Seawater is 10% saturated IIRC, so you'd have to make the saturated solution first, and if the easiest way to do that is to dissolve another cavern then using brine doesn't have much of a cost advantage over "use this one until it collapses, then dissolve the rubble or make another."
I disagree that there is no cost associated with making another. Externalising environmental and rectification cost should not be the default approach.
If you're gonna build a bunch of tanks on the surface to store that saturated salt solutions, you might as well store the oil in those tanks. The point of this salt cavern system is how little infrastructure it needs to store the huge volume of liquid.
Yes but the risks associated with storing brine are far less than oil. Brine leaks out? It might kill the flora nearby but rain will eventually wash it away. Someone blows up the brine tank? Divert some freshwater until you can rebuild.
But in reality, storing all of that brine would be a massive undertaking on its own. The largest salt cavern is 37M barrels which equates to a circular pond that's 600m across and 20m deep. That's huge. And of course you don't want the brine seeping into the ground water so it needs a good liner. But I suppose you really don't need a pond that big, how often are we completely draining the cavern anyway? We're at half capacity right now and that's the lowest it's been in 50 years. Normally it's been much much higher. So you really don't need all that brine, just enough for the normal ebb and flow of the reserves, maybe like 10%. In the event the reserves get drained, divert some freshwater to compensate.
Do they really have brine storage tanks for enough brine to pump out all the oil? If true, they would have just exectly the right volume of above-ground tanks to just store the oil in the first place and not mess with all these caverns and brine and whatnot.
You could store the salt. You go up far beyond saturation. Salt sediments on the floor (which also might seal it). When you need brine you pump in seawater into a tunnelsystem in the sediment. The saturated brine should be lighter and further up. Overflow to second basin, where it's pumped into the cavern. Thus size comes down to whatever size is needed to store enough salt and or, be big enough to guarantee a certain rate of volume of fully saturated water per time; so basically dimensions that guarantee a phase separation and high enough diffusion rate. And some bad ass pumps (or have the basin be below sealevel and a dam with gates; probably the pumps for reasons of security>efficency in that case)
You don't need tanks to store the brine, just a huge pit/pool. If you look at satellite imagery, that giant pit with brine in it is exactly what they have next to the storage facilities.
Please, literally every other country in the world store their petroleum reserve in surface tanks. We have fifty years of experience in designing the safety systems around oil tanks, and the only recent major incidents are from drone strikes in Russia and Saudi Arabia. Just because the US luck out in having the specific geological formation to store oil cheaply doesn't mean the alternative is untenable.
> It would be sufficient to store dry salt
Absolutely impractical. Storing and moving around solids in the megatons is very difficult compared to liquids that can be pumped. For comparison, the absolute largest solids moving operation in the world is a copper mine in Chile, it moves 300,000 metric tonne of mineral per day. The east-west pipeline in Saudi Arabia can move three times that in liquid, 1,000,000 metric tonne per day.
How do you get the salt to make the brine? You'd need to evaporate the water from the brine which means you either need very large evaporation pools or lots of energy to boil the water (and money to maintain the immense amount of scale you create).
They used an even easier method than what's described in the other comments: the salt comes from the initial construction of the SPR caverns.
When they first built the SPR, they filled it with water to wash away any easily-dissolvable salt features as well as any impurities inside the cavern. The result of filling the cavern and letting it sit for a while is saturated brine: eventually all the salt that can be dissolved is dissolved. Then they pumped that brine to aboveground brine ponds.
Those brine ponds contain exactly the amount of salt water needed to completely fill the cavern with saturated brine. So future drawdowns just use the same water that has already been saturated. Some of the water will evaporate on the surface, leaving behind salt crystals at the edges of the brine pond, but the crucial thing to remember is the quantity of salt in the newly created brine pond is equal to the amount of salt needed to generate enough saturated brine to completely fill the cavern. Because that's where it came from in the first place. So if you need to replenish it with more water, you just pump in fresh water, it dissolves the extra salt in the brine pond, filter out any surface guck, and then pump it back into the cabin.
Periodically you might want to add a little extra salt if say the cavern expands or wind erosion carries salt away from the dry brine pond bed. But this quantity is much less, it's the delta in cavern size, not the full initial size of the cavern.
Agreed, considering that sor.say future wars will be around (drinking) water it seems reasonable to at least link some cost to the brine or the water required.
>Is this common? I’ve had access to company credit cards before on a one-off basis (never in my name). Do people legitimately make this mistake? “oops, I put it on the company cards”?
It's worse than that, because he specifically entered the company card to pay for robux. It's not like he added the company card for an earlier (company) purchase and then it accidentally got used.
>Dave said he entered the company card himself to buy Robux for his son, and it then sat saved on the Google account that also carries his work email, calendar, and files. Dave did not say why he used the company card for that purchase.
