unglueclass23

It's mostly novelty. But wears off eventually when you start noticing very obvious patterns emerge in the way it answers and quality degrades significantly as context size grows. It also will always talk to you in the way YOU tell it to which also becomes boring as time goes on.

It's always funny to me how people on the news talk about AI partners and so on when you know if they have 2 brain-cells, next month they will drop this whole stupid idea. When you're talking to it about your problems you're just talking with yourself.

The company’s right-wing politics and eagerness to facilitate U.S. and Israeli military aggression abroad, NSA global surveillance, and ICE deportations has also made many wary of its access to incredibly sensitive personal data. A recent post on the company’s Palantir’s X account summarizing a book by CEO Alex Karp triggered an immediate backlash from those unnerved by the manifesto’s fascistic bent. The bullet points extolled the virtue of arms manufacturing, argued the Axis powers were unfairly punished after World War II, called for a reinstatement of the draft, condemned cultural pluralism, and claimed that wealthy elites are unfairly persecuted.

💀

Your idea that profit is simply the extraction of value from those doing the work ignores the role of risk. The factory owner provides the initial capital, buys the machines, secures supply chains, finds the right workers, organizes everything and takes the risk of bankruptcy. If the company fails, the workers lose their jobs, but the owner loses their investment. Therefore profit is the reward for taking on that financial risk and organizing the resources efficiently. Also, some of that profit will need to be reinvested into the factory or new factories.

Being honest, it just sounds like western companies being upset that they don’t get to exploit cheap Chinese labor for the benefit of western capitalists.

They want to use China as a sweatshop that they profit from, rather than letting Chinese companies profit themselves.

I don’t really see the issue with it, as a consumer. I’d rather the origin of the product got to keep more of the proceeds rather than letting some western capitalist skim more off the top, especially if that means cheaper goods for consumers.

That's a really limiting way of seeing things. Not all companies are bad and not all of them want to EXPLOIT cheap labor just because they want to manufacture in China and there are companies (especially in Europe) that go the length of making sure that the products are made fairly (i.e Fairphone) and people are paid a livable wage. I think this will be more and more important as we go into the future and people become slowly more conscious of what they're buying.

Yeah it's a bit confusing. When I hear "battery capacity" I think about GWh not GW but I suppose it isn't "wrong" as it can mean output "capacity" and they did mention "in GW"

Not sure where you're getting the numbers from but I think @DarthFrodo@lemmy.world is right here as in the differences in numbers are probably explained by the fact that the first number is only for batteries used to balance the grid and the other one is more general.

But yeah you do make a good point that we have no clue about actual storage capacity. Still, really strange that EU numbers are so low. I expected way more.

I don't really get it, in the chart "Installed grid-scale battery capacity in gigawatts, 2025"

Europe barely has like 17GW in total but later on below they say:

In Europe, it sees batteries that are already online or nearing completion as likely to benefit most, with capacity seen rising from about 50 gigawatts in 2025 to 75 gigawatts by year-end.

What is this big discrepancy? Is the second part talking about batteries not connected to the grid or something (not grid-scale?)