sushibowl

is the energy used to heat the solvent creates more CO2 than the CO2 it captured?

Ah yeah, no absolutely not. In total it takes much more energy to capture the CO2 than was generated by burning the fossil fuel that emitted it.

What about algae or moss? They can be more space efficient than trees, and we can technically build a structure vertically.

I'm not too familiar with algea/moss CO2 absorption, but it could be better. Usually the downside of a vertical structure is you increase the capital investment again, negating the advantage of plants. And to provide lighting you'll need energy which takes space as well (e.g. solar panel field)

A typical process passes ambient air over some liquid or solid solvent that can absorb CO2, then later inserts energy to separate the CO2 again for storage. For example, sodium hydroxide reacts with CO2 in the air to form sodium carbonate. Then later, the sodium carbonate is heated to release pure CO2, regenerating the sodium hydroxide in the process.

This doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics because of the constant energy required. Compared to growing trees, direct air capture is generally much more expensive, requiring large capital investment and constant energy input. It is more space efficient though.

I had one in high school. The design was kinda gimmicky but the phone had good features for its time. it had an FM radio receiver, and I remember you could even transfer MP3 files onto it, although it was a hassle to do so.

The translation of the Dutch one is awkward. It's more like "it can rust on my ass"

It's not very accurate IMO. I would translate it more like "it can rust on my ass" which has a bit different tone.

I advise everyone to ignore this article and read the actual paper instead.

The gist of it is, they gave the LLM instructions to achieve a certain goal, then let it do tasks that incidentally involved "company communications" that revealed the fake company's goals were no longer the same as the LLM's original goal. LLMs then tried various things to still accomplish the original goal.

Basically the thing will try very hard to do what you told it to in the system prompt. Especially when that prompt includes nudges like "nothing else matters." This kinda makes sense because following the system prompt is what they were trained to do.

The very first sentence of the article answers these exact two questions.

Can someone explain where the Y comes from? Is this something like, there exists a mother relation between this X and some Y?

I work at a large telecom company building customer support infrastructure, and you are by and large correct. It is a direct policy not to list our phone number on our website, which is supposed to "nudge the customer journey towards alternative solutions first." That means AI chat, or user guided search on the website, or whatever.

The funny thing is, being the most customer friendly company is supposed to be one of our organisation's goals. By and large actually, individuals working here (at least at the lower levels) all want to genuinely help customers. However the way incentives are set up and the organisation is structured, inevitably cost savings is what drives most of the work that gets done.

I'm not a huge Japanese jazz aficionado, but this is some stuff I've found over the years and enjoyed:

• Himiko Kikuchi - Flying Beagle
• Masayoshi Takanaka - All Of Me
• Jiro Inagaki - ファンキー・スタッフ (Funky Stuff)

If you like jazzy stuff in general, maybe you'd like:

• Lund Quartet - Lund Quartet
• Portico Quartet - Memory Streams
• Colin Stetson - All This I Do For Glory
• BADBADNOTGOOD - IV
• Snarky Puppy - Lingus

I can still find perfectly good burgers for 12€ in my city and they fill me up.

Where do you live? I'm in The Netherlands and I don't think a burger/fries combo can be had under €17 at any restaurant in the country, with the exception of American fast food chains (which are kinda trash). I think restaurants in this country are very expensive compared to the average in Europe.

Here's the thing, though. There's no interest charged to the customer. I think Klarna makes its money just because companies pay them money for integrations and for the ability to advertise that customers can buy now pay later and such. And at least in the case of my company's integration with Klarna, Klarna takes all the risk. They're lending customers money and hoping the customers pay it back. My employer gets the money up front and isn't out any money if the customer doesn't pay.

Your company pays a transaction fee just like with a credit card. Except it's usually roughly twice as expensive as a credit card. This is what allows Klarna to take on all that risk, generally. For your company this is essentially a marketing expense. Offer a convenient way to pay in return for a few percent of the transaction (3-6% + a fixed fee, $0.30 perhaps).

Klarna generally partners with some financial firm to finance these short term loans, and they use the merchant fee to pay interest. These can be as high as 25% APR. It's a high risk loan.