There are plenty of AI companies making money, but they're all small time and actually useful to the consumer. DeepL, CharacterAI, Novel AI, any of the ten billion underage auto nudifier apps, AI Girlfriends, etc. They're not moral, but they are making money. But none of them are on the stock market...
which is good, they haven't been poisoned by capitalism yet
Dead, I dont think so. At least not the two guys to the side. That one behind the breach tho, yeah he just had his 'nads blasted off. The other two are still standing and that was a really flame heavy (low energy) explosion + the camera guy barely flinches when it goes off. Any shrapnel was most likely contained by the barrel, so only the guy directly behind the breach was at direct risk from that. Those other two are having a bad day, but they're gonna walk away...
After the vehicle was spotted on Google maps and a frenzy of speculation, the craft was revealed as the U.S. military's Manta Ray prototype uncrewed underwater vehicle (UUV). Built by manufacturer Northrop Grumman, it is designed for long-duration undersea missions.
Saved you a click - (site is cancer on mobile and has no more info)
Oh great can't wait for porn to branded illegal. Fuck this, man. Fuck.
Presenting these assholes suffering consequences is an important part of normalizing not being an incel POS. At least that is the theory as I have had it presented.
Those photos are all taken on rainy foggy days and that is one shiny, uniformly reflective parking lot surface. I wonder if the yellow pole on those horizontal lines forms enough of an optical illusion that leads somewhat distracted drivers to wildly misjudge the distance their vehicle is from the pole.
Especially with another similarly sited pole someone else posted, in similar weather conditions. and it looks like the pole is REALLY close in width to the lines on the ground. Could be a cool phenomenon to look into.
While clearly biased and theres some wording and cherrypicking of studies (that isn't very egregious, to be clear!) that I'd take issue with in a more formal setting, the content of the article thru to point two are really quite an alright summary of the issues and raises some very valid questions the industry has yet to answer.
However it throws itself off the credibility cliff riiiiiight around this point:
In any event, regulators are loosening safety and security requirements for SMRs in ways which could cancel out any safety benefits from passive features. For example, the NRC has approved rules and procedures in recent years that provide regulatory pathways for exempting new reactors, including SMRs, from many of the protective measures that it requires for operating plants, such as a physical containment structure, an offsite emergency evacuation plan, and an exclusion zone that separates the plant from densely populated areas. It is also considering further changes that could allow SMRs to reduce the numbers of armed security personnel to protect them from terrorist attacks and highly trained operators to run them. Reducing security at SMRs is particularly worrisome, because even the safest reactors could effectively become dangerous radiological weapons if they are sabotaged by skilled attackers. Even passive safety mechanisms could be deliberately disabled.
What in the fearmongering fuck is this? "Oh no, terrorists!" And it's debunked on the first page of one of its own sources. Regulators have NOT put any pathways in place to "exempt SMRs from many of the protective measures." If you read the sources, what they have done is put in place guidelines for the evaluation of the current measures, to judge if those measures merit being re-evaluated. Its a path for a path to judge if maybe we should have a path.
And fucking hell, yes of course they would have smaller security contingents, the installations are physically smaller! There's less to guard! Thats in no small part the point!
Look there are a lot of problems with SMRs and even more questions we just don't have answers for yet. Those questions need answers before any progress can be made with SMRs. The benefits of lower transmission losses, dedicated power generation for industrial complexes being at all beneficial, or remotely finalized designs for the reactor technology needed here are all MASSIVE outstanding issues that have yet to be solved.
But this shit? "we cant have this source of green energy because terrorists!!!"
Fuck off with that.
There are more than enough issues with SMRs to justify extreme skepticism, hell microsoft wanting a bunch is probably reason enough to abandon the whole concept. We dont need to stoop to disinformation and blatant lies, what the fuck. This is why "nuclear bros" (Which great idea, lets "other" the critics, that's not a red flag at all...) get so much traction, because they dont stoop to conspiracy theory tropes to support their arguments.
"The cloud is just other people's computers" - It's inconvenient, but those computers are real, physical objects subject to oversight from real, physical law enforcement.
As much as I loathe m$, the one thing they got right was forcing casual users (windows home) to install security updates as top priority, whether they like it or not. I know we all hate on windows, and rightly so, but that policy does nullify this particular vector and that is great for the consumer-level users.
(... for the sake of argument lets just pretend windows doesnt have 10,000 other vulns the malware devs can just exploit instead)
ITT: a lot of people worried that one of the few examples of corporate-provided services that isn't a flaming pile of anti-consumer profit-before-everything garbage is going to be punished for not being that via political ratfucking.
Yall, high-school yearbooks are public records.
Good. I hope this burns their whole empire to the ground.
Among the biggest of asshole scumbags now expect us to believe them? Yeah, those barcodes are 100% legit and they tried to negotiate with those hackers the very second they found out.