“I see AI as a positive because it undermines the monopoly on intellectual property of capitalists”

I would contest that it does the exact opposite. Massive companies have been given free reign to legally steal (see Meta’s plagiarism/piracy court docs) from the entire internet. They then roll out the ai model, that they own, which can recreate things (art, writing, technical docs, etc) that are amalgamations of all the stolen work. They then sell subscriptions for people to use their ai, funneling people away from paying real artists.

Done. Zuckerberg is now starring as Joel in The Last of Us.

Love the writing in this article. Fuck Zuck.

“A person”. Every single person has genetic mutations that differentiate them from every other person. Now if their mutation happens to be wings or something, then I don’t know, ‘Bird-Person’ probably.

Hasan - I feel like different people have different pronunciations of it and I can’t keep track of which is for who.

Adding to what the others wrote, solar cells become less efficient at power conversion (light -> electricity) as the temp of the solar cell materials (semiconductors) increases. So the issues is how to get more photons to the semiconductor without heating it up.

Adding to what Eldest_Malk said: They aren’t just putting a new type of lens over standard solar cells, they are also designing/fabricating custom cells to work with the lenses. [I’m not a PV expert, but the fact that the IEEE paper focuses so much on the cells and not just the lenses leads me to believe that the lenses can’t just be used with whatever standardized solar cells are on the market]

I just skimmed the IEEE paper (peer-reviewed, solid journal); The usage of ‘slash costs’ in the title is entire sensational. The tech gave a SLIGHT increase in efficiency (which is good news - marginal improvements are still very good and can be game-changing if scaled up), but there is no cost/benefit analysis in the paper regarding the additional costs of lenses and whether the increased PV efficiency would offset those costs at scale.

I am ready to be hurt again

this comment is preposterous.

Bad headline, should remove the " 's Grok ’ part.

EXCEL

Why?

Meanwhile, in the suburbs of DC/Baltimore you have 96m² for $414k: Local Listing

And what share of the profit should go right in executives pockets? How many employees should be laid off to increase this profit? Is 6 million $/yr enough for a CEO to feed their fucking family?

PaywallRemoved - not there’s much to the article that you can’t see from just the top of the page

Every. Fucking. Day.

switch to linux mint and all these issues poof away

I guess its up to us

there are very rich and powerful people who spend all of their ‘working’ time actively fighting against those things. They (clearly) would sooner support the construction of the fourth reich in america than give up profit streams like energy/housing/automotive.