The wordy article boils down to: the baths were infested by bacteria and worms due to insufficient water cleaning. Interesting, but could be compressed to 2-3 paragraphs without losing any detail.
I'm curious as to why you chose that particular vehicle. It's an interesting choice for someone on HN. What convinced you that this car was right for you?
The concentration of lithium in seawater is quite low, approximately 0.17 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or 0.17 parts per million (ppm).
To determine how much seawater is needed to obtain 1 gram of lithium, you can set up a proportion:
Given:
1 liter of seawater = 0.17 mg of lithium
x liters of seawater = 1,000 mg (1 gram) of lithium
Using cross-multiplication:
x = (1,000 mg * 1 liter) / 0.17 mg
x ≈ 5,882.35 liters
Thus, you would need to process approximately 5,882.35 liters (or about 5.88 cubic meters) of seawater to obtain 1 gram of lithium.
In practice, extracting lithium from seawater is more challenging due to its low concentration and the presence of other elements. Techniques have been proposed and researched, but as of my last update in 2021, they were not commercially competitive with other sources of lithium like mineral deposits.
Does anyone know if there's a method to effectively "subscribe" to news pertaining to topics like this? I'd greatly appreciate being able to keep up with the latest research in certain fields, such as this one.
You seem to really disregard the positions of this author. They seem to have invested substantial efforts in that specific area of research.
To validate the idea the author has, it would be required to train a LLM from zero. If the author is right, you would get similar results to the current generation of LLMs, but with (a lot) less space required for the intermediate layers.
The time to achieve that is still measured in kilo- to mega-dollars, why is it wrong to put that idea in the open to substantially criticize or adopt?
What does this add over llama.cpp? Is it just an "easier" way to setup llama.cpp locally?
If so, I don't really get it, because setting up llama.cpp locally is quite easy and well documented. And this appears to be a fork. Seems a bit fishy to me, when looking at the other "top" comments (with this one having no upvotes, but still #2 right now).
(llama.cpp's original intention is identical to yours:
The main goal of llama.cpp is to run the LLaMA model using 4-bit integer quantization on a MacBook¹)
Isn't it exactly the opposite? Checked exceptions are for libraries to declare "exceptions" they can't handle themselves. You, the user of the library, have to deal with them (or declare them checked yourself¹).
I'm not a friend of checked exceptions myself, but I still think it's the opposite.
¹ which leads to the real issue with checked exceptions: they propagate through dependencies, if one nested dependency adds another checked exception, all dependencies have to add the exception or handle it themselves.
The point of the USD as a trading currency lies in its virtually indestructible value combined with malleability. If two countries trade in USD, no party will have a surprise later on.
If two countries trade, for example, in Yuan, and China decides not to buy foreign Yuan in exchange for the other local currency anymore, the value is lost (or at least harder to realize and probably incurring heavy losses).
I'm no economist, but that's my understanding. From this PoV it makes sense to make deals in a gold-backed currency as a replacement for USD. Not sure how they want to get enough gold from to really back it up. Could be possible, didn't research that, but seems of by one or two orders of magnitude.
As far as I understand that, since there is no explicit clause prohibiting an extension after 6 months. I think it is safe to assume that it can be extended by another 6 months provided the suspicion persists (i.e. a judge can be convinced).
I'm not french myself, so take it with a grain of salt.
No, it's not a bot ring. I assume you think that because I posted links to stackexchange quite a few times the last few months. Instead, I just skim over stackexchange.com as part of my feed and when there's something what I assume HN interests, I post it here.
I don't care much about Karma. I posted this specific topic since I find it kind of hilarious that police should now lawfully be able to do something they are almost surely not able to do. And I enjoy discussions to such topics here on HN, because most of the time the viewpoints mentioned here are at least of the same quality of the answers on stackexchange.
Thanks for posting though.