They already talked to AWS and had the bill cut down to ~1800 dollars from ~6300, but they legitimately launched those processes instead of having the key stolen so the cost reduction is understandably less generous in those situations. Also potentially the agent was able to connect to more open networks and might have been running jobs on them incurring legitimate costs.
I think that's part of what's notable about this. The administration hasn't been able to reverse the trend despite putting a massive thumb on the scale against projects like offshore wind and tariffs on solar panel imports.
There's probably a delay in the effects though since projects started before they took office are probably starting to thin out and finish up. We'd have to look into the permitting of new projects or wait for to see how big the decline in new capacity turns out to be in a couple years.
A lot of comes from state initiatives too. Texas being conservative also happens to be very pro solar. I’m in the business and we have some great projects there. The US military is also pushing solar at their facilities. Then you have many private-state partnerships like tolls investing a lot in solar. The outlook in general is pretty positive in the US, a lot more than what people would think.
Anyone who still even views this as a conservative/liberal issue, is someone who is in the pocket of the fossil fuel lobby. Solar is simply a very cheap and realiable way to generate electricity. Much cheaper than gas and coal nowadays. Pure economic incentive is going to continue to drive its adoption.
As someone from another continent, I giggle when I see doomsday-prepping anti-govmint fiercely-independent cowboys hating EVs and loving gas.
Gas has a 6-month shelf-life, and is attached to a whole geopolitically volatile military-industrial complex. Meanwhile an EV + solar can be actually self-sufficient and last for a decade or two. A realistic Mad Max would have been EV battles over solar panels.
this’ the other Max from China, where they be scavenging leftover panels. The Mad Max we know surely happens somewhere else, and perhaps near Texas given all the participating parties…
I also recall a New York times article from many moons ago suggesting that a lot of Texas oil wealth got repurposed into a large-scale wind energy infrastructure, but my info might be out of date.
It's sort a "broken clock right twice a day" thing, but I agree with not doing offshore wind in the US.
The divergence immediately follows in that I wish they would just push onshore wind.
It's sort of a circular issue, it's madly expensive because we haven't built a lot and aren't super good at it, and we don't get much of it built because we aren't great at it and it always is ludicrously expensive.
The US has a uniquely underdeveloped maritime sector, we don't build a lot of the massive turbines you use offshore.
You drive through central and west texas, it feels like there might be more wind turbines than people.
We've kind of already made the decision based on what works.
Ocean winds are strong and predictable in ways that are really beneficial to the wind farms so the extra costs are balanced out by the fact that there's always a strong usable wind to harness too.
Also the "we're bad at this because we don't do the so we can't do this" is throwing away a great project and solution because of a temporary problem. Once we start doing it in significant numbers we'll rapidly get better at doing it too.
Like for many kind of technology the are both advantages and disadvantages to offshore wind farms.
"Advantages:
Offshore wind speeds tend to be faster than on land.1 Small increases in wind speed yield large increases in energy production: a turbine in a 15-mph wind can generate twice as much energy as a turbine in a 12-mph wind. Faster wind speeds offshore mean much more energy can be generated.
Offshore wind speeds tend to be steadier than on land.1 A steadier supply of wind means a more reliable source of energy.
Many coastal areas have very high energy needs. Half of the United States’ population lives in coastal areas,1 with concentrations in major coastal cities. Building offshore wind farms in these areas can help to meet those energy needs from nearby sources.
Offshore wind farms have many of the same advantages as land-based wind farms – they provide renewable energy; they do not consume water; they provide a domestic energy source; they create jobs; and they do not emit environmental pollutants or greenhouse gases.2
Disadvantages:
Offshore wind farms can be expensive and difficult to build and maintain. In particular:
It is very hard to build robust and secure wind farms in water deeper than around 200 feet (~60 m), or over half a football field’s length. Although coastal waters off the east coast of the U.S. are relatively shallow, almost all of the potential wind energy resources off the west coast are in waters exceeding this depth.3 Floating wind turbines are beginning to overcome this challenge.
Wave action, and even very high winds, particularly during heavy storms or hurricanes, can damage wind turbines.1
The production and installation of power cables under the
seafloor to transmit electricity back to land can be very expensive.1
Effects of offshore wind farms on marine animals and birds are not fully understood.4
Offshore wind farms built within view of the coastline (up to 26 miles offshore, depending on viewing conditions5) may be unpopular among local residents, and may affect tourism and property values.3
I think the idea of offshore wind is nice. There is a lot of ocean out there and by putting the "ugly" (I don't mind them.) turbines out of sight we get the best of both worlds.
