far more inland than just the coast.