It's not a question of what use-cases theoretically require fossil fuels. The whole problem is the scale.
We have to find a replacement for oil and get it to the scale of oil in a fraction of the time we had to get where we are now with oil. And getting there with oil was easier, because oil is extremely convenient.
It's a bit like saying "we need to rewrite the Linux kernel with a new language that we are yet to invent, and it has to reach feature-parity in 5 years". Sure, theoretically we know how to create a new language and how to write a kernel, but can we do both in 5 years? Ever heard of e.g. Fuchsia? And they didn't try to invent a language for it.
The Germans were able to transition from oil to synthetic fuels while in the middle of WWII. South Africa used the same to provide their energy for decades when the world prevented them from getting oil. We know from those experiences that synthetic fuels scale.
We also know from experience that synthetic fuels are around 5 times more expensive than oil, and so only niches are willing to pay for it if oil is an alternative.
That isn’t actually true. I‘ve personally worked on an embedded POWER processor https://github.com/electronicvisions/nux. It is used as a dual core embedded micro-controller in a neuromorphic chip. Each core has just 16kB of memory on chip and 4kB instruction cache. POWER has subsets of the instruction set which have a gcc and llvm target and are well suited for embedded use cases.
Main advantage of RISCV at this point is that it has a larger community. But at the time it didn’t even have a vector instruction set, whereas we could easily modify the POWER one for our purposes.
Personally I am almost certain that the current framing of RL and its relationship to animal behavior is deeply misguided. It proves close to impossible to train animals using this paradigm (not for a lack of trying), i.e. animals such as mice only make any progress when water deprived and under conditions that exploit their natural instincts. Nevertheless they are capable of far more complex natural behaviors. There is a non-zero chance that RL as an explanation of animal behavior is just plain wrong or not applicable.
I naively believe that the lack of performance is one of connectivity. Animal brains don't use directed graphs, probably for the very reason that latching states, like holding a button, become unreasonable. Our brains probably use small network graphs [1][2].
> “Although the study found inadequate sleep duration was not an issue in brain atrophy in this study, we cannot say there is no association,” she said, noting that a previous CARDIA study showed that shorter sleep was associated with worse white matter integrity, indicating lower cognitive functioning.
That quote seems to directly contradict the headline.
From the public results only[1] (I don't have a copy of the whole study) they studied the following things looking for correlation with brain decline:
* short sleep duration
* sleep quality
* difficulty initiating sleep (DIS)
* difficulty maintaining sleep (DMS)
* early morning awakening (EMA)
* daytime sleepiness
They only found that the middle four were correlated. I don't know what exactly "sleep quality" is but the others are pretty easy to understand. And the point is that the duration of a person's sleep is not what mattered, it was the quality.
Also, worth saying: these things were based on self-reported data, which is basically crap.
>To estimate the effects of sleep quality on the brain, the researchers surveyed approximately 600 adults on how well they slept. The participants were asked the same questions five years later and underwent brain scans 10 years after this.
This is press-release science. Maybe the latter three things you can remember, but I have sensors and whatnot in a fancypants mattress (i.e. I'm highly motivated to know), and my subjective opinion of my prior night's sleep is pretty uncorrelated with what they say. I couldn't begin to tell you the quality of my sleep from a week ago.
you're wrong. The only evidence we have for gravity is the correlation of mass and attraction. The theory of gravity does not contain any hint of a reason why, it simply points out what we can observe. Correlation is the only evidence we have.
And you have not ruled out that complaining about sleep in various ways isn't a direct side effect of brain shrinkage so the hypothesis remains open.
Sleep quality, if excluding DIS, DMS, EMA, usually will refer to things like apneas, nasal congestion, digestion, noise or light in the room, etc. Disturbances that don't wake the person but do tax the brain.
I would describe low sleep quality as "difficulty entering or maintaining the restorative phases of sleep." It's the thing a sleep clinic measures with an EEG.
There are tasks, which are implemented as part of the runtime and they appear to plan to integrate libuv in the future. Some of the runtime seems to be fairly easy to hack and have somewhat nice ways of interoperating with both C, C++ and Rust.
reply