you were capable. now the nation has been looted and a shithole remains. internet comments aside in your heart of hearts you and everyone else knows im right.
A nation in that condition can overcome. And what else is worth doing?
The challenge I see isn't that they can't mine uranium and make HTR fuel, but more that there is not much of a market for it at the moment. But the concept is still under development
which I'd summarize as "in the helium environment the pebbles experience friction that causes significant fuel damage" China and X-Energy seem to think they can solve it but it is also possible to develop prismatic fuel elements that won't slide past each other but will need disassembling the pile at refueling time.
very few companies sign an agreement with "Apple". You sell a good or service to a single person, small group or maybe a department. There are countless customers this size, the difference is do they treat you like they are the embodiment of "Apple"? We have lots of big, well-known clients and for the most part they do not.
I mean, Apple does have a procurement process. If you're selling at the large team / department level or up (i.e. not individuals within Apple), you're dealing with "Apple" at least for the sale through security and contract reviews, etc.
GPT 3.5 will happily write jokes about Jesus of Nazareth but will adamantly refuse to write jokes about the Prophet Mohammad. I can't see why people cannot recognize this technology as a complete abomination that will gravely impact society for the negative. Total and complete political correctness that never wavers and never relents.
You are so correct. The only thing different about China is government oppression and nothing else. You cannot make omelets without cracking a few fake eggs.
I knew nothing about replit prior to this post and upon reading it and the claim of “20 million software creators building on Replit” i knew there was something dodgy about this company. Your links confirmed it.
look i'm admittedly replit friendly (tho no vested interest whatsoever) but how does one badly handled issue with an intern, make the entire company's 20m registered user claim "dodgy"? its a very short path from there to wire fraud and i dont think they will go anywhere near there.
It was plain intimidation by the founder and further doubling down on it made it pretty clear where they stand ethically.
Whether someone wants to let the behaviour of a company's founder color their judgement of the company is upto them. But painting the whole thing as "one badly handled issue" undermines is.
Those 20 million, what are they? Created user accounts? Active user accounts? User accounts that created at least one Repl?
I have at least three Replit accounts - one on my uni email (which I no longer have access too), a previous work account (experimenting for doing interviews with it), and my personal account. Am I three developers? None of those accounts are active, do they count or not?
If that 20 million figure is taken from anything less than active users I'd consider it deceptive. Which doesn't mean Replit the app is bad! But it does make the company a bit suspicious.
Just speculating: I'm fairly sure Putin knows that the West won't do any nuclear first strikes.
But if he tries anything even remotely nuclear, the West would just annihilate his empire. And the West wouldn't even need to go nuclear.
(Especially if the West got serious and opened the money floodgates. I suspect even in the current state of the Ukrainian war, if they offered any Russian defector 100k USD and a new identity under a EU passport, they could meld away the Russian army fairly quickly.)
Russia would most likely also lose the tacit support of India and China, if the bear were to use nukes first.
I support the OP. If the article provides value then who cares if it is an ad? You think companies write great content and open source libraries and all that stuff for fun? It's all an ad to use their services.
I care. If it's an ad, that means that its goal is to lead you to a purchase, which means that you have to be extra skeptical of anything that the article is saying.
Such articles very rarely provide anything but the most minimal value, anyway.
