Can you elaborate? All I see is a lot of ghosting of the home screen items still showing all around the text, eating up the contrast ratio so it's much worse than a cheap TN panel and visually distracting, and a lot of redraw delay. I'm not trying to be mean, I just wonder what could possibly be worth tolerating those deficiencies. Yes, e-ink is amazing for battery but you said "so nice to look at" so that's a completely different and unrelated metric.
OK, admittedly it does look bad on video, but seeing it in person is a totally different experience.
1) Rapidly changing between apps without pressing the manual refresh button is a little unrealistic usage. Also, the ghosting is way less noticeable in person vs the camera recording here. The contrast looks great in person, similar to the contrast of ink of paper.
2) eInk screen technology is way easier on the eyes for me. I can read on it basically continuously. There's no backlight, it's entirely ambiently lit so usage in direct sunlight is easy. The technology works by physically moving ink particles around and looks like ink on paper. there's also optional front lights for use in darker environments but it's usually off.
The top bar is a CSS issue. I forgot to enable the black and white only mode in the einkbro browser. Since I rarely look at top bar it slipped my mind.
It's buried pretty deeply, but the product page does say:
> Monitor and Control your BBQ Smoker from your phone, anywhere!
> Smartfire regulates the BBQ temperature on your behalf by automatically controlling the smoker airflow supply so you aren't up all night adjusting vents.
It does feel like the kind of product where everyone involved in the company and most of their potential customers know what it is, why they want it, and how it works.
The ad copy focuses on making it attractive to people who arrive by searching for "BBQ Controller" and aren't sure which one they want. There's no real reason to try to make it approachable to people who don't even own a smoker, it's not like someone's going to impulse buy a $400 gadget to improve their experience with an activity they've never done.
It depends, what are you charging for the new features in the update/version? Twenty years ago, you'd put out a new version and I could go find what new features it had and decide for myself whether those were worth the price you ask to get them. If the answer is yes, I pay and I get the new features. If the answer is no, I don't pay and I keep using the program I already bought.
Why do you think the company is automatically entitlted to rent seeking and the removal of user choice just because they tweaked the ui?
While I do like LLMs for these tasks, unfortunately this one failed you but was a near enough miss that you couldn't see it. What you were really looking for is the Red Queen problem/hypothesis/race, named after a quote from Through the Looking Glass, with the Queen explaining to Alice: "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." In particular, the Red Queen term is specifically the equilibrium you inquired about, where relative fitness is unchanging, rather than the more general concept of an evolutionary arms race in which there can be winners and losers. The terms 'evolutionary equilibrium' and 'evolutionary steady state' are also used to capture the idea of the equilibrium, rather than just of competition.
Evolutionary arms race is somewhat tautological; an arms race is the description of the selective pressure applied by other species on evolution of the species in question. (There are other, abiotic sources of selective pressures, e.g. climate change on evolutionary timescales, so while 'evolution' at least carries a broader meaning, 'arms race' adds nothing that wasn't already there.)
That said, using your exact query on deepseek r1 and claude sonnet 3.7 both did include red queen in their answers, along with other related concepts like tit for tat escalation.
Firstly, "Evolutionary Arms Race" is not tautological, it is a specific term of art in evolutionary biology.
Secondly, "evolutionary arms race" is a correct answer, it is the general case of which the Red Queen hypothesis is a special case. I do agree with you that OP described a Red Queen case, though I would hesitate to say it was because of "equilibrium"; many species in Red Queen situations have in fact gone extinct.
I disagree that evolutionary arms race is a specific term of art; we have many specific terms of art but 'arms race' is a broad generalization popularized by Dawkins as a pop science writer addressing a lay audience. Actual terms of art in this area would include Red Queen, the many individually termed coevolutions (antagonistic, mosaic, host-parasite, plant-herbivore, predator-prey etc), coadaptation, coextinction, the escalation hypothesis, frequency-dependent selection, reciprocal selection, asymmetric selection, the evolutionary lag, evolutionary cycling, character displacement, Fisherian runaway, evolutionary mismatch/trap, (phylogenetic) niche conservatism, fitness landscape, Grinnellian vs Eltonian niches, the competitive exclusion principle, and on and on. All of these actual terms of art fit under the broad, general umbrella of an 'arms race' with other species, which is really nothing more than a restatement of Spencer's unfortunate phrase. The latter is so widely 'known' that it is to the point that I and many of my peers try not to utter it, in an effort to reduce the work refuting the same tired misunderstandings that arise from that verbiage.
