I'm far from an expert here but isn't that spot price rather than future deliveries? Few people pay for actual spot pricing because it can go the other way, and you want known pricing. You would have a forward contract to delivery gas at say 20p. This is a known price for operation and likely has profit baked in anyway. The excess is what we see now. They can't just switch off as they have a contract to fulfill, but the grid doesn't need the excess, therefore priced at a negative.

In https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... under "Why does the price of gas drive electricity prices?" it suggests that, at the time the CMA report linked was written (now over 10 years ago) the CMA thought as much as 40% of electricity is traded at spot prices.

Now, the CMA report that's linking is talking about a world we no longer live in, in that world the UK burns coal, Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine and so on, and thus the numbers might be entirely different now, but that's the best I could find.

Is this because at one point <username>@facebook.com was a valid communication method? Great concept to be fair, but once you pull back the first layer you can immediately see its problems.

In principle yes, but all metrics so far suggest they are losing money every user interaction. There is very little network effect with these tools so It's not like they can start cutting back on staff and feature deployment.

I don't 'like' Jira, but it gets the job done. It's so easy to onboard users and assign tasks/issues across orgs. Structure is fairly simply and the filters with subscriptions is powerful. Android app that I use on my work phone just works.

The growth is across the family of products (inc Instagram and WhatsApp) not Facebook itself. Facebook itself is a zombie, and I don't believe they have a way to innovate out of it. I'm not going to predict the end of Meta, they have more than enough products, but agreed that it's actually quite difficult to understand who's really left.

Windy.app looks good visually, but once you start using it, the UX is all over the place. Always find it frustrating.

Interesting! I used it heavily for years as a sailor and found it intuitive. Clearly, YMMV. :)

It's less about paint a picture yourself, arguably there is little to no value there. OpenAI et al, sell the product of creating pictures in the style of their material. I see this as a direct competition to Studio Ghibli's right to produce their own material with their own IP.

I agree with this. I don't know how to create artistic styles by hand or using any creative software for that matter. All the LLM tools out there gave me the "ability" and "talent" to create something "good enough" and, in some cases, pretty close to the original art.

I rarely use these tools (I'm not in marketing, game design, or any related field), but I can see the problem these tools are causing to artists, etc.

Any LLM company offering these services needs to pay the piper.

I have a thought that whilst LLM providers can say "Sorry" - there is little incentive and it will expose the reality that they are not very accurate, nor can be properly measured. That said, there clearly are use cases where if the LLM can't a certain level of confidence it should refer to the user, rather than guessing.

This is actively being worked on my pretty much every major provider. It was the subject of that recent OpenAI paper on hallucinations. It's mostly caused by benchmarks that reward correct answers, but don't penalize bad answers more than simply not answering.

E.g.

Most current benchmarks have a scoring scheme of

1 - Correct Answer 0 - No answer or incorrect answer

But what they need is something more like

1 - Correct Answer 0.25 - No answer 0 - Incorrect answer

You need benchmarks (particularly those used in training) to incentivize the models to acknowledge when they're uncertain.

I'm confused by your statement as the article suggests you can get a boarding pass via email.