Yep and it looks like China is well on its way to being independent of the USA in the AI arms race, I just saw they are pushing out their own GPU models:

Chinese GPU Manufacturers Push Out Support For Running DeepSeek’s AI Models On Local Systems, Intensifying the AI Race

https://wccftech.com/chinese-gpu-manufacturers-push-out-support-for-running-deepseek-ai-models-on-local-systems/

Gotta say between them going all out on renewables reducing their reliance on oil and gas and all in on EV's and tech, it really feels like China has just stolen all of the EU's ideas and is straight up beating them over the head with it :(

Yep sorry I'm in Aus not Canada, they're a local manufacturer (https://reclaimenergy.com.au/), expensive as hell but felt like showing my support to at least one of the few places this still does engineering in Australia

How is that heat pump treating you

Really good! the separate compressor from the tank makes it whisper quiet, can barely hear it even if you're a foot away, co2 which is the most environment friendly refrigerant, and power usage is well, minimal, only a small 160L tank because I live by myself, can see example of what it uses here (it's the light blue bit at around 8am in the morning):

That said it is summer here in Queensland, will have to see how it goes in winter but under 1kw a day for hot water, that's really not bad at all imo

I think they need to be built still tbh

but i don't think this will be a fix, there are more structural issues in the EU

EU is behind on chip making, software, space race, EV's, AI, etcetc

They will continue to be behind China and America so long as it's more difficult to do business and more difficult to raise money

What about Mistral? https://chat.mistral.ai/chat

hey i’m running on solar and battery so no waste of electricity here ;)

but yeah that was it, i just noticed how here and on mastodon i read ‘ai is a scam’ and then turn my head and read ‘ai will take all our jobs’, makes for a nice whiplash effect

also it’s 4am here i’m going to sleep, appreciate the chat

I'm slow, what's the point? how does people joking about the fact China is censoring output explain

why the US tech sector is absolutely fucked going into the next generation

The video discusses the growing political divide, particularly focusing on how men, especially young men, are shifting towards the right politically.

The narrator critiques the Democratic Party's efforts to appeal to this demographic, highlighting various missteps and tone-deaf attempts at outreach. Here are the key points:

Gender Divide: The video starts by noting the increasing toxicity in gender discourse, with examples of anti-male sentiments from media and social media.

Political Shift: There's a discussion on how young men are moving towards the Republican Party, while young women are leaning more towards the Democrats. This shift is particularly notable in recent election data.

Democratic Party's Struggles: The narrator criticizes the Democratic Party's last-minute efforts to win over young male voters, such as creating spaces for white men and using Tim Walz as a "secret weapon" to appeal to male voters. These efforts are seen as superficial and ineffective.

Social Media Reactions: The video includes reactions from social media, highlighting the divisive and often dismissive attitudes towards men's concerns. Some tweets suggest that men need to "be better" or are inherently problematic.

Critique of Pandering: The narrator mocks the Democratic Party's attempts to pander to men, such as ads featuring Tim Walz doing stereotypically masculine activities. These efforts are seen as insincere and condescending.

Bernie Sanders: The video mentions Bernie Sanders as an example of a candidate who successfully spoke to the demographic the Democrats are now struggling to reach. His focus on working-class issues is highlighted as naturally attractive to men.

Call for Change: The narrator expresses frustration with the Democratic Party's messaging and calls for a more inclusive and effective approach to win back young men. The video ends with a plea for the party to evaluate what they're doing wrong and make changes for the betterment of society.

Overall, the video is a critique of the Democratic Party's strategies and a call for more genuine and effective outreach to young male voters.

