He said it is "--> currently(!) <-- just not possible"

-----------------------------^

Now, after having had my fun there, I would modify his statement to say that it is currently not feasible.

Let's say those projects that are being developed right now all work out. First, it will be years until they do. Ok, let's stay happy and optimistic. They do work out.

Now the lessons of the projects have to be implemented in widescale development. Conservatively, this is going to take at least 5 years.

We are looking at a best-case scenario where hydrogen will be sort of ready to start in about 10 years.

But it's not like everyone, everywhere is going to get hydrogen right away. We've watched this play out most recently with batteries. To give us some context, it will take *another* 10 years for hydrogen to reach the same point that batteries have now.

That is 20 years until hydrogen can reach the same level of penetration that its main rival, the battery, has right now. And we can see that batteries are going to need at least another 5 years to become the dominant energy transport.

So if hydrogen can be developed as fast as that, then it would take hydrogen 25 years to reach some level of prominence in our economy. Meanwhile, of course, battery technology will not have just stagnated.

I'm not saying that hydrogen has no role to play. But it is 100% being hyped up by a dying industry as a last-gasp attempt to remain relevant. I don't blame them for that. I do reserve blame for people who fall for it, though.

Ok Mao.

^((or Stalin, or Adolf, or any other of the folks who thought that all you had to do was force people to do what you wanted, and then it would all be great.))

Man, that headline is doing a lot of work for an article that couldn't be bothered to get out of bed.

Spoiler alert: anyone looking for a reasoned argument about *why* this strategy will work will have to look elsewhere. This article is just several paragraphs of rah-rah for Waymo.

And here's the thing: I hope they succeed. I hope Tesla succeeds. I hope that everyone in this space succeeds. Because when they do, everyone wins. But come on: can't we get a decent article that explains the current state of self driving?

This is not the problem with Waymo's strategy. They use digital rails, and the problem with that is as they try to expand, they have to increase the amount of map prep. And the need never stops, because streets never stop changing.

This kinda works if you keep your supported region small and in a heavily used area. It completely falls apart when you want to expand anywhere that is not so small and not so heavily used.

That's a balanced take.

I like taking public transit...when it is appropriate. If I'm just going into town for a bite to eat and there is a station within a minute or two of walking: sure, public transit is great.

If I'm trying to move even just a few boxes of stuff to a friend's house, who is 10 minutes away from a station: no, public transit simply sucks for that.

If I'm on my own time and it doesn't matter when I get to my destination: sure, I can take public transit. If a connecting train falls out, who cares? I can just read something while I wait.

If I'm on a tight schedule, then public transit *might* not be the way to go.

The train-bros are starting to get really annoying, and I say this as someone who is a huge fan of trains, trams, and really anything on rails. It's a good solution for some problems. It is not a solution for all problems.

Ok, I see a bunch of bad takes in here, and it's really the fault of the article for not explaining what is going on.

It's actually kinda simple. The researchers just give the AI a chance to replay previous memories without interference from new data. As this is similar to what our brains do during sleep, the comparison is obvious. The researchers themselves use the words "sleep" and "replay", for context.

They explain this in some detail starting on page 7 of the original paper. The results do seem to indicate that just letting the AI replay its memories was enough to protect the original learned behavior.

I'm looking forward to going through the math later; they seem to provide quite a bit.

One final thought: I'm surprised that vice didn't use the idea that the AI was dreaming; it seems like that would have been an obvious idea that would have made the headline pop even more.

Well, I was being nice to you.

Because if we take the drop from NATO into account, it's no longer a straight line and is therefore an exponential curve.

It's hard to say what kind of increase there might be in the beginning...you would have to eyeball it on a graph form that is not really well designed for it.

Are you not used to reading charts?

By the time the Soviets started their linear increase, NATO was already decreasing its stockpiles.

Having lived through it, I can assure you that the message was not: "we can do it too," but "we will bury you."

Do cold-blooded animals suffer from fungal infections at a significantly higher rate? Or did they evolve another way to effectively deal with fungus?