Bad scientific imaging (from a science perspective) can still be hot shit from a photography perspective

I'm trying to buy a house and folks, it's bad out there. The monthly price of an average-house, average-rate mortgage where I live has gone from $1500 to $3600 in the past 3.5 years.

Rayleigh scattering goes as λ⁻⁴, so even if you're blocking out direct sun, UV scattering from the clear blue sky can still do you in eventually

You don’t even need a three-deck edgelord helicarrier for this! Currently-existing carriers already have four catapults

The branding is still pretty good

It is very good at using gobs of matmul to multiply two arbitrary 9-digit numbers. That arithmetic is pretty easy, but definitely not present in the training data, so it’s not interpolating tokens, but rather developing some emergent capability to do neural-net-based arithmetic.

Look at satellite imagery around Midland - every grid of dots is an oil & gas field, every dot is a well. Half the output from the Permian basin goes to fueling the oilfield workers’ lifted F350s. Midland is hell, so they vacation in my state and take their lifted trucks and attitudes with them

It’s hard to be an arthritic old lady with a nose that’s always chilly

Much of the national lab/nuclear material (/weapons) portfolio falls under the NNSA, which is a quasi-independent subagency. The juicy stuff from a climate policy perspective is a pretty small portion of the pie

Love a good multi-sport day in a place with multiple distinct climate zones 20 minutes from home