solanaceous

It really mostly doesn't, and Quanta Magazine is (as is typical for them) full of sh*t.

Ternary is most efficient if the space (power, etc) needed to implement an operation on a base-b digit is proportional to b. (Then the cost is b * log(n) / log(b), and b/log b is minimized at e, but is lower with b=3 than with b=2.) However, in practice most operations take space that increases more than proportionally to b. For example, saturated transistors are either on or off, which is enough to implement binary logic, but ternary logic needs typically several more transistors. Transistors, and especially CMOS style implementations, are generally well-suited to binary. If future computers use a different implementation style (neurons! who knows) then something other than binary logic might be best.

Storing and transmitting data is different: this is often most efficient in bases other than 2. For example, if a flash cell of a certain size can reliably store 4 different amounts of charge, and the difference between these can reliably be read out, then flash manufacturers will store two bits per cell. This is already done and has been done for years. It's most often done in bases that are powers of 2, but not always.

Ternary calculations are occasionally used in cryptography, but as far as I can tell, at least the first ternary crypto paper the article cites is garbage.

There are also other architectures like clockless logic, which uses a third value for "not done calculating yet", but that's different from ordinary ternary logic (and is generally implemented using binary anyway). It also showed a lot of promise for saving power, and also some in reducing interference, but in most settings the increased complexity and circuit size required have been too much to deliver that savings.

We still believe in an open internet, but we do not believe that third parties have a right to misuse public content just because it’s public.

You need to pay us for the right to misuse our site's data!

Isn’t she old enough? She turns 35 in October.

I'm not sure I'd call Rimworld "small", though I guess it is a relatively indie studio. It's a popular game with a lot of content.

For "small" games, I'd recommend also Nova Drift. It's sort of asteroids + path of exile + a slight roguelite element.

In this essay I will

I don’t entirely understand the question. Do I have to carry the food on my back the whole week, or do I just have to carry it to the fully functioning kitchen, and then stash it in the fridge/cabinets? If the latter, is this the same thing as weekly grocery shopping?

This is awesome, and also bordering on dwarven !!SCIENCE!!

This reminds me of an old joke:

An SEO copywriter walks into a bar, pub, Irish bar, drinks, beer, wine, whiskey, cocktails, liquor.

But since then the situation has gotten a lot shittier.

In my experience, a lot of e-bike users have them to facilitate long commutes by bike. If they’re on pedelecs, they probably bring up the average, especially since someone who chooses a long e-bike commute over a train or car is likely to be pretty active in other ways.

Also they’re used a fair bit by old people. I’m not sure how that group would compare for bike exercise vs e-bike exercise though.

Sure, it’s hard to say whether a computer program can “know” anything or what that even means. But the paper isn’t arguing that. It assumes very little about how how LLMs actually work, and it defines “hallucination” as “not giving the right answer” with no option for the machine to answer “I don’t know”. Then the proof follows basically from the fact that the LLM-or-whatever can’t know everything.

The result is not very surprising, and saying that it means hallucination is inevitable is an oversell. It’s possible that hallucinations, or at least wrong answers, are inevitable for different reasons though.

Or just let the mother-to-be charge her insurance at hospital rates for all the blood transfusions and other health care she's giving the fetus.

(As a bit of completely unwarranted pedantry — and I'm not a lawyer — most crimes in the US and other common law countries have a mental component (mens rea). This means that e.g. to be guilty of manslaughter you must have chosen to do something willfully harmful or at least unacceptably dangerous, such as attacking someone or driving drunk. So fetuses and babies cannot be guilty of those crimes. Of course, the "charge your insurance" thing probably doesn't work either.)

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a flask of acid, is a good guy with a flask of acid?

Or maybe the good guy's flask should have a buffering agent?