The only US presidential candidate who has ever mentioned AI automation as a hazard that needs regulation got less than 1 percent of the vote and was widely viewed as a non-serious candidate. The people will never vote in their best interests. Ever. That would require being united, and having a bunch of united states is unamerican.

Not when the people who program it set it to andrew tate mode

Link? For a friend science.

So, we aren't as far off from the Star Trek replicator as I thought.

Yes, take a look at Llama.cpp (you'll need a programming background to get it working). Even lighter models will likely come out in the future (look up stanford's alpaca, based on Llama). I'm assuming someone will also build more user friendly ways of doing this.

Psilocybin works wonders. It’s also schedule 1 because big pharma can’t turn a profit on something that cures serious permanent issues now can it? If they ever release a version it will be diluted and used for maintenance while you can grow it yourself for next to nothing.

Lets talk about a strictly hypothetical war, because I would think that you have a rather romantic conception of modern war.

• Big evil country A, whose political, cultural and religious propaganda advocates genocide of less value races, invades little innocent country B.
• To prove its moral superiority it disables the outclassed forces of country B ... while building camps on where to concentrate the population of country B for tourism processing. You know, free rides to the east.
• Your choice as country B:
• "well, they foamed our troops, so we better surrender and volunteer for camp, concentrated tourism service".

or

• "Most searched internet request: how to build molotov cocktails?"

People do not give up when peacefully disabled if the enemy is not trustworthy enough. Unfortunately todays modern conflict have proven that a lot of nations are very untrustworthy when it comes to being good winners or accepting a fair defeat. War is only under very specific circumstances a sport event or a romantic comedy. In many other cases it is a desperate struggle for the survival of your country, your loved ones, your culture, your language and your right to drive on the wrong side of the road. And no country is going to stop its war for survival just because their soldiers got foamed.

What you describe is the hope for police / peacekeeping services, where other considerations like civilian casualties play a key considerations, or a very one-sided conflict. It has nothing to do with a near-peer conflict. Near-peer conflicts is about annihilation of enemy forces with firepower which today can hit a car after being fired 5000km away, kill everything due to fragments in a 200m radius and got its latest fire solution from a 5000 USD DIY drone from China.

How do you stop (permanently) a cruise missile fired 1000km away targeting a hospital? How do you stop (reliably) a main battle tank. How a typhooon class submarine with 20 ICBMs and several dozen of megaton nuclear fireworks 100m under the surface?

Our technology is not even slightly there. It is actually pretty easy to kill and destroy something. It is actually incredibly hard to safely disable something, including a human, and even todays LTL tech like gas, electro shocks or microwave cookers can easily injure and, when used on a mass scale, kill, simply because humans react very differently.

When you have solved that, then we can talk about infantry disabling warfare.

SYL

Yeah, but what I’m saying is that, loss of life is the intention. That’s why these weapons are being created in the first place.

I know, but it'd be great if there we more options than just loss of life

The Weapons were created with the intention to kill. Their lethality is feature, not a bug… They aren’t interested in finding a “fix” for this, because that goes against the entire point of war. Making them “safer” literally makes them less effective as weapons…

In theory, if it was commercially available and could be built out in less than 2 decades, sure

Neither of those things are true though.

New Nuclear should be confined to the laboratory until we have decarbonized, then we can build a nice shiny new reactor that has all the bugs worked out and uses some super common fuel like thorium once the existing renewables start to reach their end of life.

It probably has a place in that future, but going after it now doesn't make any sense. We have serious problems that require immediate solutions and nuke just ain't it.

Star Trek had a really good lesson along these lines. The horrors of war are why we try to avoid them through other means. Without the suffering war never ends

I get that, and see this is why I'm asking since I'm pretty ignorant about the realities of war, but shouldn't it be a solution to look into on the possibility that it exists?

switch to lethal knowing at least 500 aren't dead? I know it's more effective to make sure a body won't move again, but we have the means and the science to reduce that number.