But the realities of the idea - the engineering - is problematic.
The ocean is a harsh environment and maintaining something deliberately put out of the way in a harsher environment is far more expensive.
There are a lot of ocean, but limited shores. I guess that's the only economical place to build it, but of course it blocks scenery. If people truly built it in open ocean, less people will complain.
That’s ~true for now but keep the date someone said it in mind. It’s really easy to keep thinking technical limitations still true when they are wildly out of date.
Tariffs on solar panel imports should stimulate domestic solar panel production, but only when they are high enough and applied long enough to justify investments into new solar panel manufacturing facilities.
"The research results show that China controls the supply of primary materials, manufacturing, installed capacity, and recycling capacity. China alone produces at least 80 % of the main components of PVs."
I'm asking about the supply chain for drilling, refining, and processing oil, my friend. Is that supply chain completely domestic? Nothing from China in there?
You would need to do full supply chain analysis. Probably only one doing full supply chain analysis is Pentagon. They had experts for this kind of work.
"How The CIA Secretly Bought Soviet Titanium To Build The SR-71 Blackbird"
You can do it with targeted tariffs with assurances they'll last but these broad tariffs make it harder to get the base materials you need to build the panels out of in the first place plus they're so crazy they're almost guaranteed to be wiped out in a few years if not sooner so as a manufacturer they don't have the confidence that the cost equalization of the tariffs will be around long enough to not bankrupt them.
Another way to do it would be guaranteed buys for electrifying military etc and grants for projects using US made cells instead of foreign ones that could also effectively subsidize local production.
It's like a lot of things done by this administration they do it such hamfisted and obvious ways that they don't accomplish their nominal goals. See a lot of the court cases where they've been blocked in implementation because they said the quiet part out loud. eg: it's usually REALLY hard to prove malicious prosecution but they keep saying out loud "we're prosecuting this person in retaliation for their protected activities".
It's important to tariff the basic materials Polysilicon, wafers, if you want to spread solar production around the world, not only in a single country.
It's especially notable because there isn't just the thumb against offshore wind, solar panel tariffs, and even EVs. Chinese EVs can't be imported because of tariffs and many conservative states a pretending that EV drivers "don't pay their fair share because they don't buy gas" - except most gas taxes haven't been adjusted in multiple decades and don't even begin to pay for the cost of maintaining roads. Fuel taxes are a tiny portion of any state revenue.
There has always been a massive thumb on the scale in the form of tax breaks, direct subsidies (billions a year alone on this), land leasing, etc for fossil fuels and their use. Favorable public policy. And what the IMF calls implicit subsidies - the cost of impact on the climate/environment and people's health.
When a refinery is pumping out pollution and everyone in the area is getting sicker than people in similar areas - that costs us as insurance ratepayers and taxpayers.
Unfortunately this is one of the few cases where both sides are close to the same -- they both chose to heavily tariff foreign EVs. Something to remember when Democrats talk about climate change.
"closer to the same" except one side has consistently promoted the building and sale of EVs in America.
If you were feeling generous you could credit then with the entire existence of modern EVs given their support of the nascent industry for decades in California.
But sure, let's focus on the mote in Democrat eyes and ignore the insanity across the aisle. That's what got us into this situation, so why stop now.
It's the same in the UK. The CfD "subsidy" mechanism for solar power results in the solar farms paying us money almost every day - including today - but you will still see right wing politicians vow to eliminate this "subsidy".
They'd need to source the plutonium for the RTGs for that and from what I've read that's in pretty precious supply. Though maybe we could start disassembling bombs to source it.
There's a lot to be said for the flexibility of humans for performing experiments. With someone else or a country broadly sustaining people in space the cost to perform a particular experiment can go down by a lot. Trying to replace people with automated experiments will run up huge costs of designing, building and launching the robotics required to perform that individual experiment that would largely be single use. It'd also be a lot more fragile and prone to failures as well.
It's like the idea of Mars as a backup to human civilization. The technology required to make Mars livable and independent from Earth is so advanced it would allow you to survive basically anything here on Earth already.
Well initially Nixon was following a similar playbook to what you see Trump et al pull off successfully today. He only resigned when it became clear the he had lost too many votes in the Senate and would lose the impeachment vote. That took a few months from when the story initially broke.
