Strange, logged in I see their posts, but when not logged in I see the same message as you.

I just wanted to mention that. Recently I was wondering what was that even about, and I was surprised to read this on Wikipedia:

> Yamagami told investigators that he had shot Abe in relation to a grudge he held against the Unification Church (UC), a new religious movement to which Abe and his family had political ties, over his mother's bankruptcy in 2002.

> The assassination brought scrutiny from Japanese society and media against the UC's alleged practice of pressuring believers into making exorbitant donations. Japanese dignitaries and legislators were forced to disclose their relationship with the UC, (...) the LDP announced that it would no longer have any relationship with the UC and its associated organisations, and would expel members who did not break ties with the group. (...) [The parliament] passed two bills to restrict the activities of religious organisations such as the UC and provide relief to victims.

> Abe's killing has been described as one of the most effective and successful political assassinations in recent history due to the backlash against the UC that it provoked. The Economist remarked that "... Yamagami's political violence has proved stunningly effective ... Political violence seldom fulfills so many of its perpetrator's aims." Writing for The Atlantic, Robert F. Worth described Yamagami as "among the most successful assassins in history".

Thank you for that link, that was a great read.

Since that happened (a year ago) the Supercharger network grew from 6473 to 7377 stations, and from 59596 to 70228 connectors (numbers from Q2 2025 earnings release), so it's not like they stopped expanding the network after that layoff.

I suppose if growth is all that matters, that's probably good news. It's probably worth mentioning a good chunk of those will have been the ongoing projects with current stock.

On the other hand, if long-term maintenance and optimizations for this absolutely critical new infrastructure are even a little bit of a priority? Then it's still unlikely the "smart" move to eliminate the entire department.

Also carrying around suitcases full of designer drugs is maybe a bad sign for CEO, staying up all night playing video games, and working--charitably speaking--"part time" are all rather uninspiring choices...

They rehired the team.

Basically, when Tesla's stock started to dip, he went on a cost-cutting rampage. The head of Superchargers made a proposal to grow, and Elon got angry and fired the whole team.

It's one of those moments where, if Elon got angry, and then waited to cool off before doing anything rash, it would have been forgivable.

I think a big part of the valuation is self driving. If (and that's a big if) they would get it right, they could have cheaper taxi services than e.g. Uber ($200B market cap), without paying for drivers. And if self driving would work in consumer cars, profits from subscriptions could be big.

I'd like to remind readers of "nuclear fusion", and how it became a meme for parting idiots with money...repeatedly.

What hardware runs your local LLM?

A RTX 5080, not the lowest power card.

Not the lowest power, but surely it uses less power than a microwave. 360W TDP, 850W required system power, while my microwave is 1000W.

The difference is most prompts take far longer than a single second to return.

Yeah, but couple hundred watts certainly shouldn't dim your lights.

And if it does, you should get your wiring checked! If voltage is sagging enough to dim your lights with such a small load, that indicates a lot of resistance somewhere in the wiring, which could lead to fires.

First time I hear about him, but it looks like he is a scientist:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Josh-Mitteldorf

> Look at how he talks about the "10-20% flexibility". Hypothesis assumed true, no supporting evidence.

He started that part with "Here’s my perspective:", so for me it sounded more like his personal opinion/hypothesis, not a scientific consensus (and that hypothesis wasn't the topic of the article, so it's not strange for me that he gave no evidence for it there).

That makes this even worse, he should know better. I took a look at his publications and they're nuts. He's actually published claiming that covid vaccinations increase the spread of covid.

I wondered how much energy could pass through some area 1000 miles away from the explosion, so I made some rough calculations.

Assumption: all energy of the nuclear explosion is radiation uniform in every direction.

The energy E would be spreading in a sphere with area 4*pi*R^2. Area A being a part of that sphere would capture E*A/(4*pi*R^2) of energy. So with:

  energy E = 209 PJ (Tsar bomba for an extreme example)
 
  area A = 1 m^2

  radius of the sphere R = 1000 miles (1609 km)

That would give:

  2.09 * 10^17 J * 1 m^2 / (4 * pi * (1.609 * 10^6 m) ^ 2) = 6.4 kJ

So at the distance of 1000 miles an 1 m^2 object would be exposed to 6.4 kJ of radiation. I don't know how destructive would that be. That energy would be equivalent to 6 seconds of sun irradiating a 1 m^2 area above the Earth's atmosphere, but of course sun's radiation is less dangerous (very little gamma/x-ray), and all of that radiation would be almost instant.

From what I'm reading about high-altitude nuclear testing, it can cause artificial radiation belts around the Earth (composed of high-energy electrons). I think that may be more dangerous to satellites at distances like 1000 miles (or at any distance) than the immediate gamma/x-ray radiation.

Radiation is measured in gray, which is 1 J absorbed by 1 kg. I can't find the conversion between flux to absorbed dose. 5 gray is fatal. If even a fraction of that energy is absorbed, it would be fatal.

I found that satellites get 100-1000 rad per year. Getting that much in a moment would cause problems.

> Radiation is measured in gray, which is 1 J absorbed by 1 kg. I can't find the conversion between flux to absorbed dose. 5 gray is fatal. If even a fraction of that energy is absorbed, it would be fatal.

It's measured in a lot of different ways depending on the need, and the unit "sievert" is Gy times a conversion factor that depends on the kind of radiation (for equivalent dose) and which body parts (for effective dose): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#Radiation_type_weighti...

But also, beta radiation (electrons) will be stopped by a thin sheet of tinfoil, while alpha radiation (helium-4 nuclei) by paper or the outer layer of dead skin on your body and therefore only matters if you eat a source of it, and a significant fraction of any gamma radiation you're exposed to will pass right through you without getting absorbed.

So, given that human body area viewed from the front is around 0.5 m^2, then a 70 kg human in space 1000 miles from the explosion would get 6.4 kJ * 0.5 / 70 kg = 45 gray. That would mean that even being a couple thousand miles away could be fatal. But that's assuming 100% of Tsar Bomba energy would be ionizing radiation, I don't know what % would that be in reality.

The list of links is in the Excel file in the attachments, so it should be reproducible.

thanks. i opened the pdf to look for the list instead of scrolling down. the pdf mentions two supplemental tables but doesn't say that those are the videos.

The way I understand it, they say that animals react better to danger coming from the left side, because the left visual field (of both eyes) is processed by the right hemisphere, which is dominant for threat processing and spatial attention. So, for the cat sleeping on the left side the danger will probably come from the left side of its visual field, while for cat sleeping on the right side it would come from the right side of the visual field. Therefore, sleeping on the left side is better, because the cat will react faster to something coming towards it.

Look at this picture to see how the image from both eyes is processed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_system#/media/File:Huma...

(this is for human visual system, but it's the same for a cat I guess?)

The important thing is not the left/right eye, but the left/right side of both eyes.

That clears it up immensely, appreciate it.

Maybe they never intended for a broad audience, but the paper would be way more accessible if they had included a description like you have here. It was a frustrating read about a well-liked subject, I'm sure I'm not the only one that felt that way.