EV motors can add energy in either direction of rotation, or remove energy from the existing rotation.

Regenerative braking is removing energy, and yes you must be moving for it to “regenerate” energy. You are correct that it can’t hold you in place without adding energy, you’d roll forward very slowly.

However if you look up how these motors work, the same magnets that are timed to make the motor run can be used to lock the motor in place by adjusting which electromagnets are powered. So the onboard computer detects when motion is slow enough for regenerative to stop working and switches over to magnetic locking, which does burn a bit of energy.

I mean… “Small government” Republicans were always demonstrably lying, as far back as any of them have been alive. Every one of them just wanted to shift money from things that support people to the pockets of their donors.

No, politicians make shit up to cover the fact what they really want are cops that obey them regardless of the law. Because they know if cops enforced the law equally, they’d be arrested for corruption.

Because there’s zero chance a private company will not cut corners and poison the surrounding area for a few million years.

Business tech Bros would absolutely love to force all open source closed, all long as it’s now their property.

His actions show he is absolutely not.

They are not popular. Like 30% of the voting eligible public voted for him.

No it’s more of a technical discussion. Many people might believe that in order to avoid toxicity, you just train a model on “good” non-toxic data and then apply toxicity removal techniques to address emergent toxicity that the model might spit out. This paper is saying they found it more effective to train the model on a small percentage of “bad” toxic data on purpose, then apply those same toxicity removal techniques. For some reason, that actually generated less total toxicity. It’s an interesting result. A wild guess on my part, but I’m thinking training the model with toxic content “sharpened” the toxicity when it was generated, making it easier for those removal tools to identify it.

They don’t actually care about the unborn either. They just want women to suffer, that’s always been the only goal.

This concept is very often misinterpreted by these tech CEOs because they’re terrified of becoming the next Yahoo or Kodak or cab company or AskJeeves or name any other company that was replaced by something with more “innovation” (aka venture capital). It’s all great they’ll lose wealth.

The underlying concepts are sound though. Think of a small business like a barber shop or restaurant. Even a very good owner/operator will eventually get old and retire and if they haven’t expanded to train their successor before they do, the business will close. Which is fine, the business served the purpose of making a living for that person. Compare with McDonalds, they expanded and grew so the business could continue past the natural lifetime of a single restaurant.

A different example of stagnation is Kodak. They famously had the chance to grow their business into digital cameras early on, their researchers and engineers were on the cutting edge of that technology. But the executives rejected expansion in favor of sticking with the higher profit margins (at the time) of film cameras. And now they’re basically irrelevant. Expanding on this example, even digital cameras are irrelevant, within 20 years of Kodak’s fall. The market around low- to mid-end stand-alone cameras had disappeared in favor of phones.

So the real lesson is not so much infinite growth like these tech CEOs believe in, the lesson is adaptability to a changing world and changing technology, which costs money in the form of research, development, and risk taking trying to set up production on products you’re not sure will sell, but might replace your current offerings.