Article seems a bit biased. Similarly like some other ones where he cut research funding to then later resume it, with almost no significant loss, but the Democrats cried about it all over like if funding was completely stopped. They always tell one side of the story that fits the narrative.
Just to be clear I am against this as well, just the journalism is so filthy now.
Cutting and/or other randomizing activities makes planning for everyone involved very, very hard.
Congrats, the funding came back that time; but jobs were already cut, people already got deported whose college time depended on it, the professor got axed because the college couldn’t afford it anymore, etc.
Stability is worth its weight in gold in some areas. This isn’t that.
A good question, but we don't know what anti-depressants do or how they do it, same with anti-psychotics, mood stabilizers, psychedelics, etc. I think we can say we have good theories for creatine.
We do know that it does do something at certain doses.
There are lots of studies. It's possible to find satisfactory information. Creatine has been studied for a very long time.
First hand experience for many is a noticeable improvement, especially during busy/sleep minimizing times, to the point where it can sometimes be a substitute for caffiene without the crash.
If water is the problem then why are we ignoring how much water beef needs? If we measure per person use it is hundreds times more than data center usage in comparison if we measure in per person consumption
Right, see, again, giving away the game. It's not about the water (if it was, the objection would be easy to dismiss). Everything is downstream of a populist argument against AI progress.
Is this a serious comment? No one, in an environmental discussion, ignores how much water beef needs. It’s a central part of most vegan/vegetarian commentary.
But this is a conversation about data centers. It would be great if you had the capability of staying even vaguely on topic instead of spinning off into “what about” bullshit.
You can go ahead and try to do that. Politically, to say its a DOA bill, is the understatement of the century. Also, water is renewable. This entire discussion is absurd and scientifically illiterate. There is a reason why nobody says, "party of science" anymore.
>> If water is the problem then why are we ignoring how much water beef needs? If we measure per person use it is hundreds times more than data center usage
> Ai uses water, but you can’t eat ai.
Almost all other foods don't use trillions of gallons of water like beef does. If someone's goal was to reduce water use, then shouldn't they be making at least as much noise about the non-necessary thing using far more water compared to data center's billions, not trillions, of gallons?
Point I am making is if we need to tackle the water issue then we need to do it via 80/20 rule, focus on the elephant in the room first. Data centers are a fly in a room with an elephant in this case.
Sanctions thing is such a hypocrisy. Russia pumped through ukraine about $1B worth of gas PER DAY after the war started and continued for about 2 years, yet they sanctioned some companies that were like a drop in the ocean of those billions paid to Putin
You were not born in eastern Europe that’s why. That’s the whole Eastern European mind set - the only way to succeed is to rip people off or scam. Anything else is already taken or no money in it or government will take it away from you.
As an atheist, how do you read a bible without critical thinking? I’ve tried and I just have a really hard time with all the double meanings and things not making any sense. What am I missing?
The parent said it, it's a historical document about events and beliefs of people that shaped most of the modern world. I was never one for history, but as I've gotten older I've come to appreciate history as a study of the present in terms of events, ideas, and other influences that made the present what it is. You can't understand the present without understanding the past.
It shouldn't cause you so much friction to hold an idea in your head you don't believe to be true. Read it as anthropology rather than metaphysics.
Robots vs cars? Robots are much much safer. One is a killing machine going 100km/h, other one is a slow moving thing. You don’t need fast reaction for a robot. Tesla should’ve started with robots first and then self driving.
Just to be clear I am against this as well, just the journalism is so filthy now.
reply