I use them as cheap-man's VPN. A ssh server on a public IP but a non-obvious port brings you into the network, and port forwarding allows you to connect to relevant endpoints in your remote network via localhost:12345.

> My Weird Hill is that we should be building things with GPT-4.

Absolutely. I always advocate that our developers have to test on older / slower machines. That gives them direct (painful) feedback when things run slow. Optimizing whatever you build for an older "something" (LLM model, hardware) will make it excel on more modern somethings.

Putting sulfur into the right layers of the atmosphere seems to be the currently best viable options. It's not overly expensive, either. It acts fast and is reversible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...

Dumb question: would this also lower solar panel yields?

Thank you. This reading lowers my anxiety. I believe we'll rationally - and in a hurry - come down to this kind of solution. It makes solid sense.

I'm sure that are no adverse effects.

This reads like someone with the means to eat good food eating junk food and then putting themselves on weight loss drugs to counteract the effects. I'm sure temporarily it might work but I don't believe that the shocks that produce meaninful cooling effects are without consequence - in fact, I suspect they double the consequences by adding yet another factor to the destabilization.

I could be wrong, and it could a short term solution to stop the bleeding, but I have a deep suspicion of adding more things to the atmosphere given our history with the CO2 in question, tetrafluoroethane, etc.

Lookin at the wikipedia it does sound a lot like "chemtrails". They describe airplanes as being able to disseminate these aerosols and these days when I look up at the sky there is always a straight line of "cloud" forming behind airplanes.

The low prices of solar and batteries are a glimmer of hope. For many regions it's now the cheapest source of electricity.

You mean cutting into the profit/MONEY of these large corporations? How will they survive!?

They would never be the same. It's just that everything still works the same if you switch out every i with -i (and thus every -i with i).

There are ways to build C that result in:

1) Exactly one C

2) Exactly two isomorphic Cs

3) Infinitely many isomorphic Cs

It's not really the question of whether i and -i are the same or not. It's the question of whether this question arises at all and in which form.

The question is meaningless because isomorphic structures should be considered identical. A=A. Unless you happen to be studying the isomorphisms themselves in some broader context, in which case how the structures are identical matters. (For example, the fact that in any expression you can freely switch i with -i is a meaningful claim about how you might work with the complex numbers.)

Homotopy type theory was invented to address this notion of equivalence (eg, under isomorphism) being equivalent to identity; but there’s not a general consensus around the topic — and different formalisms address equivalence versus identity in varied ways.

PP meant automorphisms, which is what the OP article is about.

> Is this the shadow of something natural that we just couldn't see, or just a convenience?

They originally arose as tool, but complex numbers are fundamental to quantum physics. The wave function is complex, the Schrödinger equation does not make sense without them. They are the best description of reality we have.

The schroedinger equation could be rewritten as two coupled equations without the need for complex numbers. Complex numbers just simplify things and "beautify it", but there is nothing "fundamental" about it, its just representation.

But if you rewrite it as "two coupled equations", you are still using complex numbers, just in another guise.

Complex numbers are just two dimensional numbers, lol

Exactly. It is in general (much) more efficient to burn natural gas in a power plant and use the electricity for heatpumps compared to simply burning gas at home for heating.

Yeah, in combined cycle plants you burn the natural gas first in a gas turbine first, use the waste heat from that to boil water and run steam turbine. Then condense the steam using your district heating circuit.

You can say this is 100% efficient as you make some electricity and the rest does house heating.

The thing is that your home's heatpump has an efficiency of 300%-500%. So even if your power plant and power delivery only has say 50% gas-to-electricity-at-home, you are still looking at 150%-250% gas-to-heat-your-house efficiency.

100% efficient assuming a perfectly spherical combined cycle gas turbine with district heating circuit operating in a vacuum.

Let say all the loses provide heating for the power plant building itself. ;-)

Definitely not 100% efficient, but it can still hit a much higher efficiency than without the heat recovery

Would that help against a man in the middle that blocks the H3 traffic to snoop the URL when the client falls back to H2?

Every browser requires H2 connections to be encrypted so I don't think a MITM downgrading to it would reveal anything. Downgrading to H1 might do since encryption is optional there, but the proper way to prevent that is to submit your domains to the HSTS preload list so that browsers will always require encryption, regardless of protocol, no exceptions.

> The "Elon process" relies specifically to the goal of getting rid of all dependencies. Musk has spoken extensively about building things from the ground up and not relying on other vendors (in this example complex software dependencies). He says he wouldn't be able to build SpaceX competitively if he had just bought rockets or components.

That I cannot believe. He might have shifted the make-or-buy decisions, but both Tesla and SpaceX do a lot of outsourcing.

> That I cannot believe.

Note the "goal" there. SpaceX's only in flight explosion came after a strut (3rd party sourced) failed on S2, on the CRS-7 mission in 2015. They in sourced that, and haven't had many issues on ascent since then. They've also launched and landed some 500 rockets since then (165 this year) so ... at least they're walking the walk?

Stupid question, but is 404 the real designator of that city, or a pun towards the HTTP error code?

Edit: And what a great read, thank you!

Not a stupid question at all! 404 is the real, official designator (Factory 404) established in 1958, long before the web existed.

The coincidence with the HTTP error code is purely accidental, yet incredibly poetic—because for decades, this city literally could not be found on any public map.

Yes,4 sounds similar to death in Chinese. But 404 was just a coincidence.

My first guess would be that they at one point decided to use numbers to designate locations instead of names, to make it easier for them to be secret (eg "codenames"). Then at one point someone figured that actually, lets not just thoughtlessly increment the numbers, but pick random numbers between 1-1000 so we add even more confusion. Kind of like Seal Team 6 I guess.