This is exactly what I've been trying to figure out. At some point the LLM needs to produce text, even if it is structured outputs, and to do that it needs careful prompting. I'd love to see how that works.
You should look at see what kind of drones are dominating Ukraine's skies. You'd see some water being held. And you probably should have googled this before making this comment.
DJI drones are being used in significantly lower quantities as "base stations" and long-range reconnaissance applications, with the occasional bomb-dropping side run.
FPV drones are being used in much, much, much higher quantity than DJI drones, owing to their massively lower cost to produce due to ... the simpler and mostly orthogonal supply chain!
Financing a consumer/enterprise camera drone production capability with an end goal of enabling the construction of large quantities of one-way FPV drones, as the parent post to mine suggested, would not be a good strategy, IMO.
Having domestic consumer/enterprise camera drone production capability at all is of course a good idea, but the quantity needed in war fighting is significantly lower, at least with the current tools and techniques seen in Ukraine.
I keep seeing people make this claim that cattle spend their entire lives on feed lots, but I've never seen this anywhere and I've been all over cattle country. Where do they do this? Because around here feedlots are only for finishing cattle and typically only spend about 2-3 months there after having very happy lives as calves on a ranch.
> I keep seeing people make this claim that cattle spend their entire lives on feed lots, but I've never seen this anywhere and I've been all over cattle country. Where do they do this?
Nobody does that, it’d be way too expensive. People here on HN have absolutely zero knowledge of how industrial cattle farming operates and have some really bizarre beliefs about the process. Largely because their only experience with it is the supermarket meat section and passing those massive stinky feedlots along the CA I5.
For everyone else: After a calf is raised and weaned from their mother, they are sent to “background” on pasture and the last few months a cow spends packed in a feedlot is just to fatten it up for human consumption. These are usually steps done by different companies altogether. The whole point of beef is utilizing marginal land that can’t grow human food. It converts tons of grassland to usable farmland, and that pasture makes up 2/3 of the total agricultural land in the US.
>"The whole point of beef is utilizing marginal land that can’t grow human food."
FYI: 36% of corn is grown just to feed cattle/livestock. I'm trying to breed chickens that are less dependent on commercial foods, so I'm somewhat familiar with the topic.
That's also very misleading because the vast majority of the corn we feed cows isn't fed to them fresh. It's distillers grains, an industrial waste from ethanol production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillers_grains
It's a cheap type of corn [1] only grown on marginal farmland that is one step above pasture land.
I'm not here to police tone, but it sounded like you were disagreeing with the parent comment but your factual claims do not appear to disagree.
>> typically only spend about 2-3 months there after having very happy lives as calves on a ranch.
> After a calf is raised and weaned from their mother, they are sent to “background” on pasture and the last few months a cow spends packed in a feedlot is just to fatten it up for human consumption.
The only difference is the introduction of "sent to “background” on pasture" which arguably is not different from "happy lives as calves on a ranch" given different interpretations of calf to distinguish between baby and adolescent cattle.
There is no hypocrisy in cattle farming. No species on earth other than humans care about another species existence other than how it will benefit their own species.
I'm not saying humans shouldn't be different, but there is no hypocrisy in keeping in line with every other species in the known universe.
I don't disagree with you, but I'm unaware (naive?) of any other species farming/enslaving/capturing hordes of another species and effectively torturing them the way humans do
Being suddenly killed by a lion is a rather short torture/cruel experience compared to what humans do at larger and larger scales. I think animals even have a mechanism that I forget the name of that spares them a lot of the pain involved in such a situation (adrenaline, "going into shock", etc)
I really do wish I/we could do something to be less cruel but everything seems driven by profit margins and that makes it rather difficult/impossible. They're outlawing 'lab grown' meat! :|
(I eat meat, but I don't feel good about it when I think about it)
Humans didn't care either until very recently, when it became apparant just how much capacity we have to drive other animals to extinction. Our ability to destroy is many orders of magnitude beyond any other animal, so having at least a little more restraint is basically a requirement for a sustainable society.
Yes. Fundamentally, most people, including myself, believe that it's fine to kill animals and eat them.
There's no hypocrisy here, disgusting or otherwise. You have your own concept of morality, I have mine, yours is considered extreme by society at large, mine is a shared moral belief of the great majority.
most people also do not care about factory farming. think the claim is that it is hypocrisy if you care about the animal suffering when you will just kill it at the end
It's not hypocrisy to believe that a) animals can be killed for their meat, but also b) they should be treated humanely until then and killed as humanely as feasible.
