There is nothing we need on Mars other than science. It's not a market because there isn't money to be made outside of what is required to do whatever economically useless but scientifically valuable efforts we can convince people to fund.
We can't build an independent colony we can't live there any time soon. Arguably it may never make sense to live there.
1. Mankind never systematically lived in caves; that's just where remains and rock paintings are more likely to have survived.
2. Farming didn't evolve from a vision of "let's stay in one place, so let's find a way to do it"; it evolved from the gradual application of accumulated practical knowledge under real constraints until eventually it was possible to stay in one place. If Paleoelon had somehow convinced early humanity to abandon hunter-gathering and settle into a sedentary life because he had a vision for new markets around farming it would have led to the earliest famine.
While what you say is mostly correct, the lifestyle switch to farming was determined not by some random gradual accumulation of knowledge during the previous million years, but by accelerated accumulation of knowledge during a few thousand years at most, which was caused by the dwindling hunting resources, which forced humans to abandon the lifestyle that they had for a couple million years and switch to a lifestyle where the staple food consisted of plant seeds, with anything else providing much less of the nutrient intake. Only after a few more thousand years, raising domestic animals allowed the return to a more diverse diet.
Switching to a farming lifestyle was certainly not done by choice, but to avoid death by starvation, as we now know that this has caused various health problems, especially in the beginning, presumably until experience has taught them to achieve a more balanced diet, by combining at least 3 kinds of plant seeds, 2 with complementary amino acid profile and 1 kind of oily seeds for essential fatty acids (the most ancient farming societies have combined barley or einkorn or emmer wheat with lentils or peas or a few other legumes less used today and with flax seeds).
Yes, your description of how farming and sedentary lifestyle progressed is much more accurate than my somewhat clumsy attempt. My intention was to emphasise that such a transformative event in human history did not take place thanks to visionaries going against the grain [0] , but rather through a long and complex process.
In this context, 'systematically' is a qualifier to the adverb 'never'. It serves as a disclaimer to avoid someone pointing out that, well actually, some humans have lived in caves and do so to the present day.
Can you get better performance similar to performance on exams by having the most pertinent data extracted from the dialogue and re-arranged more sensibly?
Shouldn't all agentic actions with meaningful outputs of importance like moving $48,000 simply be required to terminate in a human designed or verified output with a human in the loop attestation.
Eg a list of transactions that isn't AI generated where the only actions that actually move money must operate on the data displayed in the human designed page.
A human looks at this and says yes that is acceptable and becomes reasonable for that action.
Exactly ... and that's why I'm skeptical of "AI verifies AI" as the primary safety mechanism. The verifier for moving money should be deterministic: constraints, allowlists, spend limits, invoice/PO matching, etc. The LLM can propose actions, but the execution should be gated by a human/polic-issued scope that's mechanically enforced. That's the whole point: constrain the non-deterministic layer with a deterministic one. [0]
[0] https://tenuo.dev/constraints
Steam now supports 1 click install of its entire library windows and Linux native and the majority work. The majority of printers either work or do not. It's not a reasonable expectation that all hardware will work but you won't need hours of work either.
MS is free to deprecate your work around any given Tuesday when you have work to do leaving you in the same spot with less time available to do anything about it.
You are wrongly assessing the value of the alternatives to boot if you think they were just too stupid to google. Based on the article they already viewed Windows negatively prior to this and thus already had a motivation to switch.
This is extremely bad logic. The technology of enforcing trusted software is without inherent value good or ill depending entirely on expected usage. Anything that is substantially open will be used according to the values of its users not according to your values so we ought instead to consider their values not yours.
Suppose you wanted to identify potential agitators by scanning all communication for indications in a fascist state one could require this technology in all trusted environments and require such an environment to bank, connect to an ISP, or use Netflix.
One could even imagine a completely benign usage which only identified actual wrong doing alongside another which profiled based almost entirely on anti regime sentiment or reasonable discontent.
The good users would argue that the only problem with the technology is its misuse but without the underlying technology such misuse is impossible.
One can imagine two entirely different parallel universes one in which a few great powers went the wrong way in part enabled by trusted computing and the pervasive surveillance enabled by the capability of AI to do the massive and boring task of analyzing a massive glut of ordinary behaviour and communication + tech and law to ensure said surveillance is carried out.
Even those not misusing the tech may find themselves worse off in such a world.
Why again should we trust this technology just because you are a good person?
TLDR We already know how this will be misused to take away people's freedom not to run their own software stack but to dissent against fascism. It's immoral to build even with the best intentions.
I couldn't find ready stats on what percentage of displays are 60 hz but outside of gaming and high end machines I suspect 60 hz is still the majority of of machines used by actual users meaning we should evaluate the latency as it is observed by most users.
The point is that we can improve latency of even old machines by simply attaching a display output that supports a higher refresh rate, or perhaps even variable refresh rate. This can negate most of the unavoidable latency of a compositor, while other techniques can be used to avoid compositor latency in more specific scenarios and try to improve performance and frame pacing.
A new display is usually going to be cheaper than a new computer. Displays which can actually deliver 240 Hz refresh rates can be had for under $200 on the lower end, whereas you can find 180 Hz displays for under $100, brand new. It's cheap enough that I don't think it's even terribly common to buy/sell the lower end ones second-hand.
For laptops, well, there is no great solution there; older laptops with 60 Hz panels are stuck with worse latency when using a compositor.
Plenty of brand new displays are still sold that only go up to 60hz, especially if you want high quality IPS panels.
They aren't as common now, but when making a list of screens to replace my current one, I am limiting myself to IPS panels and quite a few of the modern options are still 60hz.
Yeah, I personally still have a lot of 60 Hz panels. One of my favorites is a 43" 4K IPS. I don't think I will be able to get that at 120+ Hz any time soon.
Of course, this isn't a huge deal to me. The additional latency is not an unusable nightmare. I'm just saying that if you are particularly latency sensitive, it's something that you can affordably mitigate even when using a compositor. I think most people have been totally fine eating the compositor latency at 60 Hz.
reply