That makes me wonder two things.
Firstly, if your can use this to find LLM generated content, which I guess would need similar instructions. Imagine instructing it to talk like a pirate, it would be quite different from a generic response.
Secondly, if you want to make an alt account harder to cross-correlate with your main, would rewriting your comments with an LLM work against this method? And if so, how well?
This is exactly what has been playing out in the Netherlands the past couple of months: the weather institute (KNMI) released their own weather app that is functionally the same (in some cases superior) as the commercial apps that want your consent to track and serve ads.
Even if something is well known, its important to measure it and set statistical limits. While the 4 sigma in the article is not enough to claim an observation, it opens the points towards some exciting new Beyond the Shearing Model physics.
AFAIK the EU law has to be implemented on a local level, and the countries' agencies can uphold in their respective country. Once a single country has a precedent, this can be used by other member states.
Nope. 1) Not all of the "EU law" behaves the same way. There are legal acts of the EU that are directly applicable (like most provisions in regulations), there are even some provisions of the primary legislation (treaties) that can be applied directly (i.e. are binding and can be litigated). Of course, there are also legal acts that need implementation (like most provisions of directives).
2) EU law is upheld both by the EU Court of Justice (Luxembourg) and national courts, this depends on the cause of action you have.
3) An "agency" has a special meaning in the EU, that doesn't mean the same thing as a federal agency in the US (as a branch of the executive). There are instead EU institutions and national public bodies (whose exact nomenclature depends on local law) that may also have the task of upholding legislation.
4) No precedents are necessary or used at the EU level. Precedents are more a common law thing, they have an explicit binding nature for courts there. While there are common law countries (Cyprus, Ireland, Malta) with precedents, their precedents have no special place or role in how EU law works, there is no stare decisis how it works in common law.
So, this is a national decision based on German national enforcement reviewed by a German court.
Precedent might have no place in EU law but there are plenty of places where precedent does matter in statute law even if the precedent is advisory rather than binding. There is quite definitely a doctrine of precedent in Norway, see for instance [1].
Norway is not a member of the EU. Yes, precedent can be used with different meanings, and many clueless ministries of justices in continental law countries tried to innovate by calling some measures they made as turning that country into partly based on precedents (usually to restrict the freedom of judges, like in Hungary - which clearly failed).
But more importantly, there is a world of difference between precedents 1) having in practice some relevant legal effect in a jurisdiction (e.g. using them as arguments or just as interesting case law) or 2) in the sense that lower courts are bound by some decisions of upper courts in a country, and 3) having a worldwide legal system built around stare decisis that is actually working the same way for hundreds of year, and where decisions from, say London, are read by lawyers in NZ or Singapore because they may have as much legal force as an act of a parliament. It's not just a spectrum, it's a very different beast for practical purposes.
One of the lead researchers in KM3NeT mentioned that the particle was emitting 2 horse power in light during detector transit. A typical body builder expends about 1 horse power while performing, so its 2 body builders in a single particle.
> typical body builder expends about 1 horse power while performing
Close, but ackshually...
Bodybuilders just oil up and pose in beauty pageants.
1 horsepower is basically one 250-pound bench press in one second. (550 foot pounds of work; the aforementioned bench press assumes a 2.2-foot stroke length.)
Most bodybuilders and serious weight lifters can do that, but they can't keep it up for long.
Fun fact, a typical horse exerts about 1 horse power of usable work while performing. That's so weird, I'm sure almost no one would've been able to guess that - but it's true.
(To be clear, that's sustained effort over time, not just momentary. Athletically trained humans can do about 1 HP of peak momentary effort, and around 0.3 HP if sustained over time.)
And a horse can do quite a bit more in peak as well— 1 HP is definitely meant to be the long term continuous output of a typical horse under load, especially a consistent load such as turning a millstone.