Huawei has shown that they cannot be stopped by US sanctions, instead they created a self sufficient ecosystem.

I'd give you a response but based on your asshole of an attitude it's not worth it.

Next time you want to have a civil discussion, try not being a dick - a fellow engineer.

I feel like this paragraph really does most of the heavy lifting in the article.

More importantly, those who buy electric cars tend to own their homes, meaning they can install chargers and plug in their cars overnight, negating the need to use a public charger for day-to-day commutes. For women and people of color, who are less likely to own homes and are more likely to live in multifamily dwellings where charging stations are often not part of the parking infrastructure, charging their cars becomes an additional task. 

> I know I know, I'm being naïve here, but considering the amount of technology we have today, and the budget these giant nations have, we can probably have it so that a drone can go in and fire something like "containment foam

Todays warfare, especially considering the Russian/Ukraine war and the anticipated US/China war is highly mechanized. 70t MBTs, HIMARS with rocket assisted GLSDB attacking targets 150km away, Hypersonic missiles with a 4-digit range, ICBMs with multiple smart warheads and a thousand other goodies are not exactly impressed with "foam".

Direct infantry attacks play only a relatively small role. You need to disable the enemies vehicle, their ammunition, their bunkers, their communication system, their sensor systems, their material depots ... and only then comes the infantry with a relatively low priority compared to the rest.

> to have "clean" wars

Clean wars do not work with Nations who do not uphold the UN charta ...

Less-than-lethal weapons will be used for police / peacekeeping / riot control usage or for special situations where you want to avoid a high level of civilian casualties for political, propaganda or legal reasons, but as long as there is no reliable way to permanently disable a J20 Mighty Dragon, a M1 A3/S3 Abrams or a Panzerhaubitze 2000 without getting yourself killed, bullets and their big brothers will remain the only option to enforce an end of a war.

Because no one (see Ukraine) will accept defeat just because their soldiers were disabled.

SYL

https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp [CPU loading with comparatively low memory requirements (LLaMA 7b running on phones and Raspberry Pi 4) - no fancy front end yet]

https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui [GPU loading with a nice front end with multiple chat and memory options]

/r/LocalLLaMA

So 1,000 people come to storm your house and kill you. You disable 500 of them with non-leathal weapons before they get to you. Now what?

Doesn’t make Charles Koch richer, so we can’t do it. Sorry.

What I said:

>All it means is that you want to have your power system producing enough power to meet the minimum load over a unit of time.

What the first sentence of your link says:

>The base load[1] (also baseload) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time, for example, one week

If that isn't a near perfect paraphrase, then I don't understand English.

>You clearly didn't read the literal definition of base load being the minimum level of demand. Its not a layman term, its a literal grid term. But nice try.

I literally design power systems for a living. I've been doing it for more than a decade. Nobody in the industry refers to "base load". What we concern ourselves with is meeting the loads at any given point in time. We have countless tools at our disposal to do this. Base load is antiquated. It was a much bigger concern before SCADA systems gave us control over power flow and instantaneous feedback about grid conditions on a station by station, line by line basis.

>Capacity factor of nuclear plants is literally the highest out of EVERY energy source

Wow. You are the literal definition of a layperson. Capacity factor is the ratio between nameplate capacity and actual power delivered.

Dispatchability is the ability of a generation asset to ramp up or down quickly to meet the real time variability of loads.

You ought to be embarrassed by how confidently wrong you are.

Capacity factor isn't a meaningful concern. At fucking all. You design your system for the power that will be delivered by any asset. Since this is a known quantity and renewables, even with their CF between .25-.35, still outperform every other generation type in cost.