That's an odd question to ask given the history of free media like flash games, youtube videos, deviant art/pixiv/etc, and fan fiction. Getting paid, especially enough that one can make a living off of it, for your creative work is an exception not the rule way more people create it for no money than ever make any money at all much less a living.
The media you cite are still copyrighted, meaning that it’s illegal for other people to distribute them or make money of it without a corresponding license. If that weren’t the case, creators might be more reluctant.
They know full and well they're unlikely to ever make money on there art so the protections such as they are aren't material. In fact their copyrights are often roundly ignored online with copies spreading freely a thing that's success for most of the people posting things for free!
If the justification for copyright is supposed to be that it and the promise of control of their creations is the encouragement to create people creating for free is a direct contradiction of that thesis. The fact they're automatically given copyright doesn't mean they're creating it because they have that theoretical control.
The Fortress of Doors blog had a good article on the history of flash game development. That article included an overview of the process, in which an explicitly-considered step was "after you upload your .swf file to the site that paid you to display their logo, every other site rips off the file and republishes it themselves".
That's why what the first site paid for was having their logo displayed in your game.
Intentionally sloppy code, like leaving exploits in the game. Like if perform some action in a very specific way, you trigger an overflow that unlocks an item that's otherwise very difficult or impossible to obtain. So rather than these exploits breaking you out of the intended flow of the game, it's a real game mechanic. Like having that unobtainable item unlocks a story path that changes the ending. I guess it's more like an Easter egg but it relies on typical game glitching techniques rather than extensive exploration.
In Halo 2, there was a level where if you damaged a banshee in a specific way and made it follow you down a tunnel, you could hijack it at the exact moment when a new level loaded at the end of the tunnel (otherwise you couldn't use it). Then you could fly up to the top of the level and find a modified weapon that was incredibly powerful (scarab gun). There was another secret weapon (energy sword) you could obtain by performing typical boundary breaking moves and walking on invisible walls. Normally, you'd be doing this to skip combat but the game was also rewarding you for it.
There is one game called 'hack n slash' on steam. You manipulate the 'global vars' to win the game. There is even one point where the game has you open up its data files and change things. Interesting mechanic.
I was thinking more about how Hyrum's Law specifically would be an intentional mechanic in the hacking gameplay I guess rather than it being a way of labelling the glitchy behavior speed run categories run on I guess.
Original search before Google started trying to provide their own answers was purely pointing to relevant pages, even the first iterations of the first results being replaced by the result Google believed provided the correct answer could be pointed to as simply providing an answer someone else wrote (and to my knowledge was mostly fact based questions; birth dates, etc that are hard to categorize as defamatory). Now Gemini is combining and mixing together multiple sources to provide a new amalgam answer that IMO is distinct enough, and applied to touchier subjects importantly because they're treating the search bar like you're talking directly to Gemini, that it crosses a line between referencing speech by other people without endorsing (OG Search) and having the company produce speech about the search (new Gemini infested Search).
I don't see a world where AI results aren't reasonably considered the output of the company. They're minced and sausagified regurgitations but they're not the original sources either.
Yeah, but my point is: what does that have to do with monopolies changing their services?
And to continue your thought, what does that imply about copyright of training data? If Google is authoring the output it seems harder to argue they are ripping someone else off.
It really seems like a tightrope to say google is publishing their own opinion but their opinion is also just someone else's work.
> Yeah, but my point is: what does that have to do with monopolies changing their services?
Not much really other than it being a change of category from pure search surfacing other's speech to their crummy new chatbot input with search underneath. GP was just mistaken that this was in any way related to their quasi-monopolistic position.
> If Google is authoring the output it seems harder to argue they are ripping someone else off.
They still pirated a lot of the training material, it's not like they went and licensed copies of all the books they used in the inputs. Even discounting all the publicly available data on the internet and the models recreating things word for word a lot of the books etc they ingested are illegal copies.
> like a tightrope to say google is publishing their own opinion but their opinion is also just someone else's work.
It's a grey area for sure between remixing and blatant copying that changes depending on the precise output. But it's inarguable imo that they consumed and ingested the work of basically every digitized word humans have ever written for their own profit without an ounce of compensation for the original authors. Copyright is full of these grey lines though like fair use doctrine, it's incredibly difficult to define in a systematic way what distinguishes transformative and non transformative works for example.
reply