It's a popular conspiracy theory, without evidence, and without any perspective on any information that intelligence had. Using civilians as shields is well documented/known for Iranian military and groups they sponsor. For example, hospitals [1].
> Gatestone Institute is an American far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim articles.
> The organization has attracted attention for publishing false or inaccurate articles, some of which were shared widely.
> The Gatestone Institute has been frequently described as anti-Muslim, regularly publishes false reports to stoke anti-Muslim fears, and has published false stories pertaining to Muslims and Islam.
The US and Israel have repeatedly claimed that schools and hospitals are legitimate military targets with no evidence. A highly partisan think tank which is known for putting out misinformation is not a valid source.
If you're going to destroy hospitals and target civilian infrastructure and kill children, you should be accountable on a world stage and provide evidence. Unless you would you accept Iran bombing elementary schools in the US because they claim to have intel that there are terrorists hiding under them?
There are MANY examples of Iranian backed terrorist organizations doing this (which I thought might be too indirect), but here's something more recent [1].
Regardless, left leaning news reports things that make them look good and the opposition look bad. Right leaning news reports things that make them look good and the opposition look bad. Both are needed to find truth because they're all biased for profit corporate entities owned by 6 different billionaires that will only report what's convenient for that bias.
And no, I have no trust in the claims of the Iranian government. Do you? Who do you believe does?
Not intuitive at all. Not all models are equally capable, just because they had the same training data. The model architecture (as a whole) is very important. To reduce capability, you can reduce layers, tool use, thinking, quantize it, etc. This is trivially proven by a cursory glance in the rough direction of any set of benchmarks (or actual use).
Using small models as a classifier "there might be a vulnerability here" is probably reasonable, if you have a model capable of proving it. There are many companies attempting this without the verification step, resulting in AI vulnerability checker being banned left and right, from the nonsense noise.
No, if you hit a resource limit you’ve got exponentially increasing prices for the remainder which starts to make applications not even possible anymore. It’s not a shock in terms of months, but you could easily see MRI machines skyrocket in price over a few years as helium becomes inaccessible unless someone figures out a non-helium approach to MRIs.
That's the point, it's NOT a resource limits so there shouldn't be some exponential. As stated elsewhere, petroleum/natural gas companies are bleeding processable helium into the atmosphere, but only because there were government reserves that broke the economics. The can start capturing it.
> There is no practically usable helium near the top of the atmosphere.
The context of this discussion and the fourth word in that sentence is important. Something existing isn't the same as something being practically available. That graph isn't wrong, percentage wise, but it's missing both density an cost per liter that makes it relevant to this discussion.
I'd believe it. Wikipedia has a similar one [1] but it shows a bit more hydrogen than helium at higher elevation.
Awesome graph! Worth stating that the increase in the relative fraction of He isn't so much because there's a lot of He out there as because there's a lot less of everything else. Overall density falls off roughly exponentially but lighter elements have a longer tail.
So once you get out to a few earth radii quite a bit of what you see might be ionized helium but that doesn't mean you can do much with it.
Threads surpassed X in DAU only for mobile, with a slow decline shown in X (see plot), with "dying" being a misleading word. For web, X has 18x more DAU than threads [1].
Total daily active users (all access methods) is overwhelmingly for X. I can't find the trend for web. Please post the link you found.
Shitty, but possibly a valid military target.
[1] https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8666/yemen-human-shields
reply