FooBarrington

joined 3 years ago
[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

I'm guessing they meant sonar instead. AFAIK active sonar does work really well, but is rarely used since it reveals your location twice as far as you're able to detect others. Not to mention the horrible effects on wildlife - the sound waves carry so much energy that a point-blank hit is somewhere between "lethal & untreatable" and "turned into red mist".

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I don't think it's realistically possible to do that totally undetected. Since the earth's magnetic field is so weak and field strength goes down rapidly as distance increases, malicious actors probably couldn't spoof patterns well enough to make the data look real, at least not without coming very close and staying near their target.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm not sure I agree. The real world is never going to run perfectly, so some slack must be included (either by adding buffer time to schedules, or using the way you mention). Of course there are examples like Japan that have done a really good job at optimizing these systems, but you won't be able to successfully apply their approach to every country. Some locations require more work to achieve this, others require less.

Generally the closer you get to an "ideal" performance, the more costly every further improvement gets. If 7 min isn't reasonable, what number would be? Say we manage to shave off two minutes, at twice the cost of the current system. Is that really worth it?

The better approach is to include reasonable slack time in people's train schedules, while increasing frequencies so missing a connection doesn't result in hour-long wait times.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

They still need us to advance AI until it's able to self-improve. That's why they're pumping so much money into scaling. Once they have that, we'll have lost all leverage - that's what their evaluations are based on.

I don't think the current approach can achieve this, but it looks like they'll do their damndest to try. They've already prepared for the worst, and if they can choose between X years before everything goes to shit, or X minus ? years before it goes to shit BUT they get AGI to play with in their bunkers...

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's also not the old people. Sure, the rich are old people, but that doesn't mean old people are rich.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Unfortunately there's still plenty of unencrypted traffic from normal usage (e.g. DoH is still fairly rare).

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

If every AI company steals the public data separately, it means massively increased costs for everyone who is getting their data stolen. If the AI companies "steal" from each other it's much better for everyone else.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Weird question to ask through radio, over.