Newtra

Assuming enthusiastic consent, good faith, and that you meant "sex/body they want" instead of "gender they want" (because gender is just a social construct):

On another hand, it would erase their identity as trans people.

I don't think it would. Identities are built from life experiences, and having lived through transition they'd still be trans even if there were no traces of it on their body. A war veteran doesn't stop being a veteran just because the war ended.

consider it a genocide

The definition of genocide depends on intent! Even in wars, etc. It's only genocide if you're specifically trying to erase/displace people/culture.

• Trying to cure gender dysphoria: it's not genocide, it's medical treatment.

• Trying to "fix" people to make them fit into society: it's genocide.

turning them into what they want would mean there is no more trans people

There are identities that don't stop being trans even if you give them the body they want:

• A non-binary person's desired sex/body and social gender might not match. Even with the perfect body (if one exists), they might still identify as trans because that body doesn't match their social gender.

• For genderfluid people, there might not be one singular perfect body. Even if their body constantly updated to suit them, they'd probably still identify as trans because they'd be constantly transitioning...

anthropomorphic behavior

Anyone else morbidly curious about what happens if they don't fix the bill's wording and accidentally ban "human-shaped behavior" at school?

Nooooo! Not Naomi!

I don't really follow her content, but I love her existence and all her efforts towards education and awareness on many topics.

I hope she's able to find freedom again somehow.

The funny thing is that YouTube's code is already so laggy that we all believed this without a second thought.

The website does a bad job explaining what its current state actually is. Here's the GitHub repo's explanation:

Memory Cache is a project that allows you to save a webpage while you're browsing in Firefox as a PDF, and save it to a synchronized folder that can be used in conjunction with privateGPT to augment a local language model.

So it's just a way to get data from browser into privateGPT, which is:

PrivateGPT is a production-ready AI project that allows you to ask questions about your documents using the power of Large Language Models (LLMs), even in scenarios without an Internet connection. The project provides an API offering all the primitives required to build private, context-aware AI applications.

So basically something you can ask questions like "how much butter is needed for that recipe I saw last week?" and "what are the big trends across the news sites I've looked at recently?". But eventually it'll automatically summarize and data mine everything you look at to help you learn/explore.

Neat.

I agree that older commercialized battery types aren't so interesting, but my point was about all the battery types that haven't had enough R&D yet to be commercially mass-produced.

Power grids don't care much about density - they can build batteries where land is cheap, and for fire control they need to artificially space out higher-density batteries anyway. There are heaps of known chemistries that might be cheaper per unit stored (molten salt batteries, flow batteries, and solid state batteries based on cheaper metals), but many only make sense for energy grid applications because they're too big/heavy for anything portable.

I'm saying it's nuts that lithium ion is being used for cases where energy density isn't important. It's a bit like using bottled water on a farm because you don't want to pay to get the nearby river water tested. It's great that sodium ion could bring new economics to grid energy storage, but weird that the only reason it got developed in the first place was for a completely different industry.

Arg, my first reply was completely off topic. I thought this was a reply in another post.

Yeah, it's great that VRE is cheaper now, but we shouldn't celebrate companies/countries for just taking the cheapest option. It drowns out the legitimate celebration of the companies/countries that are actually making hard decisions by funding renewables when they aren't the cheapest option, investing in long-term R&D, taxing carbon, fixing bureaucratically-entrenched perverse incentive structures, etc.

Are willing to pirate content from this niche 3D printing YouTube content creator that you enjoy? I’m not.

I cleanse my conscience by supporting many of them on Patreon.

Accidentally clicking on clickbait without an adblocker directly results in a spammer getting money, and that just makes me feel like crap. There's so much spam out there that wouldn't exist without ads, which makes it harder for quality creators to get attention and fair compensation. I feel I can only engage with the internet ethically by refusing to participate in the ad economy.

It sucks that alternative payment models like Brave's "Basic Attention Token" (or a fairer alternative) never got popular. The idea was to track the creators of websites/videos/etc. you visit and automatically split your monthly donation between them. IIRC it was proportional to the number of ads blocked for each creator, but you could tweak creators' multipliers to deny profit to spam and reward higher-quality creators. I'd also accept microtransactions for individual videos, news articles, etc. but no platforms for these exist because the big players in internet monetization are all so focused on ads.

This is awesome news. Not because of the car, but because it builds the supply lines for an alternative battery chemistry.

People have been using lithium-ion batteries for home and grid storage, which is nuts if you compare it to other battery types. Lithium is expensive and polluting and only makes sense if you're limited by weight & space. Cheaper batteries, even if they're bigger/heavier, will do wonders to the economics of sustainable electricity production.

An increasing proportion of renewables doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in overall carbon output. Our per-person electricity consumption keeps rising. AI, electric cars, crypto, air conditioning to mitigate climate change, etc. all demand more electricity each year as they become more popular.

Wins don't come from new growth being sustainable. We need to be actively shutting down the existing unsustainable energy production. It doesn't matter whether this is done by replacing it with renewables, or by reducing our consumption with e.g. efficiency standards for AI and cars.

China is also still building new coal plants at a truly alarming rate.

Don't let heavy carbon emitters steer the narrative this way. Building renewables is just the cheapest way to keep expanding your energy grid at there moment, but if you're not actively taking power plants offline to reduce carbon emissions, you're not actually getting greener.

EDIT: LMAO I'm being mass-downvoted. This is why it's important to think critically about every headline about China - there is an army of propagandists trying to make sure you only see the good stuff.