There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

UraniumBlazer

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

UraniumBlazer ,

Somebody once told me

The world is gonna wear me

What Do Neural Networks Really Learn? Exploring the Brain of an AI Model (youtu.be)

Neural networks have become increasingly impressive in recent years, but there’s a big catch: we don’t really know what they are doing. We give them data and ways to get feedback, and somehow, they learn all kinds of tasks. It would be really useful, especially for safety purposes, to understand what they have learned and...

UraniumBlazer OP ,

American politicians then: “The solution to a bad man with a gun is a good man who can shoot really sticky stuff really far without getting tired”.

UraniumBlazer ,

Yes we can!

Wait, that one’s taken too? Uggh

UraniumBlazer ,

Just like the Lord intended!

The Lord being me. You’re welcome.

/s

UraniumBlazer ,

Ahem akshually, this photo was taken a few hundred million years ago. Then, the continents didn’t look like they do now. So ahem no, you need to go to school. Uhuhuhuhehehehe.

/s

I have no idea how many brain cells I lost writing that lmao

UraniumBlazer , (edited )

If only… Shoutout to all zoophiles who miss that dino pussy. I feel ur painnnnnn /s

UraniumBlazer OP ,

I can’t see any more efficient ways of getting people from place A to B faster. Hypersonic speeds can’t be achieved on the earth’s surface due to its atmosphere. Therefore, I see only two ways to go about it:

  1. Spaceships that exit and reenter earth’s atmosphere.
  2. Hypersonic trains in a vacuum chamber, I.e., a Hyperloop .

I did compare this above. Like… Wouldn’t Hyperloops be safer and a lot more efficient than spaceships? Basically, the trains vs flights debate of the future.

UraniumBlazer OP ,
  • Expensive
  • Noise pollution
  • Incredibly unsafe

Basically, the future’s version of cars.

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Hyperloops are an engineering problem, not a physical one. The same goes with nuclear fusion. Theoretically, nuclear fusion can be done on Earth. However, engineering such a system has taken more than half a century now (n we still don’t have a nuclear fusion reactor yet).

UraniumBlazer OP ,

I mean… Why build HSR if u just have normal rail? It might get u from place A to B faster by an hour or so… What difference would that make?

Turns out it would make quite a lot of difference, right? Faster human transportation in history has always been a good thing.

As for the price, the assumption is that nuclear fusion and lunar mining are mature tech. That would certainly lower the price a lot, no?

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Naah it’s just a fun thought experiment lmao. Don’t care about Mr. Douchebag.

As for the elevated rail thing- we would have to demolish A LOT of on ground infrastructure for that, no? Elevated makes sense for metros n stuff because of smaller turning radii. But for an absolutely straight tube? Ehhh.

Also, we need to factor in vertical turning radii as well, no? Elevation changes r quite drastic on the earth’s surface. Building elevated means building crazy tall pillars and stuff (which also have to be earthquake resistant). Also, we would definitely need to build a lot of tunnels either ways (through hills, mountains, or simple plains whose elevation changes r too steep for our hypersonic vehicle)

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Lmao n what if u ram into a building by mistake while scrolling whatever brainrot social media platform we’ll have by then? Don’t u think we’ve had enough of such occurrences already?

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Ahh so what the metaverse was supposed to be? I think I do see this being more probable than the underground continent spanning Hyperloop network lol.

Maybe full body suits that produce output sensed by all 5 senses? Hmmm, that’s a lot more probable I suppose (and I think would look a lot more dystopian too lol)

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Dayum, I like your wisdom SatansMagottyCumFart! Here’s a song to immortalize your saying!

suno.com/…/e5b4f8b8-2efc-434c-a9fd-b0692ba4d52f(Your saying is the chorus lmao)

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Deal!

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Sure, I think I agree with the AR/VR point. We won’t really need such fast travel when this exists.

As for the physics problem, I didn’t see you mentioning any unsolvable ones. As for the energy required and the resulting pollution, we have nuclear fusion (that’s the premise). We r even mining resources from the moon for this.

This might be an economical problem with AR/VR competing. But a physics problem? Naah

UraniumBlazer OP ,

We already build spaceships that have to experience temperature differentials much much greater than what a hyper loop would have to experience. A Hyperloop would just be an inverted extension of this. Again, an engineering problem - not a physical one.

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Expensive TODAY. But when we have nuclear fusion and lunar resources? Not really, no?

This would essentially be a trains vs planes debate of the future. Hypersonic planes or mach speed maglev trains in a vacuum?

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Eh we’re talking about the future. We might have nuclear fusion engines for all we know. But sure, planes could run on hydrogen in theory. Sooo making them green in a hundred years? Sounds kinda possible, no?

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Sure, u won’t need to mine the moon to do this. But resources would be incredibly cheap WHEN we start mining the moon.

