It’s a very capitalist way of thinking about the problem, but what “negative prices” actually means in this case is that the grid is over-energised. That’s a genuine engineering issue which would take considerable effort to deal with without exploding transformers or setting fire to power stations

You’re still putting words in my mouth.

I never said they weren’t stealing the data

I didn’t comment on that at all, because it’s not relevant to the point I was actually making, which is that people treating the output of an LLM as if it were derived from any factual source at all is really problematic, because it isn’t.

You’re putting words in my mouth, and inventing arguments I never made.

I didn’t say anything about whether the training data is stolen or not. I also didn’t say a single word about intelligence, or originality.

I haven’t been tricked into using one piece of language over another, I’m a software engineer and know enough about how these systems actually work to reach my own conclusions.

There is not a database tucked away in the LLM anywhere which you could search through and find the phrases which it was trained on, it simply doesn’t exist.

That isn’t to say it’s completely impossible for an LLM to spit out something which formed part of the training data, but it’s pretty rare. 99% of what it generates doesn’t come from anywhere in particular, and you wouldn’t find it in any of the sources which were fed to the model in training.

That simply isn’t true. There’s nothing in common between an LLM and a search engine, except insofar as the people developing the LLM had access to search engines, and may have used them during their data gathering efforts for training data

Except these AI systems aren’t search engines, and people treating them like they are is really dangerous

I couldn’t find the actual pinout for the 8 pin package, but the block diagrams make me think they’re power, ground, and 6 general purpose pins which can all be GPIO. Other functions, like ADC, SPI and I2C (all of which it has) will be secondary or tertiary functions on those same pins, selected in software.

So the actual answer you’re looking for is basically that all of the pins are everything, and the pinout is almost entirely software defined

BGA, like in the photo, isn’t the only option. There are options only slightly larger with hand-solderable packages (if you’re good at soldering)

How did you calculate that? The question didn’t even mention a specific speed, just “near the speed of light”.

The kinetic energy for a grain of sand near the speed of light is somewhere between “quite a lot” and “literally infinity” (which is, in a sense, the reason you can’t actually reach light speed without a way to supply infinite energy).

It was pointed out to me a while back that the paradox of tolerance is only a paradox if you consider tolerance to be a philosophical position.

In fact, we don’t treat it like that. We treat it as a social contract, in which context it is no paradox at all to say that if you aren’t tolerant then other people aren’t obliged to tolerate you in turn

I bet he’d quickly become less busy if he was the supreme commander of the US armed forces

For once, I don’t think that particular charge is entirely inconsistent with the dictionary definition.

He’s accused of killing a member of the public in the hope of frightening everyone else in that person’s position into taking some kind of action.

I think the law says something about killing for a “political purpose”, with the goal of changing some kind of public policy or behaviour. That’s not an unreasonable interpretation of what happened, I think.

Unfortunately that means they get to use the laws which were written to deal with mass murder and bombing public spaces, which I don’t think is particularly appropriate but doesn’t seem out of line with the law

The ISS has enough spacecraft docked to take everyone home at a moments notice, always. Nobody needs to launch anything.

They broke that rule briefly when the Boeing capsule was deemed unfit for use, but they quickly fixed that.

I’ve heard it’s actually really difficult, because a good translator doesn’t do it literally.

They’re supposed to say something which gets the same meaning across, which often isnt what you’d get just by translating each word.

That leaves people translating trump with a problem: you can’t generally turn his long rambling speeches into something with a clearly understandable meaning without putting words into his mouth, or summarising so aggressively that you’d only say a couple of sentences for every few minutes of speech

There certainly was a lot of scepticism early on in SpaceX’s history. They had to fight political pressure just to take part in the commercial launch program, and had to take NASA to court and argue (successfully) that they hadn’t followed their own rules when they rejected SpaceX’s bid.

They seem to have gotten over that now. Presumably it’s difficult for anyone to argue they can’t do the job when they launch more rockets than the whole rest of the world combined, and they (eventually) delivered on the commercial crew program while the “safe” (and much better paid) pick, Boeing, seems to be very publicly failing and considering cutting their losses.

