You are describing what the Volt was doing back in 2011

Indeed. This headline had me feel like I was taking crazy pills. As far as I can tell, this is in no way, shape or form a "New Idea".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt_(first_generati...

2 things can be true: the 2011 Volt would be classified as an EREV, and "your average hybrid" would not.

No, this design is not totally new. Despite the article implying this.

Diesel electric locomotives have been using this concept since the 1930s or 1940s.

Also the Nazi's Maus tank/armoured vehicle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus

Could be an obvious mistake in the title to drive engagement, or as someone said in the comments of the article:

> WSJ catering to the anti EV crowd to get them to say "Har har look at those silly EVs, needs a gas engine now."

If you do take a long-distance trip, the easiest way to cut carbon impact is to just not post about it. Social networks feed the envy that drives consumerism.

Highly relevant advice if you want to cut your carbon footprint :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcx-nf3kH_M

oh nice. If it goes up another 100% I may not lose money on this stock anymore.

And if it doubles after that, I may even beat a passive S&P 500 investment.

You know many stocks have done better than the SP500, right?

invest only in the ones that are going to go up - why didn't i think of that?!

I am in fact aware that some of my stock investments have beaten the market while others have underperformed the market.

MRNA, as it happens, is the latter.

I mean, this appears to be validation of mRNA in general, right?

Saving a couple million people in the pandemic wasn’t validation enough?

100%. What I meant to say was that this proves that it wasn't somehow a one trick pony.

There is also a mRNU flu vaccine now: https://www.modernatx.com/ir-insights-mflusiva

I don't know if that counts as the same "trick" or not as it's another antiviral vaccine. Not that I disagree with you.

I read that this mRNA flu vaccine can be more effective then the regular annual flu shot, simply because the time to create it is shorter, therefor the guess at what strains will circulate that year is more accurate.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41701031/

But it is yet more validation. mRNA technology is here, get used to it.

I mean, the question is almost always about whether it's economical or not, right? Whether you can find diseases it's efficacious to treat with this mechanism, and prove it (trials are expensive).

What companies was this said about?

I agree that the program to create brains will be small, but the logic presented to explain that is false because it ignores the size of the compiler.

For example you can have a program that is 1 bit long and encode either a browser or an OS, provided the compiler/interpreter is big enough.

> The Rust implementation would be as efficient as possible on the given hardware with minimum memory/CPU

My sweet summer child.

And then there are the terrible compile times and huge binaries. In the scenario that you describe, what you want is Zig or C.

If we eliminate a gene that causes bad thing to happen, this kind of eugenics would fall into the Utilitarian model, among others.

Would you propose selective breeding, selective sterilization, selective euthanasia, war, genetic engineering, or what to eradicate such a gene?

What single gene that only causes bad things to happen do you have in mind? Are you sure it doesn’t also control unrelated activity that’s helpful to the population?

Under the utilitarian ethics model, everything from embryo screening to selective breeding/sterilization and genetic engineering would do the trick.

As to what specific gene or sets of gene in mind to alter, that depends on what you define as "bad things" and what is possible.

From a rapid google search, Cystic Fibrosis seems like a candidate.

Selective breeding or selective sterilization fail under Fairness, Rights, and probably Common Good. Maybe you’d get a pass with embryonic screening, but you’re fall afoul of other considerations there. Preselection of specific eggs and sperm before fertilization might clear most of those hurdles. So unless you get everyone to measure by only one ethical measurement, you’ve lost right out of the gate.

Genetic engineering is probably acceptable to most under all five. You’d probably still have ethical arguments. GE has ethical arguments raised against it in general, but let’s not go into the baby and bathwater arguments here. Editing genes in a fertilized egg or a blastomere has different ethical implications than doing gene editing in a fully born person. It’s different for a patient who can consent and for a child, too.

Cystic fibrosis usually leaves men mechanically sterile, although not carriers and men with CF can still have children through medical/surgical interventions. Its complications are ever more treatable. There are over 2500 known mutations of this gene, accounting for about 30 different disorders including CF. Which mutations would you screen for? Who among the population would you screen - known carriers? People with any CF in their extended family? Everyone?

Of course it did, what the heck is this guy smoking?

> fever-dreamed fantasies

Reminder that what local LLMs are achieving today is the "fever-dreamed fantasies" of 5 years ago.

People really need to internalize that we will eventually have the technology for giving everybody the equivalent of a world class scientist locked in their basement that is willing to do anything.

No one knows the timeline, but it's inevitable (barring societal collapse or some kind of legislation)