dgacmu

That doesn't math all that well. The coefficient of performance of a heat pump is better when the outdoor temp is higher - did you mean the temp outside is -above- 20F?

You're also assuming time of use billing, I assume.

I don't disagree, btw - gas is cheaper than a heat pump for me also, which makes me sad. My only point was that you have to compare against them and not resistance heating. (That's slightly wrong - if I were to use a heat pump during the shoulder season and my boiler when it's colder it would be cheaper in operating costs but lose on capex)

Because these are bad comparisons, a heat pump water heater and a heat pump house heater use substantially less electricity. Resistance heating sucks and will lose to burning gas locally.

It does, but the video is later than their original profile and not linked, and I thought it was interesting actually seeing him in action. It's one of the higher quality videos of him.

Not with the disrespect they've shown to Arsenic, Astatine, Barium, ...,

They finally gave the $20/month pro tier access to argon in antigravity so I tried it a few days ago on one small thing and ...

it actually did really well.

But it still annoys me: I told it to _tell_ me something, and instead it _implemented_ the something. The previous models were way too eager to just jump in and do and this one seems no different. But the optimization it identified was both really solid and just a good engineering choice, and better than what Opus had been suggesting.

It also gave pretty good feedback on a bit of writing.

I agree with the threat to the expensive providers but why is openrouter use representative of overall token spend when you'd think many companies are buying directly from anthropic or openai?

Depending on the month, my kitchen AQI averages between 1-4, representing PM2.5 values of 0.1 - 0.8 ug/m^3. Bedrooms are likely better as they don't have the gas stove.

CO2 while occupied is generally under 750; I'd prefer to keep it under 700 but we also balance that with energy efficiency for that make-up air; I don't have an ERV, so we suffer a little there.

(We don't live by a freeway but - (a) Pittsburgh's air isn't great; and (b) the canadian wildfires were pretty bad here at times this summer, and that was what caused that 0.8 ug/m^3 pm2.5 spike).

We have, um, a lot of air filters left over from covid, though, so we're a little spoiled in terms of being able to manage AQI easily.

The actual number needs to be interpreted carefully but the change is certainly real.

Because Google doesn't have much of a financial interest in that kind of paper. Drug companies have a financial interest in studies that evaluate their drugs.

If you want a CS analogy, the google-co-authored papers about internet policy do get a lot more scrutiny. And rightfully so! That doesn't make them bad -- many of these are written by friends of mine whom I hold in great esteem -- it means we have to be aware of the potential for all of us to be influenced by the money.

Dude. From the paper itself:

"Competing interests G.A.M. serves as a research consultant for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline/ViiV, and Gilead. M.J.C. serves as a scientific advisor for TruDiagnostic. V.D. and R.S. are employees of TruDiagnostic. All other authors declare no competing interests."

These are known risk factors. I've never said drug companies are bad. I literally take corporate funding for my own research. But you also don't get to stick your head in the sand and ignore the competing interests that all make the research more likely to show favorable results. Again for those in the back: These results probably _are_ correct! But do they generalize? Will they hold up on replication with a larger population? Do they matter, or is the proxy they're measuring not actually relevant for long term things in humans? Dunno. That's the thing about a _statistical likelihood of bias_ -- you have no idea exactly how to apply it to a single paper other than to say "ok, known possibility of bias, interpret accordingly."