Moreover I can't think of any reason why he would be using the company card in the first place. In any company with proper controls you'd have to justify every expense and/or reimburse. It's just simpler to use a personal card, unless he was trying to embezzle some money.
Whenever I've had a company card, it's basically been for the company's benefit except to the degree that large purchases hit my personal credit limits. There may be exceptions like paying for events but I've never been in that situation. But, generally speaking, company purchases on a company credit card are going on an expense report like anything else.
My immediate reaction was "well, I guess dad won't be using his former employer's credit card to buy his son toys any more after this". I have a company credit card for larger purchases and I'm extremely careful with it to the point of erring on the side of caution because it's someoneelse'smoney I'm spending.
Or, probably just some optics, like a slanted $9 IR mirror [1] in front of it, to direct the lidar to the sky/absorption box. Then you can point at the high res HDR TV that's probably already in your living room.
Well, first, that's only expensive if you're poor. The world is absolutely full of people who can easily piss away your entire annual income throwing a house party.
But I really mean that if the lidar barely works outdoors anyway then actually you don't need to be 16 feet away at all.
Anyway, one may presume that they've thought about this.
Thought about it and also are bright enough not to fall for the “if a single person dies wearing a seat belt, we should abandon seat belts because they do no good at all” fallacy.
It’s almost certainly possible to fool v1 of this system, for some images, in some contexts. It would be shocking if the first implementation was completely perfect. But maybe it’s better than nothing?
I think this will depend on how it gets used. I can imagine numerous outcomes where it's in fact worse than nothing (significantly more effective blackmail, for instance).
> It’s almost certainly possible to fool v1 of this system, for some images, in some contexts. It would be shocking if the first implementation was completely perfect.
Knowing Apple, they've been working on and testing Apple Reference Image for years.
It being perfect isn't the issue; it's that random people on the internet who are just learning about this assume Apple's engineers haven't already thought about everything (and more) mentioned in this thread.
> It being perfect isn't the issue; it's that random people on the internet who are just learning about this assume Apple's engineers haven't already thought about everything (and more) mentioned in this thread.
Given how many bugs there are in macOS and how long they have remained there, I (who have been writing iOS apps from the release of the first retina iPod touch until AI got good) functionally agree with such people; at best, I think Apple's engineers haven't actually solved everything (and more) mentioned in this thread, even if every one of these things may have come up in discussions and even reached an official backlog or task list or similar.
While that is not quite my bar of confidence when implementing wide-reaching technologies that have numerous unexplored knock-on effects, I guess the calculus must have been different on Infinite Loop recently.
>While the richer people hire professionals to take care of their taxes and optimize them to the extent that they pay significantly less than n %.
Source for this claim? All the claims I've seen involve treating unrealized gains as income, which is questionable methodology. For instance, if you founded a startup that then raised a few million dollars, at a valuation that values your shares at $1M, should your income be treated as $1M for that year, even if it didn't even hit your bank account and can't even spend it?
The specific mechanism may vary by country. It often involves personal service companies through which the people are paid rather than being paid directly as employees. This usually means that they pay significantly less social insurance and health insurance than what they would have paid if they were regular employees.
To clarify, I am using the term taxes in a very generic way where it covers not only the income taxes but also all kinds of fees collectable by the government. Including social insurance and health insurance.
> For instance, if you founded a startup that then raised a few million dollars, at a valuation that values your shares at $1M, should your income be treated as $1M for that year, even if it didn't even hit your bank account and can't even spend it?
Yes, though it requires some intelligent accounting. For instance, the ability for tax payers to defer certain obligations. However, the principle of "all income should be treated equal" is a necessary prerequisite to having a fair society. As it currently stands, the richest people don't pay much tax at all. Effective taxes on the billionaire class are like 8%-24%, less to way way less than the median tax payer.
IMO it's helpful to think this through to the post-wealth-tax equilibrium. In such a world, financial services will adapt and develop mechanisms for handling these seemingly tricky tax situations. IMO focusing on the minutia of how this is going to work is not useful in evaluating the macro effects of the policy.
The author is a tool, not a person. Tools cannot hold copyright. Copyright requires human authorship. Licenses depend on copyright as their essential mechanism.
Exactly. The person holding the camera is the author. Even if they just point the camera and press the record button.
In a similar way, I would not consider AI to be the "author" of the output they produce. Rather, the person prompting it should be considered the author, in my opinion.
>and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics.
For good reason. Courts have so far ruled AI training is fair use, and it doesn't look likely to be overturned by the supreme court. Theres also the matter of some labs pirating books to get training data, which is illegal (they lost in civil court), but it's unclear whether that can be criminally prosecuted.
They participated in uploading the files as part of the downloading the torrent from other peers. Their use of the BitTorrent protocol to acquire these files would not have been transformative.