That's the great thing about human intelligence; we can ensure a humane kill of our prey as opposed to ripping it apart with fangs and claws like other predators.
I guess my threshold for care is if it is sufficient to motivate any action to be taken at all, whether that is eating slightly less meat or switching to non-factory farmed. The vast majority of people don’t do that, so their revealed “care” is very little.
Frankly, I don’t really care which type they eat, meat is meat and has pretty much the same environmental (and ethics of killing) issues.
What is the "disgusting hypocrisy of cattle farming?" The term "happiness" is an anthropomorphic emotion term to describe animals not living in the distress so well characterized by Temple Grandin. The theory is growing the animal in a low stress environment leads to a higher quality product. Given the scary prions which spread in part by feeding cows to themselves, it makes sense to avoid some of the conditions humans often find aesthetically or morally objectionable.
The problem was that on the whole people didn't use jQuery to "load html snippets" and the architecture of jQuery tended to push people towards client-side spaghetti.
htmx encourages you to put most of the logic on the server and to keep the client lean and clean.
Yes, it's an implementation of the radical idea that we should deliver HTML (rather than a giant blob of JS) to clients purpose-built for rendering HTML.
But without jquery, everything defined in html attributes, and hence the server responses can further define behaviour in their html attributes. Declarative, not procedural, if you want.
We already identify, arrest, and prosecute criminals, we just don't hand out custodial sentences. Being in jail/prison sucks and is a good incentive to not steal cars. Plus it is impossible to steal cars while locked up.
In a good RAG system this should be solved by unrelated text not being available in the context. It could actually improve your chats by quickly removing unrelated parts of the conversation.
Kids aren't that expensive. I have a friend in the midwest with 5 kids and his family income is about $60k. They have 3 cars, own their home and go on vacation a few times a year. But they never eat out, and have a strict budget.
People complaining about money and kids and meanwhile their Great Depression era ancestors are looking at them with unending shame.
It's criminal that the US is spending money on SLS when it is so incredibly inefficient and will very likely be completely outclassed in cost and operational ability by Starship.
There are no plans to use SLS for national security missions. SpaceX, ULA, and Rocket Lab all do national security missions, and hopefully Blue Origin can join in as well in the next couple years.
In a sense, all the ostensible science missions are really about national prestige and are therefore national security missions in a round-about way. I saw a recent presentation given by Michael Griffin in which he makes this point; the HST wouldn't really be worth all the trouble if not for the "America flexing on the world" angle.
Sure, but who’s actually launching those science missions these days? It’s all commercial providers. Recycling 1970’s technology into SLS and making it even less reusable isn’t a flex on the world, it’s pork barrel politics.
I share your thoughts towards the lameness of SLS, but consider: would it even be happening if not for the threat of China going to the Moon? It seems to me that the whole point is to spoil China's fun.
Considering the CEO of the company making Starship has openly messed with his other companies in support of Russia (thinking about Ukraine decisions), there is zero chance the US should get into a situation where Elon Musk is the decider of whether or not Americans can go to space. Honestly, SpaceX with Musk at the helm is becoming a massive national security problem, and as a taxpayer, I'm okay spending more money to insulate ourselves from some globo-billionaire who doesn't give even a single F about my country.
I thought the end facts on that were that SpaceX had never turned it on there, to avoid stepping over a redline, and simply refused to change that policy when the Ukranians requested it for a USV attack.
It's my understanding that Starlink said something to the effect of:
> No, we're absolutely not supporting offensive military operations. However, Starshield _is_ in that business, so go file your request through that so as to run it by the appropriate people in the US government to get their approval.
And -AFAIK- the request was run through Starshield, and it did get approved.
You’re criticizing the “foreign policy” of a company that decided not to directly participate in a foreign war, quite possibly at the request of the US government or under threat of having those satellites shot down which would be a catastrophe for space travel.
If the US wanted to contract spacex for Ukrainian military comms, they would have.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize musk, but not participating directly in a war isn’t one of them
SLS isn't insulating us from him. If anything I'd say it has the opposite effect. By spending the money on an obsolete and inferior system we're playing ourselves and making it more likely we become dependent on such a person.
Now if we took some lessons from the design or changed the rules of the game around SpaceX that might be different. But we're not making moves that help us in that department.
Exactly, just figure out how to run Whisper on my phone and it would be the best phone on the market. Whisper plus Mixtral on my phone and it could do anything.