I disagree with the energy part though. I’m pretty sure we would need A LOT of energy to dig continent spanning tunnels. How many drills would we run out of? How much energy would be required to recycle these drills?

The point is, the resources required for Hyperloop construction would be cheaper when we uk… Increase their supply (by nuclear fusion or lunar mining). It would thus be kinda economical then, no?

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Agreed. The Concorde wasn’t sustainable.

In my premise, energy is abundant. Resources are abundant.

Also, my comment about speed being good was more from a civilisational perspective. Going from running to horses to rail to the plane (for long distances of course) had incredible advantages for humans. My point was that the Hyperloop would be a natural extension to this whenever the resources and necessary tech become available.

UraniumBlazer OP ,

I don’t think AR/VR will play a big role, I was talking about the acceptance and incorporation of digital systems in our every day lives.

I mean… AR/VR is a step forward in audio/visual IO systems. You technically don’t NEED an HD monitor and a good camera to have a video call. But it definitely makes things easier, no? AR/VR right now sucks. Although it doesn’t mean that it has to suck 100 years in the future.

Plus there’s already plenty of resources online that go into great detail about all the things that are totally impossible.

None of them talking about the physical impossibility of it. All issues of the hyperloop are economical ones. My premise removes these issues.

as you even start to contemplate this you run into huge issues.

Them being economical issues. NOT physical ones.

They still need fuel, they still produce nuclear waste

Sourcing fuel is incredibly easy if we have a mature nuclear fusion energy supply ecosystem. Most likely, nuclear fuel would be deuterium and tritium. Sourcing deuterium is very very easy. For tritium, you would just need breeding blankets at reactor walls. I don’t see how this tech won’t be mature a 100-150 years from now. As for nuclear waste, the fusion processes produce negligible waste. It’s the breeding blankets that could be the source of waste. They too won’t produce waste that would have to sit for more than a 100 years without being recycled/repurposed/disposed off.

the unwarranted fear people have towards nuclear fission

The politics around this is changing slowly. I don’t think it would be that many decades before people start liking nuclear fission again.

UraniumBlazer OP ,

The hyperloop is a dumb project today. Think about it this way: U live in Siberia in the 1600s. U just discovered oil (and also processes to refine it). You most likely would make heating oil from it to keep you warm. But then if I told you that you could also use 1000 times the amount you use in a month to go to America in just a few hours, you would probably call me a dumbass. Would you be right then? Yes. Would you be right now? No.

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Don’t parrot what idiots like Musk say.

Aren’t you parroting what others say too though? You haven’t provided a single PHYSICAL problem. You are just telling me, “it doesn’t work that way”, without giving a single thesis statement.

And if people tell you there’s huge physics issues, think about that instead of waving it away and say “it’s just engineering”.

I have. I’m not saying that we will have anti gravity spaceships. The physics for anti-gravity simply doesn’t exist. I am talking about a vacuum tube. That is the biggest holdup. We have already built small vacuum chambers. The physics is there. HOW is this a PHYSICAL problem?

Give me one single reason as to why the laws of physics prevent hyperloops.

UraniumBlazer OP ,

I’m sorry you feel that way. I think I explained my position very clearly whenever I disagreed with you.

I did “look into stuff” as you asked. Perhaps I didn’t look into the resources that you were talking about. Maybe you should’ve linked those sources in your post instead of saying “go look it up”.

I do listen to what other people have to say. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it always, no? Whenever I disagree, I always explain my underlying motivation.

I really cannot see how I was arguing in bad faith anywhere above.

UraniumBlazer OP ,

I’m not rlly that aware of how boring works, so I’ll take ur word for it there I suppose.

Any moon mining is going to be expensive because it’s the moon. That kind of travel is going to be expensive.

For this tho, u don’t have to “travel” anywhere. U just build a one time installation on the moon, which would be expensive. Once it’s built, u just launch stuff from the moon using a railgun like system with enough velocity to deorbit it, use the earth’s atmosphere to slow down enough that the material doesn’t vaporize on a crash landing in a designated location. This would most likely be how we would get our material in the future.

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Whose cost would be energy and light wear and tear on the railgun. Which won’t be much at all.

(I thought by “travel”, u meant having to use spaceships to transport material which would be significantly more expensive).

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Which would be incredibly cheap even in 2024 (compared to the amount of resources being transported).

How dense would the atmosphere need to be to result in a cataclysmic chain reaction during a nuclear explosion?

Famously, Oppenheimer and co worked out how close a nuclear bomb test would be to causing a chain reaction of nitrogen fusion in the atmosphere. They made a lot of worst-case-scenario assumptions and still came to the conclusion that no, a nuclear bomb test wouldn’t scour the surface of the world....