At any rate, almost NONE of these actual terms of art are about the sort of equilibrium that was the exact heart of the OP's query to the LLM, and thus nearly none of the broader umbrella 'arms race' is about why the plant doesn't have the evolutionary pressure to actually drive the parasite extinct. An arms race doesn't have to be in equilibrium. Armor vs weapons were in an arms race and indeed at equilibrium for millenia, but then bullets come along and armor goes exinct almost overnight and doesn't reappear for 5 centuries. Bullets win the arms race. Arms races have nothing to do, inherently, with equilibrium.
You seem to have misunderstood the nature of the equilibrium in a Red Queen scenario, which is the fundamental effect that the hypothesis is directly named for. That species that are in Red Queen relationships can go extinct is in no way a counterargument to the idea that two (or more) species tend to coevolve in such a way that the relative fitness of each (and of the system as a whole) stays constant. See, for example, the end of the first paragraph on the origin of Van Valen's term at your own wiki link.
Evolutionary steady-state is a synonymous term without the baggage of the literary reference and also avoids the incorrect connotation suggested by arms race that leads people to forget the abiotic factors that are often a dominant mechanism in extinctions as the realized niche vs the fundamental niche differ. Instead, Van Valen was specifically proposing the Red Queen hypothesis as an explanation of why extinction appears to be a half-life, i.e. of a constant probability, rather than a rate that depends on the lifetime of the taxa. This mechanism has good explanatory power for the strong and consistent evidence that speciation rate (usually considered as the log of the number of genera, depending on definition, see Stanley's Rule) has a direct and linear relation with the extinction rate. If Red Queened species didn't go exinct, Van Valen wouldn't have needed to coin the term to explain this correlation.
Or were you deliberately invoking Cunningham's Law?
> this one failed you but was a near enough miss that you couldn't see it. What you were really looking for is the Red Queen
GP was looking for a specific term that they had heard before. It was co-/evolutionary arms race, and ChatGPT guessed it correctly.
Also GPT-4o elaborated the answer (for me at least) with things like:
> However, the specific kind of equilibrium you're referring to—where neither side ever fully "wins", and both are locked in a continuous cycle of adaptation and counter-adaptation—is also captured in the idea of a “Red Queen dynamic”.
> You could refer to this as:
* Red Queen dynamics in plant-insect coevolution
* A coevolutionary arms race reaching a dynamic equilibrium
* Or even evolutionary stable strategies (ESS) applied to plant-herbivore interactions, though ESS is more game-theory focused.
> If you haven't read it yourself how do you know...
This vacuous objection can be raised against every single piece of information any human has ever learned from elsewhere, recursively, back to the dawn of communication, regardless of the nature of the third party source of information.
Furthermore, LLM hallucination, particularly of reviewed documents, is not a problem I experience any longer with the models I use. For example, my LLM setup and the query I would use would cause the output to include quotes of the differences, which makes ctrl+f/f3 to spot check easy.
LLMs are not a third party source of information, they're prediction engines with known hallucination behaviors. If they're faced with a difficult or impossible challenge (e.g. if the user fails to provide a diff, or fail to provide anything to compare against), and if there is only one type of answer in its training data (there is very little text on the internet that's positive about a TOS change), the most likely outcome is that it'll just make something up that's similar to that type of answer. Yes sometimes they'll realize and ask for more info or maybe call out to a tool to make a diff, but it all depends on the user's setup and settings and the state of RNG that day
Can you explain what burned you? I imagine many of us are trying to sift through the raft of alternatives, and waterfox is a frequent mention, so data about pros and cons is valuable.
For what it's worth, Waterfox has issues with the mozilla addon store at the moment. I was planning on Firefox Sync'ing everything over to my waterfox install, then deleting my account, but it's unable to install and reconfigure my shitload of plugins I'm using.
While this is confirming that Mozilla is already outright selling data, it at least DOES provide clarity on the issues around the acceptible use policy.