This is the influence we get from America flooding in

Basically left wing progressives are inherently anti-male and anti-white male and social media helps amplify and push these beliefs far and wide because left wing progressives and women are supplying them with easy content

Racists Take a DNA Test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HlGhVgV3Yw

"MEN ARE USELESS!" - After Dark Edit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI1wptoSLaM

5.5 million views jesus

and I had these videos endlessly appear on my youtube homepage for ages because I watched MMA

Combine that with a lot of guys not doing great in life and then they get to see plenty of women being given a hand (admittedly this was a 30 second search, I don't want to even imagine how far and wide these programs and monetary advantages that are being given to women extend to):

https://www.vic.gov.au/womens-board-leadership-program

In recent years, Victoria has seen great progress in the representation of women on boards, with women now making up 54% of all public board positions in 2023

So when women already make up a majority of board positions and they still get given more advantages regardless:

The Victorian Government is sponsoring 50 women

The 2023 Diploma of Governance scholarship will provide governance training and networking for all women to advance their board careers in the not-for-profit sector.

And yeah, you're going to breed resentment when men apply and get denied and then look up why

Anyway I gotta stop procrastinating on me studies so not going to put much effort in after this post

that’s interesting, in gpt4all they have the qwen reasoner v1 and it will run the code in a sandbox (for javascript anyway) and if it errors it will fix itself

because muslims have a book with instructions from a being that lives in outer space that tells them that sexual deviancy is morally reprehensible and shouldn’t be encouraged or allowe

Just let people live how they want to live!! I don’t understand why it’s so complicated for Christian fundies to understand that.

What makes you think Christian fundies have ever been about "Just let people live how they want to live!!" which appears to be a 1970's hippie inspired slogan?

Almost the complete opposite of what Christians and Jews and especially Muslims are about.

According to Ed Husic, the Minister for Science, Indigenous Australians were “the nation’s first scientists”, whose insights, obtained “through observation, experimentation and analysis”, rested upon “the bedrock of the scientific method”. Nor is Husic alone in making those claims. Thanks to generous taxpayer funding, a burgeoning industry promotes “Indigenous science” in venues ranging from schools to universities.

But to call Indigenous knowledge “science” grossly misrepresents the nature of the scientific enterprise that emerged from the intellectual revolution of the 17th century. The error is neither innocent nor harmless: it both devalues that revolution’s achievements, which made Western science into an engine room of human progress, and projects a romantic, yet fundamentally condescending, vision of Indigenous culture.

To refer to the changes that occurred in the 17th century as a revolution is not to ignore the solid foundations on which they built. The notion of science as an activity that, in the words of Diogenes Laertius (180AD-240AD), seeks to “understand things as they are” through the “rational explanation of phenomena”, was well known in classical antiquity and persisted into the Middle Ages.

However, the great thinkers of the 17th century radically transformed what Kant later referred to as science’s “regulative principles”: that is, the rules that distinguished science, as an activity and as a body of knowledge, from mere knowhow. At a fundamental level, the transformation involved a dramatic change in the conception of the cosmos.

In effect, the 17th century upended the Aristotelian view of nature, which claimed that the basic properties of matter differed in the various parts of the universe. Nature, the proponents of the new science argued, was homogenous, uniform and symmetrical: matter was the same throughout the universe, governed by the same causes or forces. Moreover, those forces were mechanical: the very essence of science lay in uncovering their laws of motion.

In turn, those presuppositions of regularity and homogeneity underpinned a change that proved momentous: the rejection of Aristotle’s prohibition on metabasis, that is, on the transposition of methods from one discipline to another.

The sciences, said Rene Descartes in 1637, could not progress “in isolation from each other”; they all had to advance, and could only advance, by adopting common methods, centred on developing mathematical representations of the phenomena they were seeking to explain.

And the test of those representations had to be both analytical and empirical: analytical in terms of mathematical correctness; empirical, in that it had to be shown that the representation could be used to recreate the phenomenon.

Truth, in other words, was “fact” in the Latin sense of the word: that which can be done or made. As Giambattista Vico summarised the new thinking in 1710, “verum et factum convertuntur” – the true is that which can be converted into fact, ie, can be done in practice.