UraniumBlazer ,

It would turn scary if the atmosphere would become as dense as the core of a star. Then too, a lot of stuff depends on the type of star we’re talking about. Are we talking about some wimpy red dwarf core density? Yeah, we’ll fuse the hydrogen in the atmosphere/on the surface all right. U wanna fuse nitrogen? Oof. U’r gonna need a much bigger star than that.

So basically, to become scary, ur atmosphere would have to be a lot more dense than what it would be if it was fkin solid (like if the gases were literally solid). It wouldn’t thus be an atmosphere.

So don’t worry. Have fun blowing up ur nukes!

UraniumBlazer ,

Thin Blue line fellas being hypocrites again smh /s

UraniumBlazer ,

Awww look at Mr cutie patootie here UwU

Estonia | The Digital State (youtu.be)

Most states rely on paper bureaucracy to ensure that the state can function and provide services. Paper bureaucracy has been part and parcel of how we maintain states and corporations since the Chinese invented the first paper bureaucracy systems of management 3000 years ago. But as you all probably know, bureaucracy kinda...

UraniumBlazer OP ,

I can’t see how the blockchain would be particularly useful here either. The security features of the blockchain come at the cost of extreme energy usage. Storing documents using simple public-private key cryptography is waaaay more than enough imo.

UraniumBlazer OP ,

It wouldn’t really affect u even if ur id got deleted. Let me explain. Ur id is nothing but information correct (your name, address, etc.). The same goes with contracts. What makes ur id special is that the government has verified it to be legit.

A very simple way of doing this is by making the government cryptographically sign ur id/contact. I would really recommend getting a functional understanding of how public-private key cryptography works. Basically, the government just has to put up its public key online. If u have ur id, u can verify if the document is issued by the government using their public key.

As long as the public key stays there, and u don’t lose ur id and contracts they won’t technically be lost.

Also, if the public key suddenly changes/disappears without being notice, everyone would know that something’s up. It’s like ur government building’s staff was suddenly replaced.

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Ah, yeah… Therein might lie an issue. 😅

But that’s an issue with papered systems as well, no?

UraniumBlazer OP ,

The government would have a copy as well! It’s just that it’s very hard for an entire government’s data and your data to get wiped at the same time.

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Nooo ur documents. Not ur private key lol (it wouldn’t exactly be private now, would it). Let’s say u lose ur private key. U would have to manually do shit like u do when u lose ur passport.

What I’m saying is, ur identity being deleted only if the government AND u lose all ur data on all devices at the same time. Which is incredibly unlikely.

It’s like saying, “I don’t trust a papered system because the state buildings and my house could burn at the same time with my documents in them”

UraniumBlazer OP ,

Then it’s a badly implemented system. A good system won’t be able to have such leaks.

UraniumBlazer ,

Ik James Charles is a groomer and annoying. But dat ass tho…

The ugly truth behind ChatGPT: AI is guzzling resources at planet-eating rates (www.theguardian.com)

Despite its name, the infrastructure used by the “cloud” accounts for more global greenhouse emissions than commercial flights. In 2018, for instance, the 5bn YouTube hits for the viral song Despacito used the same amount of energy it would take to heat 40,000 US homes annually....

UraniumBlazer ,

But no, AI bad AI bad AI bad AI bad lalalaa I can’t hear you AI bad /s

UraniumBlazer ,

Cryptocurrencies have no real world applications. AI does.

UraniumBlazer ,

What a disgusting pun. Buzz off, you! /s

UraniumBlazer ,

Ok, so there’s a problem in physics. General relativity and quantum mechanics both beautifully describe the universe at very large and very small scales respectively. However, they disagree with each other (general relativity breaks down when applied to quantum objects).

Many physicists since a long time have been believing that string theory would be the theory that would unify quantum mechanics and general relativity to get the theory of everything.

Why do so many ppl believe this? It’s because the math of string theory is very elegant. Why is it elegant? It’s because it strongly hints at unification.

But this is the problem - there is zero experimental evidence for string theory. In fact, certain requirements for string theory to be true have not been proven to be true yet (and have started to become less and less likely as experiments have progressed). This is why, string theory is just this incredibly complicated and mathematically intense theory without any practical applications.

The mathematician here hates her math to be practically applied. However, when she’s told that it’s being applied in string theory, she’s relieved as she knows that it won’t ever be practically applied. That’s the joke lmao

UraniumBlazer ,

One is plausible. One is not.

Again, mentioning the conclusion without the goddamn hypothesis and evidence to support the hypothesis.

What did you do with all the time you saved typing ur instead of your you fuckin dunce

I boinked ur mom (sorry, u kinda invited me for that lol)

UraniumBlazer ,

Didn’t know CCP bots weren’t capable of comprehending shitposts.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •