No.

For those who didn't read: Val himself had already signed up for this movie and it apparently meant a lot to him to star in it. The producers contacted his family to discuss the matter, and they consented to the idea.

I used to just call my mom.

Personally I've had my phone rooted for years and only twice encountered an app that really wouldn't work anymore.

It's relevant in the sense of its capability of actually becoming smarter. The way these models are set up at the moment puts a mathematical upper limit to what they can achieve. We don't quite know exactly where, but we know that each step taken will take significantly more effort and data than the last.

Without some kind of breakthrough w.r.t. how we model these things (so something other than LLMs), we're not going to see AI intelligence skyrocket.

That's a dark blue suit though, matching the dress code. Trump wore a much brighter blue.

Admins and mods have other tools to deal with those issues. But given that Reddit is a corporation it will likely also remove content that are in a murky area rules-wise, or given the current political climate selectively apply the rules. That creates a risk for redditors who try to use the site legitimately as well.

I see people enter with left signal flashing and then they'll take the 3rd exit (out of 4 total).

Pretty sure that's how you're supposed to signal. In most places it's not a legal requirement but it is recommended and taught by most driving instructors.

Although I do assume they switch to their right signal before taking their exit. If they don't, then yeah that's wrong.

Kilo is metric for 1000, not 1024. To remain consistent it was changed.

I think most people's alternative to a touchsceen is a mouse, not the touchpad.

SMRs (or small-scale nuclear plants in general) solve some problems with nuclear power. If you were to build a single design very often, the principles of economies at scale would apply and drive down costs.

I like the theory. But in practice there's a couple problems that so far I've not seen addressed very often. First is the issue that not all costs of building a nuclear power plant can be brought down by simply having more of them. Particularly infrastructure costs can rise significantly, because instead of building one large plant with a connection to the grid, necessary buildings for operational control, infrastructure for the coolant water, roads, security etc... you have to build several instead, which multiplies the costs of these.

Then there's the issue of personnel. You need people to operate and maintain the plant, security, management, etc... Per reactor you may need less people, but because you have so many reactors you end up needing more people overall. Most countries have a hard enough time as it is to get enough qualified staff, you'd also need to heavily invest in education for the next generation of nuclear engineers.

You also have these container-sized reactor concepts that basically promise to run themselves, requiring almost no maintenance other than the occasional refueling. But those are very much still in the concept-stage and also need to address the security issue. An unmanned container with nuclear fuel and expensive equipment inside could very well make a worthwhile target for criminals.

I like the utopian vision that nuclear promises but I worry the path to get there is full of pitfalls. I also don't see the cost of nuclear coming down any time soon, and if we want to remain competitive in manufacturing for example, cheap energy is absolutely key.

Personally, I prefer investments in renewables and battery tech. Particularly battery tech I'm hopeful about. In theory there's so much to gain still on that front, and it has the potential to improve so much other technology, from phones to drones to pacemakers to reliable, decentralised power. Nuclear tech is cool, but it only really promises to result in more nuclear power, rather than improvements in other areas as well. Fusion is interesting (and almost worth investing in just for the cool "it can be done"-factor) but at the same time still so far away. Too risky to rely on for now.

Especially since a lot of states turn the land surrounding the power plant into wildlife sanctuaries since nothing can be built in the safety zone anyway.

It's like bird watching heaven at the power plant near me. I guess I just really like the idea of a power source that also incidentally protects forested areas.

Haha, I can see why that makes you more inclined to support nuclear! Though it does make me a little sad that in order to protect our forests and wildlife we first need to build a nuclear reactor next to it. Can't we just designate them wildlife sanctuaries regardless of that power plant being there or not?