Machines have been making kill-or-no-kill decisions for decades, and they were a lot more indeterminant. Heat-seeking missiles largely kill whatever is hot. Proximity fuses in WW2 detonated whenever they got near something. Anti-personal mines kill whenever pressure is applied. A CIWS will target things that get too close to it that don't identify IFF. Naval mines kill if something magnetic is near them.
At the end of the day, it's still humans deploying these weapon systems and accepting the risk that they might cause unintended casualties.
Presumably they’ve signed an agreement to buy the power (delivered through the grid) from the plant operator at a contracted price. The plant operator can then get finance for the work required to actually deliver on the contract.
A lot of renewable energy projects were financed through similar agreements, called PPAs.
They are just buying the power. Microsoft's goal is 24/7 matching, so every MWh of power they use is matched by a MWh of clean power (generated in that same hour) that they paid for. This is called market-based carbon accounting, as opposed to location-based accounting which considers the source of the electricity that is actually used by the company's infrastructure.
There are pros and cons of each approach, market-based is a little less intuitive but not necessarily worse, it depends on the application.
> market-based carbon accounting […] not necessarily worse
They are better for the corps communication and worse for anyone else.
Transporting electricity over distance has a non trivial cost in $ but also ressources and energy, as well as relocating an industry near a clean energy source or optimizing the production units.
Carbon-matching systems are great for entreprise wanting to claim they don’t produce carbon (24/7 carbon neutral) while they do. It does not depict the CO2E one (entreprise) did product de facto.
I think universities can probably come up with a different set of non-protected criteria to lift underrepresented communities out of social/financial oppression. This might even provide greater access to some equally needing students that are looked over by racially-based criteria. In a perfect world, everyone would have equal opportunity and support throughout their primary education, and college admission could be much more merit-based. Unfortunately, that is not the country we live in and there is little appetite to invest in ensuring all Americans have access to high-quality primary education.
Yeah, and I think it will be pretty simple to do. Just switch over to looking at what district the applicants graduated (or what neighborhood they grew up in) from and try to equally represent all school districts over time. For instance, if you have a poor high school that's never had anyone admitted to your university, then try to choose the next outstanding applicant coming out of that high school. That promotes diversity without involving race. Poor families can't easily change school districts just because they find themselves with a gifted child on their hands. I know because I've been there.
>Just switch over to looking at what district the applicants graduated (or what neighborhood they grew up in) from and try to equally represent all school districts over time.
This is basically what the University of Texas does; the top x% of applicants from each Texas high school is admitted, with other applicants competing against each other. I think it's a good way for a state school with the duty to educate its citizens to do so without using race as the determinant.
My read and view has been for a long while that to reverse the centuries of race based discrimination you have to do something to specifically funnel opportunities and resources to those affected groups. PoC were kept out of many of the big wealth building booms in the US like the post WW2 golden era for example so unless we're willing to wait for one of those to come around again or a couple centuries of diffusion to even the starting point discrepancies the pre Civil Rights Era built deep into our cities and economies, the race based issues of the past kind of demand addressing with race based solutions.
This isn't always possible, though. You could grow up with parents and teachers who do not push you to study. Perhaps you are malnourished or abused. Having the environment and support to study hard is something not all students have. You cannot hand wave studying as the solution to the disparity in educational outcomes.
I was a Rutgers student when this was happening. I recall some final assignments and exams getting canceled when they attacked the Rutgers network.
When the news broke about the perpetrators behind Mirai and specifically the Dyn attack, I was shocked that such a high-impact attack originated from one of my classmates in the CS department.
I was a student at the same time, and if memory serves correctly, the school's authentication server was down for multiple days at a time. This is a requirement to log into pretty much anything on campus. I remember being unable to access Canvas to download assignments and notes or read professor announcements.
I really want an EV, but they don't work for me. I live in an urban area and park on a city street. EV ownership would add a lot of complications to my life due to the current state of charging infrastructure.
I think EV adoption will eventually plateau until we solve overnight charging for cars parked on city streets or there is a large increase in rapid charging availability and speed.
> chicken and egg problem, there won't be a need for increased charging infrastructure until there are more EVs on the road.
Which we don't have the electricity infrastructure for.
The solution is to get rid of cars, period. Ownership should require a permit like gun ownership requires in some cities (i.e you should only be able to buy one of the DMV agrees you have good reason to need a car).
Can you please stop posting ideological flamebait to HN? You've unfortunately been doing it a lot lately. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
You still have to trust that data was recorded into a blockchain correctly/faithfully.
So you can never truly remove trust. I'm not sure a immutable ledger is any more useful than a database if there is still some sort of required trust component.
> Ten years from now, looking back on the 2022 tech recession, we may say that this moment was a paroxysm of scandals and layoffs between two discrete movements.
The author is suggesting the first "movement" was the "browser era, the social-media era, and the smartphone-app-economy era".
It seems they think the next era will vaguely have something to do with AI.
What do HN'ers think the next "movement" will be (if any)?
In my opinion it might be more disparate if people's hardware specs can afford it, trading centralization for peer to peer or federated services at the expense of creating even greater filter bubbles. That or non-centralized web things are just fashionable to talk about and I am blindly regurgitating trends. 50-50 really, half of those conversations were spurred on by crypto wank and those types aren't exactly having a good time right now.
I was in Montessori through kindergarten. I do remember feeling a bit disadvantaged socially when I entered 1st grade in a conventional school.
Most of the other students had done kindergarten at my new school and already knew each other. I did eventually make friends, but I always felt like a bit of an outsider since I didn't have that shared kindergarten experience with my peers.
I imagine this would only get worse the longer a child stays out of the conventional schooling system.
At the end of the day, it's still humans deploying these weapon systems and accepting the risk that they might cause unintended casualties.