Although reducing speed and fuel usage reduces fuel costs, it increases fixed costs (you need more ships for the same throughput) as well as operating costs like crew. It might turn out to still be more expensive in the end. Then there's the problem of less certainty about price changes if you have to wait longer for the product to be delivered which leads to inefficiency (over/under-supply if mispredicted). There's also the opportunity cost of money being tied up for longer in the delay between production and consumption.
I don't understand either. Somebody else made the same comment but typical electric cars still have diffs. Examples include Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf, and Tesla Model 3, Tesla Model S. Where are the electric cars with independent left/right drive motors? Even cheap toy electric R/C cars have differentials.
Other non-car images on the site have text that's really disconnected from the context, such as an Apple logo on a story about the Apple car called "Christmas shopping in the city of Hamburg" which I guess came from the context of the stock photo being a Hamburg Apple store photographed at Christmas time. Pictures of people seem to be labeled with the events they're photographed at, even when it's nothing to do with the article.
Poor blind people having to figure out that "f1 eifel grand prix" means "George Russell".
Do any site operators actually block non-Google search engine crawlers because being listed DDG/Bing/etc isn't worth the extra cost of serving the crawler? It sound a bit ridiculous unless they actually don't want to be found. Maybe they only allow GoogleBot because that's all they thought of and the extra cost is in researching what all the other search engines call theirs.
Perhaps other search engines should spoof GoogleBot. Browsers have being doing that since forever spoofing Netscape (Mozilla), Safari, etc. for the same reason.
> Why don't we have Google share the results and we can use that money to do more productive things than recreating that work?
This sounds like a common fallacy of people criticizing the free market. Duplicated effort looks wasteful but turns out to be far more productive than the lack of incentive that comes with not being able to profit from your work/investment.
> Do any site operators actually block non-Google search engine crawlers because being listed DDG/Bing/etc isn't worth the extra cost of serving the crawler?
Many website operators do actually block crawlers from non Google search engines and it's because the cost of being crawled isn't worth it to them. Here's a good quote from one such webmaster:
As a webmaster I get a bit tired of constantly having to deal with the startup crawler du jour.
From law firms looking for DMCA violations to verticals search engines, to image aggregators, to company intelligence resellers… It feels to me that everybody and their brother has gotten into spidering sites.
With 10,000s of pages that have content that is only relevant to a targeted audience who is perfectly able to find us on the majors, I do not hesitate to block (and possibly ban) when I see an aggressive crawler that does not provide me or my customers with direct benefits.
> Perhaps other search engines should spoof GoogleBot. Browsers have being doing that since forever spoofing Netscape (Mozilla), Safari, etc. for the same reason.
> This sounds like a common fallacy of people criticizing the free market.
I am asserting that crawling the web is a natural monopoly. This means that the free market has failed and that it is not possible for the market to heal itself in this regard. There is significant evidence that this is the case and I imagine you'll be hearing more and more about it soon.
I would think the site owner’s cost of being indexed is the same for every search engine that indexes the site.
The benefit varies with the quality of the search engines, and that will vary between search engines, but it does get larger the more a search engine is used, so a cost/benefits analysis may show Google and a few other large ones are the only ones worth supporting.
I expect it's like how stamp collecting used to be the world's most popular hobby. It might not have been anybody's favorite activity, but it was commonly accessible to everyone. They call these things "lowest common denominator". If you have to pick something for everybody, that's probably a better choice than any niche group's favorite thing.
You know what's worse than aspirations to become a celebrity? No aspirations at all. I know people like that. They just seem to see the future as a regular life with nothing particularly to do in it except exist and perform normal regular practical activities to sustain it. I can't imagine how dull it must be, but they seem to cope, and get all their excitement from immediate events. I hope you can be happy that your relatives at least have ambition, even if it's not quite accurately targeted yet. Not everyone is that fortunate.
Just to be clear, I know of no relatives who want to be influencers. It's only a hypothetical problem for me.
I also have never met people with "no aspirations at all" and am not sure they exist. Although you seem concerned about diminishing people's ambitions, you also seem to denigrate people who want to have "a regular life", as if there's something wrong with people who want to settle down and raise kids and live a good life. That's never been my path, but I respect it a lot.
I don’t know, I have quite a lot of respect for the fathers around me. I’d rank climbing Mount Lenin, being a CEO or hitchiking from Paris to Sydney an order of magnitude easier than being a father ;)
Which all doesn't matter at all because it'll recover afterwards. Framing it as an ecological disaster is just a way to engage all the people who are prone to worrying about the environment.
Do you rally think the global environment is in a process of recovery?
How much damage has to happen before the global environment becomes unrecoverable?
The fact is the majority of penguin species today have declining populations. Those are not recovering. A couple of million of them getting wiped out is unlikely to help reverse that downward trend.
The majority of the ozone depletion has in fact recovered. The planet is currently experiencing a greening of massive plant growth. The worst thing we do to ourselves as a species and to all other forms of life, is pollution. Chemical pollution. All life on this planet is carbon based. Plants eat carbon. Plants are in fact, up-taking more carbon via evolution.
> How much damage has to happen before the global environment becomes unrecoverable?
Where the damage in question consists of dumping freshwater into the sea? It would take more water than exists in the world to do irrecoverable damage that way. Try to avoid learning about rivers.
> Over 68 percent of the fresh water on Earth is found in icecaps and glaciers, and just over 30 percent is found in ground water. Only about 0.3 percent of our fresh water is found in the surface water of lakes, rivers, and swamps [1].
Fresh water has a different density than salt water, and ice melting in the artic and antarctica is resulting in a huge influx of fresh water that can disrupt ocean currents [2]. These currents currently distribute a lot of heat around the world, and them stopping would result in places like europe getting much colder, while other regions would become much hotter (and with the warmer oceans, probably also have extremer hurricanes).
The gulf stream that brings warm water from the Caribbean up towards Britain is driven by dense salty water in northern latitudes sinking and flowing south, but the North Atlantic is being flooded with fresh water from Greenland and the North polar ice. Roll those dice!
> Which all doesn't matter at all because it'll recover afterwards. Framing it as an ecological disaster is just a way...
That is a _very_ odd definition of a disaster. The Earth recovered from several mass extinction events. Does that mean that they were not in point of fact, disasters? That nothing is a disaster?
It is a localised disaster. Not all disasters have to be on the global scale to have relevance.
The model should be able to tell the difference between population demographics in a particular country and a definition. Demographically, they're not independent. Definitionally, they are entirely independent.
Seems like an overhyped danger. Does anyone actually think that? You would have to not even know that the purpose of a language model is to model human language. But if that's the level of your understanding, why would you select a language model to use as a career guidance oracle? Such a negligent career advisor would be just as likely to use those children's posters with pictures of female nurses and male doctors.
I'd like to add that there's also a danger in people trying too hard to avoid bias and losing important information. For example, a man who's a homemaker instead of a programmer is a less attractive partner for a woman. So such an occupation might harm both his quality of life and that of his partner. There is some useful information encoded in cultural bias. Even if that information turns out to be entirely socially constructed, it still has real harmful effects on real humans who go against it.
> For example, a man who's a homemaker instead of a programmer is a less attractive partner for a woman.
This is much to sweeping a generalization to have a place here. You might say a man who is a homemaker is less attractive than a programmer to you, but don't speak for everybody else.
