If you make it worse, it's cheating and getting caught. Sometimes you might luck into a correct usage of a word, but like using a LLM, the nuance of that word choice is not part of your thinking, so it's a loss of information that you did to try to appear to be a better writer.
Not my field by any means, but I think it's primarily to avoid adhesives that are difficult to handle during recycling.
Turning the paper molecules into simple sugars and using thosr as an adhesive is presumably beneficial because the sugars would easily dissolve in the water when the paper is recycled. Most other industrial adhesives as I understand it are hydrophobic, so aren't as easily removed.
Looks like using expensive technology to provide exactly the same effect that was provided by the cheap starch-based adhesives that were used for paper when I was a child.
I really hate the people who have thought that it is a good idea to replace the water-soluble starch-based adhesives that were used for labels on bottles when I was a child with modern adhesives that are insoluble in water and which are a huge PITA if you want to reuse a bottle and you want to remove the labels from it.
No expert but water-soluble adhesives like wheatpaste and such rely on the water getting absorbed or evaporated. In an industrial setting I guess that makes it too slow.
Also in an industrial setting I can see an advantage of eliminating an ingredient.
As for removing labels off bottles, I seem to recall my grandpa putting the bottles in a bucket of water and washing soda (sodium carbonate), and just letting them marinate for a good while. Wasn't super hard but a bit of a chore like you say.
But might it just be easier to develop and apply similar sugar adhesives, or other compatible or soluble adhesives (in quantities that will not affect the recycling process)?
OFC, if you never introduce anything new, it is easier to feel like it is a "pure" process. Yet, what says the heat treatment isn't actually creating new molecules that could be recycling-incompatible, even though they never "add" any new material?
I had the same thought, but there are two differences: the amount of these compounds (presumably low) and how they behave in recycling compared to current adhesives. Maybe they wash out, maybe they can accumulate to a large degree without making the recycled paper worse.
The article doesn't tell, unfortunately. Worst case, a cool technical article is the only thing the technology is good for...
“Maybe they wash out” … “The article doesn’t tell”
It seems like you are engaging in rather emotional response when you admit you’re just hoping and making things up.
That is not a very scientific basis. Are you biased towards this project or Fraunhofer by any chance, maybe just Germany in general?
I agree with all the legitimate criticisms, especially considering that it is very possible that what they’re actually doing is using the laser to essentially create a hydrocarbon based glue in situ from the primary material itself.
It is an interesting discovery and process in and of itself. I’m not sure why there seems to be this obsessive defensiveness of Fraunhofer in the comments here.
There could be several reasons, but the PRopaganda people on this are going about things rather ham-fisted. My guess is that there are specific “eco” type grant or funding requirements that need to push the idea that it’s reducing “carbon” or oil dependence and can do away with mean old, no good, totally awful plastics; and cannot just be honest because of that, because all of the environmental stuff is so frequently inherently dishonest and rather delusional even, because ironically, the money of funding and profit and going to market cause their own greed, just from a different angle.
A hidden little dirty secret in Germany in particular is that all these boutique niche solutions are really just greenwashed, statist “capitalism” rather than greenbackwashed, de facto statist “capitalism”.
They’re both just theft from the multitude to enrich the minority, just by different means.
Fraunhofer institutes are not bullshit factories, they are doing research partially funded by industry, and the companies funding them are generally not the bullshit-heavy types (i.e. megacorps). The megacorps do their research in-house.
That’s chemically not correct in and of itself, but I do wonder if through the process they are effectively creating a hydrocarbon by freeing the oxygen from the carbohydrate to create this magic non-adhesive adhesive.
Carbohydrates are oxidized hydrocarbons and hydrocarbons are reduced carbohydrates.
They can be and they are interconverted, both in living beings and in the industry.
In paper, most of the wood components except cellulose have been removed, so paper usually consists mostly of carbohydrates.
In general any adhesive is neither a hydrocarbon nor a carbohydrate, but a derivative of them. Natural adhesives are usually derived either from proteins, e.g. various kinds of animal glues, or from starch or from various kinds of gums or of resins or of latex.
Bitumen has been used as an adhesive that consists mostly of hydrocarbons, but it also includes some oxidized components that provide most of the adhesion, as pure hydrocarbons have lubricating properties, not adhesive properties.