>ALL of your grid with renewables would require an absolutely stupid amount of storage

No, storage is not a major requirement. It is only necessary if you don't want to overbuild. But having too much energy at any point in time allows for all sorts of technological solutions that can be turned on or off by grid operators. On when we are over producing. Off when demand is approaching production. Things like making fertilizer, desalinating water, using carbon capture technologies, pumping water, recycling and many many other things. It would have huge consequences for reducing production costs of nearly everything and lead to a post scarcity in energy. Overbuild should be the GOAL, not something to be feared. It also ensures that you are ready for future demand increases.

>I'm a big proponent of hydrogen storage

Of course you are. Sigh. You are demonstrating that you haven't really thought about and lack the engineering background to separate the wheat from the chaff. You are literally a walking popular mechanics magazine. Hydrogen will never be a solution to anything but coking steel.

>too expensive as a base load option versus throwing up a natural gas plant.

This is the second time you have brought up the cost of gas plants. The only energy in the world more expensive than nuclear is gas peaker plants.

>most likely not economically feasible

You clearly haven't done the math on any of this stuff. The cost to completely decarbonize the entire US energy and transportation system is in the neighborhood of 7 trillion. That's electricity, gas heating, and meeting the grid needs of a national fleet of only EVs (something that absolutely shouldn't be done, but that's the math). $7 trillion is less than a decade of military spending, less than 3 years of what Americans spend on their personal cars, less than a decade of projected annual climate change costs, and about 2 years of federal spending.

We aren't talking about an insurmountable task here. The only part of it that's insurmountable is the political will to do it, which is no doubt stunted by laypeople throwing their erroneous opinions into the political ring and shouting over the people who actually do this shit for a living.

>Solar + storage. Way to take something out of context.

K. When you show your own math on this, we'll talk. For now, 82% of the new generation coming down the pike is renewables.

[removed]

What is the max fill on a cable tray?

The maximum fill capacity for cable trays depends on the type of cables being used and the specific requirements outlined in the National Electrical Code (NEC) for safe cable installation. According to NEC Article 392.9(B), the fill area in cable trays must not exceed the following percentages:

For power cables or a combination of power and control cables: a. 50% fill for single conductor cables rated 600 volts or less. b. 40% fill for single conductor cables rated above 600 volts. c. 50% fill for multiconductor cables rated 600 volts or less. d. 40% fill for multiconductor cables rated above 600 volts.

For control, signal, and communication cables: a. 50% fill for all types of cables.

It's essential to adhere to these maximum fill percentages to ensure proper heat dissipation, prevent overheating, and maintain the integrity of the cable insulation. Overfilling cable trays can lead to derating of the cable ampacity, increased risk of fire, and reduced cable lifespan.

Remember to consult the latest version of the NEC and any local codes or amendments that may be in place to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations.

Summarize in 200 words max what you know about electrician code NEC and give 3 examples afterwards.

The National Electrical Code (NEC), also known as NFPA 70, is a comprehensive set of standards and guidelines for the safe installation and maintenance of electrical systems in the United States. Developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the NEC covers various aspects of electrical work, including wiring, grounding, and equipment installation. The code is revised every three years to keep up with technological advancements and ensure the highest safety standards.

The NEC serves as a benchmark for electrical work and is adopted by most states and local jurisdictions. It provides essential information and best practices to ensure the safety of electricians, as well as the general public. It's important to note that the NEC is not a federal law, but rather a model code that can be voluntarily adopted and enforced by state and local governments.

Examples of NEC guidelines include:

Article 210.52: Dwelling Unit Receptacle Outlets - This article mandates that all habitable rooms in residential buildings must have an adequate number of electrical outlets, evenly spaced to minimize the use of extension cords and prevent potential hazards.

Article 240.4: Protection of Conductors - This guideline outlines the requirements for overcurrent protection of conductors, including the proper selection of circuit breakers and fuses to prevent electrical fires and equipment damage.

Article 250.66: Grounding Electrode Conductor Sizing - This section of the NEC specifies the minimum sizes for grounding electrode conductors, ensuring that the grounding system can safely carry fault current and minimize the risk of electrical shock or fire.