Meta argued in court that yes, they did upload when torrenting
> Meta’s reasoning is straightforward. Anyone who uses BitTorrent to transfer files automatically uploads content to other people, as it is inherent to the protocol. In other words, the uploading wasn’t a choice, it was simply how the technology works.
I wonder which murderer will use that argument: "it wasn't my choice to shoot the person, it's just intrinsic to the technology that when pulling the trigger, the pistol fires"
1. OP specifically mentioned "IP violating antics", not hacking
2. All the hacking legislation (and criminal law in general) require proving intent, which so far as we can tell didn't exist in those cases. At best you can try some "reckless" or "negligent" angle, but that would a novel legal argument and would be risky to prosecute
Your Honour, it is indeed correct that during testing of our new missile to see if it could correctly function in the military role of seeking out and then breaking through a blast door, the targeting system locked onto the nearby bank vault. We only found out where this particular missile went after the bank contacted us for help in investigating who might have been responsible for the new hole where their door used to be, and if any of our other equipment might help stop such weapons in the future.
We did not expect the test missile to be so effective.
We have contacted independent researchers to help us investigate what went wrong here.
We also agree that we made a lot of mistakes, and that we should have had better tests in place even at the time.
However, we also assert that even if we had had all of those tests in place, the specific actions taken by our "autonomously seek-and-destroy-blast-door" munition would likely have circumvented all the things we could have, and should have, already had in place.
Okay, and? If anything, the Swartz case was even more direct fair use. There's very little to use JSTOR for which isn't some form of teaching, scholarship, or research!
Clearly the fact that the end-use is (possibly) fair use isn't the only thing that matters.
It makes sense when you think AI is seen by the government as a strategic asset. They'll want it to progress unhampered, but also don't want other nations/actors to catch up.
The fact that you even point out that they committed illegal acts that would normally get prosecuted, and yet didn't, shows that IP enforcement is very loose depending on who did it.
You can run adblock in the browser to block those too. Most don't bother, just like they won't bother to have a custom AGENTS.md to block all these offers.
No, I mean the dd server can deny completion of the transaction unless the client has provably seen the offer content. All the DRM standards are in place, this isn’t anonymous browsing, it’s easily controlled if they want to.
They could also make it such that any client caught sidestepping is hit with a DMCA violation.
you need to expand your creative imagination around the limits of enshittification, there are really so many ways to make the experience shittier
As long as the client supports external display/input (e.g. USB-C with DP alt mode) you could always attach a KVM and run a proxy with vision capabilities to filter.
for the company/account placing DD orders via CLI, instant ban hammer.
you don’t seem to understand, sure clients can block ads. servers can also refuse to proceed unless a provable step is taken, and that’s linked to your DD integration. Bad actors can easily been detected
I'm saying the client can take the action, but the user never sees the client because they interact with it through e.g. their AdBuster box, a glorified PiKVM that interacts with client, OCRs it, and produces simple filtered HTML for the user.
As long as you can attach a display and USB inputs, your "monitor" or "braille device" can go straight to a vision model, which can then send inputs from your "keyboard". There are already off the shelf devices that can do this if you install an agent harness.
Whose DD API key is being used? This is not an anonymous access scenario. The DD API client is tied to some company, the behavior is detectable, they are banned.
Or do you give out KVMs to all your customers and say “place your DD orders with us this way”?
He's saying that some AI agent (with computer use capabilities, which the recent gpt model is supposedly good at) can at the very least, operate a browser (or phone) of the doordash website/app, scrape the contents via OCR, present them to the user, then relay any actions back to the website, all via KVM, making all of this undetectable to the site.
Ships passing in the night. I’m not disagreeing with any of this, and yall still miss the point.
I understand that individuals can make purchases with the DD API. People who want to buy things without seeing ads can always do that. Very few people will do that.
I’m referring to the obvious B2B2C use case where a company embeds DD functionality via the API. Then you’d have to teach the trick to everyone who uses your app or service and that’s not practical. If you skip at the server it’s trivially detectable.
> If you skip at the server it’s trivially detectable.
I don't see how. If I built a touchscreen-using robot, DD couldn't detect it. If some middleman business had a boiler room of 10 robots, it would be the same. All network requests identical to the official app. And if you think they'd look at IP addresses or something, how would they tell it apart from a college campus or a CGNAT gateway?
You can’t MITM your clients unless you root-cert them. The clients are independently attesting to DD, you can’t spoof it unless you’re the client. The B2B provider can’t do this without MITM attack. Any “legitimate” partner doing this is instantly banned & probably sued.
> As long as you can attach a display and USB inputs, your "monitor" or "braille device" can go straight to a vision model, which can then send inputs from your "keyboard".
This is awesome!!
The local AI revolution is going to be glorious. It's no wonder they want to regulate this shit.
I can't wait until uBlock Origin integrates AI support.
reply