Even accounting for inflation arcades should be cheaper.

The compute hardware costs much less and is much more power efficient.

Other power hungry features like lights and displays are both cheaper and more power efficient.

The argument that they still need to be expensive makes so little sense, other than the physical space they occupy.

As someone who learned way more about pans than I really want to know, let me say that a good cook can make good food in any pan, however some pans are more suited to tasks than others.

First off, searing meat in a non-stick pan (traditionally Teflon) is a bad idea, the pan can reach temperatures that produce toxic gases, and are known to kill birds that are more sensitive to them than we are. The coating that makes them nonstick isn’t very durable and will at most last a few years before being useless. While other kinds of pans are likely to outlive you.

Other common pans include cast iron, stainless steel, carbon steel, and ceramic non-stick (non-toxic, but are delicate)

Specifically for searing meets, my favorite is stainless steel. It holds heat similar to cast iron, but is slightly more conductive and can transfer a lot of heat to sear meat. Meat also literally bonds to pan and can be used to make great flavorful sauces with deglazing. Cleanup is easy, if anything is really stuck just boil water in it to loosen. Alternatively stainless steel holds up decent in a dishwasher. Cleanup can’t be easier than automatic. However, stainless steel is still quite heavy.

For general purpose cooking my personal favorite is carbon steel. It’s seasoned like cast iron and can be quite nonstick, but is much lighter making it feel very similar to nonstick pans, which are made with aluminum.
I won’t lie, seasoning has a learning curve. Seasoning is very tough under some circumstances, and very delicate under others. Notably acid will eat the seasoning away.

Cast iron is great, but it is so heavy that it is inconvenient to use.

All will work with induction, except for cheap aluminum nonstick pans

They’re human like everyone else, and try to use language that is specific and descriptive. In this case the word direct observation has become to mean something very specific In the field of astrophysics. It’s not out of malice or anything, just results from the difficulty of scientific writing, so you use words that already have established meaning.

Direct observation ≠ direct detection

I would argue that dark matter is much more based on indirect observation, things like rotation curves and baryonic acoustic oscillations.

Confusingly, direct observation does not mean the same thing as direct detection.

This study “directly observes” a hypothetical dark matter signal. However this is distinct from direct detection experiments, where a dark matter particle is found in a collider.

I am a physicist, studying dark matter.

Firstly, It would be nearly impossible to prove that dark matter definitely does not exist.

And secondly, there are no alternatives to dark matter that come even close to explain our universe as successfully as dark matter.

That doesn’t mean it’s right, but any explanation without dark matter is not favored IMO.

Alternatively, if you can’t remove the modem, find and remove the antenna. And if you can’t remove the antenna try and surround it with a metal, like aluminum foil.

The universe was only 3 billion years old at the time, and that time period is very anti-life for the universe.

deleted by creator

Yes of course, but how do you propose we get that to happen?

Why are these homes empty in the first place? Are they in the same places where housing is needed?

And even if you could house all homeless people, that still leaves the problem of the crushing expense of housing in many places.

That’s kinda exactly my point? If someone could print a fuckton of new bitcoins it’s value would drop. The same is true for housing. We may have technically enough housing for everyone, but that means nothing if that housing is not also where people want to or need to live.

While these investors are absolutely soulless and deserve to be called out, there’s another aspect of this problem that I feel doesn’t get talked about enough.

If we just built enough housing this problem would go away. And it would be easy if we had a system that allowed people to build new things and undercut competition. But we can’t because regulations make it nearly impossible to make anything other than houses.

People investing on houses are a symptom of the larger overall problem, of there not being enough fucking housing.

At its face value, base elements are not enormously complicated. But we can’t even properly model any element other than hydrogen, it’s all approximations because quantum mechanics is so complicated. And then there’s molecules, that are even more hopelessly complicated, and we haven’t even gotten to proteins! By comparison our best transistors look like toys.

I did not immediately dismiss LLM, my thoughts come from experience, observing the pace of improvement, and investigating how and why LLMs work.

They do not think, they simply execute an algorithm. Yeah that algorithm is exceedingly large and complicated, but there’s still no thought, there’s no learning outside of training. Unlike humans who are always learning, even if they don’t look like it, and our brains are constantly rewiring themselves, LLMs don’t.

I’m certain in the future we will get true AI, but it’s not here yet.

Yeah a lot of it is messy, but they are not being replicated by commodity gpus.

LLMs have no intelligence. They are just exceedingly well at language, which has a lot of human knowledge in it. Just read claudes system prompt and tell me it’s still smart, when it needs to be told 4 separate times to avoid copyright.

Current Ai has no shot of being as smart as humans, it’s simply not sophisticated enough.

And that’s not to say that current llms aren’t impressive, they are, but the human brain is just on a whole different level.

And just to think about on a base level, LLM inference can run off a few gpus, roughly order of 100 billion transistors. That’s roughly on par with the number of neurons, but each neuron has an average of 10,000 connections, that are capable of or rewiring themselves to new neurons.

And there are so many distinct types of neurons, with over 10,000 unique proteins.

On top of there over a hundred neurotransmitters, and we’re not even sure we’ve identified them all.

And all of that is still connected to a system that integrates all of our senses, while current AI is pure text, with separate parts bolted onto it for other things.

Drones are pretty cheap these days cost way less to run

Still my first time seeing it. And as a physicist who wants to strive to improve my field we should know these things.

Even better for hummingbirds is native plants that feed them. We have planted red cardinal flowers that attract them and butterflies