As for Soyuz, I’m not sure how much those rockets and capsules actually cost so I can’t perform a direct comparison. It must be cheaper though, because they stole all the business for commercial launches from Roscosmos and left them with a serious budget problem. They charge about $60 million for a basic Falcon 9 launch, and they’re making huge profit at that price. We won’t really see the real cost of the rocket until someone builds something which can compete with them for business, because they’re really the only player worth mentioning in their weight class for anyone who doesn’t have ulterior motives (such as governments who want to support their own launch industry)

What I can say for sure is they never came even close to the launch rate of Falcon 9. I think it took something like 8 years, off the top of my head, for total Falcon 9 launches to exceed the number of Soyuz launches and the number of launches per year is still increasing.

Because sending an entire rocket up to collect them would be very expensive, so NASA would prefer to leave them up there until the next routine flight so that they can send other things up and down with them on schedule.

There might also be limited space on the space station to dock a capsule. There are only so many docking ports, and I think they’re often full

No, that’s a different and largely unrelated rocket.

The one which will be bringing back the astronauts is literally the rocket with the best track record in history, and usually flies at least once a week.

This explosion was a prototype for a new rocket, which has only been sent to space a handful of times

I’ve moved no goalposts.

You claimed they were floundering, and I responded with an argument that the rockets exploding isn’t evidence of floundering, it’s an engineering choice to find the limits of their design by pushing a real rocket until it reaches those limits (rather than spending a decade analysing the problem to oblivion).

It’s quite instructive to compare spacex to blue origin in that regard, actually. Both companies are about the same age, but blue origin spent that time designing while spacex spent it flying. The result is that blue origin reached orbit for the first time just this week, after about a decade of effort, but their first launch went pretty well (although not perfectly, since the booster crashed rather than landing the way it was supposed to). Spacex, meanwhile, blew up their first few rockets trying to reach space (I’m referring to the early falcons now, not starship), and blew up quite a few more trying to master landing them again, but they spent most of that decade developing experience in actual flight as a result (not to mention having a sustainable income, and totally dominating the launch industry).

I think it’s difficult to make a good argument that spacex blowing up rockets means that what they’re working on isn’t going to work

The space shuttle flew, that wasn’t the problem. It was supposed to be a fast and cheap way to launch things into low earth orbit. They were talking about flying once a week. In reality all the complexity made it very expensive to build and maintain, and very prone to failures.

Starship is also attempting to be cheap and fast. They haven’t achieved that yet, but they’ve come a long way and can pretty convincingly claim to have achieved several of the things they’ll need to do. Only time will tell if they actually accomplish what they’ve set out to do

Dynamic load on the plumbing connections, where loads will be dominated by hydrostatic pressure, leading to a failure near the end of a burn when there weren’t any engines starting or stopping to generate transient pressures? Not likely.

And they really aren’t foundering. They’re trying to do something very difficult, which nobody has ever achieved before, and losing the some of the first handful of rockets each time they try to crack a major new milestone is entirely within expectations. They’ve been deliberately weakening parts of the vehicle specifically to push it to the very limit, which doesn’t sound like the strategy of a team which is worried about blowing a few of them up.

Since someone is likely to point out the space shuttle, I’ll point out in return that people at the time were proudly proclaiming that it was the most complex machine ever to fly (by which they meant, “most distinct parts”) as if that were an achievement rather than a monumental failure of engineering. It tried to do what Starship is trying to do, and it failed.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate Musk. Bashing spacex’s safety isn’t one of them, because falcon 9 has the best safety record in the history of orbital launchers. They launch astronauts all the time, and have never had a single mishap in a manned flight. They’re even the people who are going to rescue the astronauts stranded by Boeing’s screw-up, which I suspect makes them the only spaceflight organisation which is going to have safely landed more people than they launched.

Also, a fuel leak doesn’t imply something wasn’t fastened correctly. If that were the case it would have been leaking on the launch pad. Much more likely something was damaged by vibration or heat during the flight