Track cyclists (sprinters, world class) do 2KW+ peak for a few seconds at a time. That's potentially ~3HP. (and while doing so, average more than 70kph over a 200m distance)
Photonicinduction's 10-second kettle[1] managed about 10kW max (took around 5s to boil water) for a short time, 440V 23A. Then the resistance dropped, it went up to 16kW (426V 33A) and popped. 7-8kW (375V 19A to 400V 20A) seemed more sustainable.
2500W on 240V, single phase AC, 16A, German 'Schuko'-plug is normal. Or was. Some EU-regulation limits that to 2000, or even 1500W only now, for new devices, or something.
Don't care. Still have the old ones, and whatever the electrician wired as '120V 3-phase AC' for the full US-style range in the US.
Yes, but please observe SI rules [1]: it's millischwarzeneggers.
> This means that they should be typeset in the same character set as other common nouns (e.g. Latin alphabet in English, Cyrillic script in Russian, etc.), following the usual grammatical and orthographical rules of the context language. For example, in English and French, even when the unit is named after a person and its symbol begins with a capital letter, the unit name in running text should start with a lowercase letter (e.g., newton, hertz, pascal) and is capitalised only at the beginning of a sentence and in headings and publication titles.
Not for that particular neutrino, it's gone. But yes, my home (and yours) is being heated by neutrino power as we speak. It's not a significant enough amount of energy to make a dent in the utility bill however.
Most inefficient thermal power plant possible: utilize the difference in neutrino flux between the hemisphere that's open to space vs. the hemisphere where Earth is in the way.
But now I'm wondering what percentage of the useful thermal power in a nuclear power plant is produced by the neutrinos created in the reactions (the infinitesimally small fraction that happen to interact with the matter within the reactor, that is).
On the contrary, it would have to be efficient indeed to do anything useful underneath all of the shielding that we'd need to keep those baser forms of radiation at bay. Gamma rays: yuck.
This particle spread this energy through a volume of seawater a few km deep in the Mediterranean. It's going to raise the temperature of that volume a few billionths of a degree, if that. So, no, we can't.
What if our existing solar panels are optimized to detect these? Then will it improve the quality of solar panels to capture more energy from sunlight as well? Sorry, I'm no expert in this - asking more of a curiosity.
There's nothing to optimize here, neutrinos just interact very very weakly with anything else because they don't carry charge (so no electrical interactions), don't carry color charge (so no nuclear interactions), don't carry weak charge (so no weak force interactions) and have tiny tiny masses, but they are still bosons (so don't act as field carriers like photons do, they're just regular matter). Their low chance of interacting with matter is a fundamental property of them, there's nothing you can do about it through technology, just like you can't create heavier electrons or weaker quarks.
Neutrinos interact extremely weakly with ordinary matter, which is why the detectors are typically huge volumes of water. Even then, the neutrinos interact with the purpose-built detectors on the order of one in a trillion. A neutrino power generator is not a feasible thing to build.
It's an enormous amount of energy packed into a single tiny particle.
But it's still just a single tiny particle, so it's not a lot of total energy.
It's like how you can lift a heavy weight for a second, but that's all you can do. You would need to be able to lift it for hours to be useful as a replacement for a crane. Same idea: Intensity vs total work.
If we had the ability to detect neutrinos in such a small volume as a solar panel they’d be immensely valuable for communication - we’d be able to beam signals directly through the Earth, or through deep water.
Following that same line, if we had that ability, it would be useful for communicating to deep submarines like the U.S. used to do with Project Sanguine[0] and ELF waves :)
I've been using mistral for most of January at the same rate as chatgpt before. I decided to pay for it as its per token (in and out) and the bill came yesterday... A whopping 1 cent. Thats probably rounded up.
I've been using it for about a year now and for personal stuff its fine. Just some sheets and the occasional document and there haven't been any issues with formatting and such that tend to pop up when moving between MS and others.
It runs with a single window too, where all docs and sheets are open, I like that.
Secondly, if you want to make an alt account harder to cross-correlate with your main, would rewriting your comments with an LLM work against this method? And if so, how well?