That is why Newton, to prove the existence of a centre of gravity, devised the famous experiment of the rotating bucket filled with water. It is also why Francis Bacon resuscitated the Greek term “praxis” – the unity of theory and practice – in the Novum Organum (1620) to describe the “scientia activa” of experimentation, which, far from diverting study from its object, was the sole means of “augmenting” it.

Those contentions, and particularly the emphasis on factual replicability, provoked vociferous objections from the so-called Occasionalists, who feared the implication that we can master the making of the universe in the same way as does the creator. However, the pioneers of the new science were cautious in their claims. Yes, mathematical techniques could accurately model limiting cases, such as motion in a vacuum; but they only approximated actual outcomes. And it was improper to speculate about the underlying causes of phenomena beyond what could be directly observed and experimentally verified.

Hence Newton’s great outcry, “hypotheses non fingo”, “I feign no hypotheses”, regardless of how much superficial completeness adding unproven hypotheses might give his system.

That intellectual modesty opened the road to a recognition of the uncertainties inherent both in the actual operation of the laws of motion and in their testing. In what ranks among humanity’s great breakthroughs, Blaise Pascal’s work on probability theory, and Thomas Bayes’ formalisation of inductive inference, set the basis for the systematic hypothesis testing that allowed Western science to progress at an unprecedented rate.

But that rate of progress also reflected another crucial feature of the intellectual revolution: its openness. Traditionally, true knowledge had been seen as esoteric, handed down, within closed circles, from one generation to the other and validated by the weight of inherited authority. By the end of the 17th century, that notion had been utterly discredited.

Instead, theories, models and experimental results were widely published, discussed and contested, vastly accelerating their development.

In short, what defined Western science and made it absolutely unique – and uniquely powerful – was the tight integration of formal methods, rigorous verification and public replicability. Additionally and crucially, it was self-aware, devoting ongoing attention to the regulative principles with which scientific practice had to comply.

The contrast even to China could not have been starker, helping to explain why China’s initial advantage in virtually every area of technology stalled and then collapsed. As for the chasm separating science from Indigenous knowhow, with its secrecy, its anthropomorphic explanations and its reliance on the authority of elders, it can only be measured in light years.

However, Husic’s claim is not just absurd. It is, like Bruce Pascoe’s fantasies about settled agriculture, deeply patronising. Husic plainly does not grasp the complex of ideas that comprise the scientific method. But he clearly believes that Indigenous culture, if it is to be respected, must be cast as an anticipation, if not a mirror, of Western culture. If we had science, whatever that may be, they must have had it too – and many centuries before us.

One might have hoped that the decisive refutation of Pascoe’s contentions by Keryn Walshe and Peter Sutton would have laid those views, and the broader attitudes they embody, to rest.

Yet they live on, thanks, in part, to sheer ignorance. Also at work is the conviction that historical accuracy and intellectual honesty matter less than “celebrating” Indigenous culture – a conviction that, far from promoting science, offends the unbending commitment to the truth that is science’s very essence. Significant too is the now ingrained hostility to the Western achievement, and to the scientific spirit, which is among its glittering jewels, with it.

However, spinning fairytales is no way of convincing the community, and young people in particular, of science’s vast potential. Nor will it do anything to reverse the continuing fall in the number of high school students taking core science subjects. Having a minister for science who knows what the term means will certainly not solve those problems. But it would be a sensible place to start.

Henry Ergas AO is an economist who spent many years at the OECD in Paris before returning to Australia. He has taught at a number of universities, including Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the University of Auckland and the École Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Administration Économique in Paris, served as Inaugural Professor of Infrastructure Economics at the University of Wollongong and worked as an adviser to companies and governments.

With Reddit finally making money, anyone who doesn’t like this side of Reddit will either learn to accept it or leave.

It's tough, I don't find much value in the decentralisation of a link aggregator, but there's no reddit alternative and the ones that were made before were filled to the brim with right wing nutters.

This place is on the side, far too left wing progressive for my liking but I'm relying on it and the whirlpool forums until something better comes along.