jqm here...

There is likely one that can beat *most humans alive right now. What could a 2 billion dollar military grant and a sense of urgency produce in the 3 years?

We have driver-less cars. Exponential development. The robot army is coming... like it or not. Sure, humans will always probably make key decisions. Your point is good. There are areas humans have an advantage over machines. But, the robot army is coming and coming fast. My point is... this renders a bunch of the qualities mentioned in this article, qualities designed to turn man into a machine, obsolete. And it means other qualities become more important. Failure to recognize the future and plan for it will mean defeat on the battle field. No matter how much belt buckles are shined.

Agreed. It's an interesting idea. And, it's a shame it has detractors who don't even take the time to read about it.

There's a comment history on HN, and this is a shill account for jqm (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7780587)

Yes, the sun is absolutely the energy source. The silicon/sand is the carrier.

Why did I mention recycling the media? It's mentioned in the article. Twice in fact.

Read the article.

>The sun can also be an energy source to make syn-gas (to make synthetic gasoline for cars), or charge a battery, or make hydrogen, or pump water uphill. What does that have to do with silicon as a carrier?

It has to do with using the sun to produce the energy that the "carrier" will carry.

Nobody said the Sun only has this particular application -- just that is one more application of Solar energy (on sand, and with using silicon as a carrier).

>Just because it's in an article doesn't make it correct. This article is really bad. It has just enough truth to make it seem plausible.

Seems like someone didn't read it.

Everyone keeps accusing me of not reading the article - but I did. The whole thing (despite eye rolls the entire time).

> just that is one more application of Solar energy (on sand, and with using silicon as a carrier).

You seem to have gotten lost in the argument here. I'm objecting to claiming that using by silicon somehow we reduce CO2 emissions.

We don't. Silicon has nothing to do with it. Sure by using the sun we reduce CO2 - but that's orthogonal to using silicon.

If you want to talk about using silicon as a load balancer, or a kind of rechargeable battery, then sure it's an interesting idea.

But don't start claiming it's some sort of super clean fuel or something like that because it's not.

"This inert silicon dioxide might be recycled back to a silicon smelter or used locally in land fill."

Edited: "A restricting factor here is that the SiO2 oxidation product remains with the silicon and partially restricts its subsequent oxidation."

did you even read the article?

Yes, I read the article. And in what way does what you wrote imply "less efficient" on reuse?

To reply to your edit:

> "A restricting factor here is that the SiO2 oxidation product remains with the silicon and partially restricts its subsequent oxidation."

Do you even understand what you posted here? I really don't think you do. This is not "on reuse" this is a problem on the first use. And it's such a big problem that silicon is unlikely to ever actually be used this way.

If you read the article, then you failed at reading comprehension. The drop in efficiency on recycling is mentioned twice.

No it's not. And if you think it is go ahead and copy it here.

Here's one of them:

"The only waste product from silicon power stations would be large amounts of solid silicon-dioxide “ash” but this could be recycled back to the smelters to be reduced to silicon again."

So, if ash is a 'waste product' then it cannot be produced with 100% efficiency as the 'non-waste' is the goal of the process and not the 'waste' itself. Also, if you take that 'waste' and 'recycle it back to smelters', another round of inefficiency is introduced (as no physical process is 100% efficient).

Is there something wrong with that reasoning?

No offense, but you're not talking about their use of the word "reduction" are you?

Not exactly. See the reasoning here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7814908

There is a reason witnesses are important in courts. Because observation by others is evidence.

Besides, he clearly states he isn't attempting to "prove" anything but only relating an account.

Would you like the actual log or the script that makes the log? See the point?

"Anyone claiming to be a winner at roulette in the long term is either lying or delusional." Possibly but you don't know this. Besides he doesn't claim "over the long term" and states WHY he quit playing.

"The house edge in roulette is huge." Yes. IF the game is random. Read the post above.

It would still be more substantial than anything he has offered so far.

To make an assertion that a game of roulette in a licensed casino is not random is in the realm of moon landing conspiracy.

PS: I also think it's rather sad and transparent that you created a new shill account to reply to me.

Look, as I stated twice before, I don't claim to prove anything. If you chose to believe I am misrepresenting my experiences (motive?) that's fine. I understand. I'm just relating the results of a lot... and I do mean a lot (as in hundreds if not thousands of hours) of observation in hope it saves someone some money from the table bumping scam. I have seen drunks cleaned out with it more than a few times. But you can be "right" if it makes you feel good.

You simply don't have my experience. Sorry.

I don't think thousands of hours playing roulette places you in the 'rational and detached follower of the scientific method' camp, somehow

Thanks for your opinion.

Observation is observation and it makes one a bit of an expert.

Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer place the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when I took advantage of that and won a bunch of money? I have a lot of stories like this.

You weren't there. You don't know. You don't have to believe me. If you want to take the time... go observe for yourself.

> Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer place the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when I took advantage of that and won a bunch of money?

Absolutely. That is a classic case of observational or confirmation bias, with a sample size of one, it shows absolutely nothing. At odds of 36-1 there will be, randomly, one time in 36 when you make an incorrect hypothesis about the way a roulette ball is going to land, and yet by chance it happens the way you 'predicted'. To confirm your hypothesis with any degree of certainty, one would need to have multiple situations of this kind happen repeatedly. You aren't doing that.

I have seen dealers with this skill many times. And I took advantage of it many times. Read my posts before talking about "sample size". I simply mention __this__ event because it is one of the more skilled dealers I ever encountered.

So... a one in 36 chance. Actually, I'll give you one in 18 as there are two sets of green zeros... 0 and 00.

So what is the chance of this happening 4 times in a row?

1/18 cubed = .000000952 chance of occurring. Probably not confirmation bias. Probably not something one is likely to EVER encounter. (Never mind that I encountered similar many times). If you read the post, I watched her practice doing this. No one was playing at the moment. Then she did it again and I burned her for a lot of money. Read my posts if you care. Or, believe whatever you wish. Roulette is not always random. And if you spent the time I have you would know this.