hopefully this continues to show how awkward the idea of "intellectual property" (IP) is until people abandon it
IP sounds good in theory but enables things like "patent trolling" by large corps and creating all kinds of goofy barriers and arbitrary questions like we're asking about if re-implementations of ideas are "really ours"
(maybe they were never anyone's in the first place, outside of legally created mentalities)
ideas seem to fundamentally not operate like physical things so asserting they can be considered "property" opens the door for all kinds of absurdities like as pondered in the OP
I have no data to back this up but patent trolling seems to happen far less than companies that already own significant infra/talent ripping products from smaller companies and out competing them with their scale. I'd rather have patent trolling than have Amazon manufacturer everything i launch.
The problem with IP laws and the US is that the big companies already do what IP is suppose to protect and the US refuses to legislate effectively against them.
No, one is an unfortunate, temporary side effect of the other.
The models need to be trained to do the work by getting people to do the work with the model. This is merely a transitional consequence leading up to replacement.
not sure I understand the petrol car using 3x as much energy as an EV... wouldn't it make sense to convert gasoline to electricity then? I presume that must not be as efficient as other ways to convert fuel to gasoline? (I understand the math is there but... I'm temporarily failing to get it)
I think lists like these might be useful for energy audits and thinking about ways to make better use of energy
70% of the energy in a petrol car is lost as heat. Only around 30% or less of the energy actually propels the car. I imagine that's why there's a big difference.
Yeah I'm not sure that EV number maths out. That's 18kw at 60mph for 10 minutes. It sounds really low to me. Going 45mph on a 110lb eMoto with 180lb rider takes ~6kw.
If everyone had their own turbine to generate electricity from gasoline then it would be. But from a central power plant there are transmission losses which cuts out a lot of the potential efficiency increase. The obvious upfront and maintenance cost of everybody owning a personal turbine though makes that method kind of iffy.
Gasoline engines are around 30-35% efficient, the rest is lost as heat. That goes for whether they’re spinning an alternator as part of an engine-generator set or just moving a vehicle.
You can’t get more than 35-40% efficiency so converting to electricity is a wash, you lose the energy to heat no matter what.
Also, the chart does not take into account how the electricity for the EV is generated, it would be just as inefficient as the gasoline car if the electricity was generated by burning hydrocarbons, but that detail is left out.
This is my instinctive view on this, I wish in society there was more of like an "orientation" to make people "fully adult / responsible for themselves"
and then people could just be let alone to bear the consequences of choices (while we can continue to build guardrails of sorts, but still with people knowing it's on them to handle the responsibility of whatever tool they're using)
I guess the big AI chatbot providers could have disclaimers at logins (even when logged out) to prevent liability maybe (TOS popup wall)
a bit disturbed to see this upvoted as much on HN as I thought techy people shunned Apple products (like Stallman calling their ecosystem a "jail") but...
I can see there are a lot of Apple users here apparently. I have some old hardware I still make use of but couldn't see a case for anyone buying new stuff (overpriced, locked down, etc.)
Relatedly, I'm periodically thinking about the issue of people who prevent problems not being rewarded as much as those who become "heroes" for resolving avoidable situations
I guess it may be important to underscore the value that simplicity provides over needless complexity or to sell people on the value of problems prevented rather than preventable catastrophes that were dealt with
Maybe we could encourage a culture of patting people on the back for maintaining reliable "boring" systems
Some people also crave "drama" so there might be a way to frame "boring reliability" as some kind of "epic daily maintenance struggle that was successfully navigated"
The difference between the fire fighter and the fire safety inspector. The former puts out fires and saves lives and is of course a hero. The latter complains about things that never happen, wastes everybody's time and money and is generally annoying.
It seems like the safety inspector might be closer to a SOX compliance auditor or something... in this metaphor, the engineer who doesn't build something that "catches fire" is just the one who uses sensible materials, includes smoke alarms in the design, and chooses to use passive insulation in the walls instead of electric space heaters on a high-pile rug.
In my engineering job of over 30 years, I've noticed that the heroes that get rewarded for fixing the problems are usually the same ones who created the problems in the first place.
I've only been a paid-on-call firefighter for 10 years, but I have yet to work with any who are also arsonists. ;)
You’re thinking along similar lines as I am. The article talks about “visibility” in the end. This might be a document that is written. Or it could be a demo thats shared. Or a simple shout out in slack.
As engineers, we tend to keep away from the limelight and quietly get shit done and be happy with it. But professional growth and recognition requires visibility somehow. We need to be creative on how to achieve that.
I'm wondering if this is what I've been thinking of as "prompt source code": the prompts you use, viewed as source code, for producing whatever code actually comes out...
so people can look at what prompts you used to get whatever code you have generated
IP sounds good in theory but enables things like "patent trolling" by large corps and creating all kinds of goofy barriers and arbitrary questions like we're asking about if re-implementations of ideas are "really ours"
(maybe they were never anyone's in the first place, outside of legally created mentalities)
ideas seem to fundamentally not operate like physical things so asserting they can be considered "property" opens the door for all kinds of absurdities like as pondered in the OP
reply