People kept sailing past the Houthis even though some ships got attacked. They sailed past Somali pirates too. So ships obviously tolerate some level of risk from violence.
Safety is statistical and depends on human behavior. Unexpected behaviors might appear. For example some places require a power outlet on kitchen islands because with out, people will use cords to the wall which creates tripping hazards.
Also, why do wires have to be fixed to joists every 300 mm? It's not about the electrons.
That already happened is key to your idea and I think you'd have got a better response if you included it initially. It's actually quite a worthwhile concept. Blame can't change the past. The important reason we blame is to help our mind cope with the loss we suffered. But if you can succeed in coping by thinking the past is immutable, that's even better.
It gives you satisfaction. That's the whole value and it can be worth a lot to not hold bitterness long after the problem has passed. I agree with your parent. The cogs are part of the machine, they don't deserve any sympathy just because they chose to do bad things for money any more than a robber deserves sympathy because he's poor.
> The cogs are part of the machine, they don't deserve any sympathy just because they chose to do bad things for money
That's a bit of a stretch saying that someone who enforces the rules around disability for a job is doing bad things for money. These same rules filter out a lot of scammers that if not stoped would mean less money going to the right people.
It's also a low skill low pay job, probably worked by a large percentage of people who are close to the poverty line and just trying to make ends meet to support a family.
You sound like the people proposing how a social network could operate without making people addicted to doomscrolling. Anyone can make a worse service like that but it won't stop the superior service from operating, which is the problem.
I guess I wasn't clear that I'm proposing a statutory limit on gambling amounts, not a voluntary limit by the service, as an alternative to banning it entirely.
It's not a sign of insider trading that several people created accounts "around the time" Trump suggested winding down the war. It could have been after he publicly said that. This article is just made up crap fueling the FUD about government secrets being leaked by predictions markets.
Wouldn't the successive measurements contain some information of that uncertainty, if we assume the cooling rate is relatively smooth, locally in time?
A logarithmic fit to their data indicate a standard deviation of 1 ℃ in the residuals. This includes both model error (the logarithmic fit is not that tight) and errors in my transcription from the plot, so the actual uncertainty of the measurements is probably even less.
(The logarithmic fit was lazy. I tried a dual exponential fit and the standard deviation of residuals dropped to 0.45 ℃. Appears that measurement error is very small.)
There could be a consistent bias due to the placement of the thermometer. You can't expect the LLM to assume that the temperature of the water means the temperature in a bottom corner of the cup which I guess is where the thermometer's sensor was. If he had told it how he would place the thermometer, then it could have known that, otherwise, what if it's being clever and finding an average temperature or one that would be measured at some other location? This seems qualitatively consistent with the fact that most models predicted higher temperature than what he measured because of hot water rising and cooling being greatest near the walls of the cup.
This isn't really uncertainty so much as not defining the meaning of "temperature of the water".
This is one of those 'you can just look at it' sorts of datasets, it's really not plausible that the uncertainty in the measurement is affecting anything.
Unless you're one of the bulk of 1x programmers who aren't doing anything novel. I think it will be like most industries that got very helpful technology - the survivors have to do more sophisticated work and the less capable people are excluded. Then we need more education to supply those sophisticated workers but the existing education burden on professionals is already huge and costly. Will they be spending 10 years at university instead of 3-4? Will a greater proportion of the population be excluded from the workforce because there's not enough demand for low-innate-ability or low-educated people?
To add, just keeping up in this industry was already a problem. I don't know of many professions[1] with such demands on time outside of a work day to keep your skills updated. It was perhaps an acceptable compromise when the market was hot and the salaries high. But I am hearing from more and more people who are just leaving the field entirely labeling it as "not worth it anymore".
[1] Medicine may be one example of an industry with poor work-life balance for some, specifically specialists. But job security there is unmatched and compensation is eye-watering.
> I don't know of many professions[1] with such demands on time outside of a work day to keep your skills updated.
This is an extremely miopic view (or maybe trolling).
The vast majority of software developers never study, learn, or write any code outside of their work hours.
In contrast, almost all professional have enormous, _legally-required_ upskilling, retraining, and professional competence maintenance.
If you honestly believe that developers have anywhere near the demands (both in terms of time and cost) in staying up to date that other professions have, you are - as politely as I can - completely out-of-touch.
Sure, but those same professional certifications and development hours also allow them to not need to re-prove their basic competency when interviewing.
reply