That language had been so broad that it forbade most use of the browser. For example, "send unsolicited communications" so no filing a bug report. "Deceive, mislead" so no playing Among Us. "Sell, purchase, or advertise illegal or controlled products or services" so no online refils of your antimigraine medication lasmiditan or your epilepsy medication (pregabalin) which are schedule V. "Collect or harvest personally identifiable information without permission. This includes, but is not limited to, account names and email addresses" so no browsing any forum where a username is displayed to you. And of course "access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violence" that rules out watching the nightly news, stream PG-13 and R movies, to watch classic Looney Tunes cartoons, to play Fortnight, and on and on.
Its against the ToS to watch most PG rated movies. It objects to graphic depictions of violence as well, and has no exception for brief graphic depictions of sexuality.
TomK32:
You treacherous cowards! Is thy mind void of any knowledge or are you driven by a devil that you deny the existence of this programming language?
(A sibling comment is wildly off the mark, and rather than reply and have my information buried far down the page, I'd rather it stay visible:)
The lead/caesium iodides are from the perovskite photovaic material (eg CsPbI₃, FA₀.₅MA₀.₅PbI₃, CH₃NH₃PbX₃ etc) that's being recycled* in the first place, and is the desired output - new photovaic material. That's the entire point, in fact - that at end of life, perovskite-based PV panels are otherwise toxic waste. This process recovers nearly 100% of these materials and allows their reuse in a new PV panel. If you're talking about perovskite PV, you almost always implicitly mean lead perovskites, and the highest efficiency we've found so far are inorganic perovskites like CsPbI₃.
In particular, perovskite PV are far FAR easier to manufacture - traditional silicon panels involve cleanrooms, high vacuum, and 1000+ C steps, while perovskite panels are very tolerant of defects and quite simple to manufacture - they can even be printed with inkjet or even screen printing technology.
This process is effecient enough that even on the 5th round of recycling (100 years of reuse, assuming a 20 year panel lifespan) they're something like 88% as efficient as a new panel, and the perovskite crystals are still at 99.998644% purity.
The solvent is indeed green - just water, sodium acetate, sodium iodide, and hypophosphorous acid.
The abstract is also clear that this is total panel recycling: "We further extend the scope of recycling to charge-transport layers, substrates, cover glasses and metal electrodes." Later in the paper they elaborate that after a brief low heat (150 C for 3 minutes) treatment to delaminate the EVA encapsulation, the panels are "then layer-by-layer recycled to reclaim cover glass, spiro-OMeTAD, perovskite crystal powders and SnO2-coated ITO substrates."
* As a control, they created fresh perovskite from the same technique as the recycling but from pure, purchased reagents, to assess the efficiency difference between them. That's the only place that fresh PbI and CsI appear.
pervoskite, is a fancy way of not saying lead, and lead will oxidise, into crusty stuff, that is not nice for most life forms. So the challeng is to encapsulate the lead based photo voltaic material for 20 + years. It has to be perfect, which is very very difficult to do, and as far as I know, has never been achived in the format that will be needed for large scale deployment.
I personaly live off grid (15+ years) and would welcome an even better type of pannel, but getting
these perovskite pannels past the remaining hurdles......in a truely price competitive format...is not a solved problem
the test will be, a new sealing method that is so good, and so cheap, that it takes over all similar
sealing dutys, like windows, world wide.
Because the Talalay and Dunlop processes involve vulcanization at 115+ C to turn the material into a foamed rubber, which denatures the proteins that the immune system recognizes and overreacts to. Denatured protein - think egg white once it's heated and turns white, instead of clear - has its structure radically altered. The molecules get pulled apart, tangled with others, and can in no way be recognized by the antibodies that trigger the immune response.
Similarly, Talalay latex mattress material is usually only about 30% natural and 70% synthetic, and the synthetic does not cause immune response.
If you powder the natural material and directly expose it to IgE, the dominant protein of interest for allergies, you can get a reaction (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10436396/), but in practice with sheets and the outer cloth covering on the mattress basically no proteins ever come into contact with the body. And even in that study only Hev B I was detectable, which is only one of many latex proteins that trigger the immune response, and only 3 of the 21 tested human sera actually had a reaction to the direct mixing with the powdered latex. As far as I understand it, there has never been a confirmed case of an allergic reaction to a latex mattress.
E.g. shortly after your timestamp, https://i.imgur.com/LEl1IHt.png
Ghosted icons everywhere, extremely low contrast black-on-grey top bar.. it's like reading a bad fax in the 80s.
reply