Biblically-accurate Ace Combat aircraft.

A turret toss does seem like it would be effective as reactive armor. Is this how tanks evolve to survive drone predation? Main turret autotomy to give the smaller turret buds a chance to flee?

Some ships do have emergency antimatter generators per the TNG Technical Manual, but they’re hideously energy-intensive to run–something like a 10:1 ratio of deuterium used for each unit of antimatter. They only make sense to run in the rare situation you absolutely need to warp to safety when you somehow have deuterium and a warp core but no antimatter.

But holodecks apparently have their own infinite power supply incompatible with any other Starfleet technology, so perhaps Voyager used the holodeck replicators to generate deuterium to run their antimatter generator whenever the Doctor isn’t practicing his sermons.

Efficiency would be abysmal even by the normal standards of this process, but it beats walking back to the Alpha Quadrant.

The microwave thing? I couldn’t even guess, though I personally wouldn’t want to stand next to it even if it works. A big microwave emitter on the battlefield is just asking to catch a HARM.

It really doesn’t seem like anyone knows for sure what to do about drones right now.

Large, non-nuclear EMPs mostly use explosives. Covering a large battlefield means you’re essentially bringing a massive, single-use explosive charge to the battlefield, staying uncomfortably close enough to benefit from it, and trying to set it off at exactly the right time, because they’re not reloadable. And your enemy is probably thrilled you’re doing this, because it saves them from hauling their own explosives there. (On that note, why are you sitting on this thing instead of dropping it on the enemy?)

This is in addition to whatever shielding you brought, which is likely bulky and conspicuous. And you’re probably not doing combined arms, because shielding infantry and light vehicles from massive explosions is, it is fair to say, something of an unsolved problem.

But wait, you might be thinking. I know there are non-explosive ways to generate EMPs. Yes, there are, but you need a power source for those, and if you have a really good, portable one of those and a consistent supply of fuel to run it, you probably have better uses for it, like powering a modest laser. Oh, also, you’re 100% sure your shielding works perfectly, right? You’ll find out quick if you don’t.

Environmentalists are fond of saying that “There is no second Earth“. They are wrong! Here’s why:

There is an entire second Earth right here on Earth.

Second Earth is a waterworld. It’s the vast Pacific Ocean that covers half the planet.

Well, he’s a little fuzzy on the concepts of halves and wholes, but let’s hear him out on colossal geoengineering projects.

Nobody:

Absolutely nobody:

The ghost of Sam Hughes: Okay but have you considered

[The AI]’s going to fall in love with you

Fortunately for everyone, they went out of business before a mandatory reporter had to make the weirdest call ever to CPS.

Ah, right, I guess that’s why other vending machines never caught on. Why spend $2 on a Snickers at work when a quick trip to the grocery store can get you candy for way less?

What you’re overlooking this time is vending machines sell convenience, not just single-serving portions. The fact that very few customers really need ammo without leaving the store/mall is indeed why this is a questionable business model and not just a sketchy one.

I’m puzzled, though, by the belief that hunters are more likely to make overpriced, impulse purchases of ammo than mass shooters. I’m even less inclined to buy that than ammo from a vending machine.

You’re forgetting mass shooters, i.e., the people who don’t care if they’re identified or if they’re getting a good price. Safe to say they’re not worried about their credit rating if the plan is to take on a SWAT team in 20 minutes.

Is it actually good against tanks now? I always liked it, but it still hurt to finally get a shot off just for the tank to shrug off the hit.

American Rounds

What, was the Circus of Values brand too expensive to license?

Oh, hey, I’ve run into this in the wild–the Kalendar AI people keep ineptly trying to start a conversation to sell some kind of kiosk software by referencing factoids they scraped from our latest press release. They’ve clearly spent more effort on evading spam filters and rotating domains than they have on anything else, but they helpfully use “human” names ending in “Kai,” so creating a wildcard filter wasn’t too hard.

Credit where it’s due: I’d never heard of Kalendar or the software company who hired them, but this experience has told me everything I need to know about both of them. If you don’t sweat the details and rate sentiment change using absolute value, that’s kind of impressive.

Addressing the “in hell” response that made headlines at Sundance, Rohrer said the statement came after 85 back-and-forth exchanges in which Angel and the AI discussed long hours working in the “treatment center,” working with “mostly addicts.”

We know 85 is the upper bound, but I wonder what Rohrer would consider the minimum number of “exchanges” acceptable for telling someone their loved one is in hell? Like, is 20 in “Hey, not cool” territory, but it’s all good once you get to 50? 40?

Rohrer says that when Angel asked if Cameroun was working or haunting the treatment center in heaven, the AI responded, “Nope, in hell.”

“They had already fully established that he wasn’t in heaven,” Rohrer said.

Always a good sign when your best defense of the horrible thing your chatbot says is that it’s in context.

I’m just going to pretend that’s one of the researchers from Where Oaken Hearts Do Gather.

I conclude that scheming is a disturbingly plausible outcome of using baseline machine learning methods to train goal-directed AIs sophisticated enough to scheme (my subjective probability on such an outcome, given these conditions, is ~25%).

Out: vibes and guesswork

In: “subjective probability”

I felt the exact same way about the conversation you mentioned. I really liked the idea of the quest, but way they handled it just utterly drained all the stakes. And as you noted, it’s weird to see a misstep like this after they nailed it once in Sumeru.

“We’re all in grave danger! What? Well no, we can’t give specifics unless we risk not getting paid. Signed, Anonymous”

I mean, I wasn’t exactly expecting the Einstein-Szilard letter 2.0 when I clicked that link, but this is pathetic.

lmao, Zoom is cooked. Their CEO has no idea how LLMs work or why they aren’t fit for purpose, but he’s 100% certain someone else will somehow solve this problem:

So is the AI model hallucination problem down there in the stack, or are you investing in making sure that the rate of hallucinations goes down?

I think solving the AI hallucination problem — I think that’ll be fixed.

But I guess my question is by who? Is it by you, or is it somewhere down the stack?

It’s someone down the stack.

Okay.

I think either from the chip level or from the LLM itself.

If I was them (and in a way I am) I’d probably kill the witnesses and bail.

So I totally get this conclusion, but I think it’s worth slowing down and considering whether this makes as much sense as it seems at first glance. The fact that magic exists means that simply killing someone simply doesn’t do much to shut them up, if a sufficiently powerful entity is willing to spend the resources. The fact that undeath exists means that killing someone has a very real risk of making them a bigger threat than they were in life–it’s not like you can just stab a ghost. Cultists, being familiar with eldritch powers themselves, know this full well. This means that keeping people merely out of communication might be the simplest way to achieve their actual goal with the minimum of fuss. They don’t need someone quiet forever, they just need enough secrecy to achieve their goals. Murdering every person who takes an interest in them is mission creep.

Also, keep in mind cults generally exist for specific purposes, and people join them for specific purposes. These purposes aren’t necessarily overtly evil at the rank-and-file level, which is integral to their recruitment. The turnip farmer who wants to resurrect a dead harvest god to grow more turnips might be okay with some dodgy rituals the church wouldn’t approve of, but straight up committing multiple murder might take some working up to, if he can be talked into it at all.

So in short, consider what your cult wants, and assume a degree of rationality and thoughtfulness (at least, when they’re not channeling horrors from another plane). What do they want, and how the party could provide what they want?