Unless the GPU output is feeding back into the game loop simulation, there’s no nightmare.
I’ve worked on games with intentional determinism, and it’s a very valuable tool. A playtester can hand a dev a recording of the game inputs (including clock) for whatever bug they encountered, and the dev can fast forward to the exact point and repro it 100%. The amount of time saved chasing down difficult bugs is enormous.
Most code before LLMs was human slop, not the carefully crafted artisanal blocks of fine braces you claim. AI today produces better slop than most devs ever did. And LLMs are getting better - humans were never on an upward general trajectory.
> Most code before LLMs was human slop, not the carefully crafted artisanal blocks of fine braces you claim
Agreed most code from the past is to be kind very ordinary and is filled with many code smells, but they do get some or many things right.
> AI today produces better slop than most devs ever did. And LLMs are getting better - humans were never on an upward general trajectory.
You fail to make the distinction between the engineers of the past and the audience who vibe codes of today. The later dont know the mosts of best or good practices.
Thats a big difference, those that know NOTHING about software engineering those that know something.
AI only generates what it is told, and guess what garbage in garbage out, because non software engineers dont know or think about the basics.
The BESS market is doing OK in the US. Politicians will come and go but the fundamentals of BESS are solid, so I don't see why the installed base won't keep increasing in the US.
> During the first six months of 2026, operators added another 8.3 GW of battery storage capacity, reaching nearly 52 GW of nameplate battery storage capacity
Depends on who you are talking to. Battery engineers tend to talk about capacity as storage potential (energy). The rest of the energy industry (resource planners, developers, manufacturers, etc.) talk about capacity in power terms (instantaneous discharge.)
When you see people talking about Lithium-based chemistries, you'll often only see power terms because they are almost always for 2-hr projects. Nowadays you'll see more differentiation between 2-hr/4-hr/6-hr storage (and a few interesting companies doing 100-hr+).
Unpacking the headline - A 600MW project of 4-hr lithium is 2.4GWh of storage capacity. The capacity rating of this project is 600MW, the storage capacity (2.4GWh) is an ESS specific attribute.
Another important dimension to capacity is how much accredited capacity your project has. Usually projects are only given credit based on some set of historic averages of how much system load the asset actually serves (e.g. if you for some reason had a battery could only discharge at high noon every day, 200GW of this resource would in a sane world have an accredited capacity of near 0 because it's completely coincident with existing solar.)
I dunno. I vacillated on that. It's something like 45–50 GWh nameplate currently installed, and ERCOT has 177 GW / 371 GWh of active planned battery projects in the interconnection queue. BESS are used for peaker-like capacity and load balancing, so GW is actually a pretty relevant number here.
YMMV depending on where in the US you are. California has like 10x'd it's battery storage in a couple years, to the point where it's the main source of electricity during some time slots where we used to be dependent on natty gas.
Edit: although it looks like in recent days, fossil fuels reign supreme once the sun goes down. I guess we don't have enough batteries for the current heat wave
Not really. The market is still moving quickly towards renewables. It's only some conservative politicians in the US that are making noise about fossil fuels, not the market.
The market does not fix the administration paying wind projects billions of dollars to stop development.
The market does not fix the administration forcing coal plants to stay open even when they are losing money.
The market does not fix the administration cancelling grants for clean energy projects and subsidies for electric cars, and adding tariffs to solar panel imports.
And US car manufacturers are enthusiastically moving away from their efficiency goals. That market is not moving quickly to renewables.
The market is doing its best to ignore the administration.
Most of the coal plants forced to delay retirement aren't producing energy. They sit idle with minimal staff.
The US manufactured 70 GWh of grid battery storage in 2025 and is expected to make 145 GWh in 2026. That still does use a lot of imported cells, but US cell production is expected to reach 96 GHw per year by the end of this year.
Recent polls found that 47% of Americans plan to buy an EV within the next 5 years, and 35% say they are seriously considering one for they next car.
By age 75% of 18-34 year olds expect to buy an EV in the next 5 years. 23% of those 65 and older expect to.
I don't think US car makers are going to ignore that.
They are currently beefing up their hybrids. Ford expects by 2030 for about half its cars to be a mix of hybrids, extended range vehicles, and EVs. GM says they plan to introduce PHEVs across the lineup by late 2027/early 2028.
Ford and GM also are using the time between now and when we get an administration that is sane to divert the engineering teams that worked on their first generation EVs to skunkworks projects to design small very cheap EVs that can compete on price with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean cars by 2028.
They also believe that when sanity returns they will be able to scale up their new EVs fast enough to not lose out.
> The market does not fix the administration paying wind projects billions of dollars to stop development.
This would be the politicians I mentioned.
> The market does not fix the administration forcing coal plants to stay open even when they are losing money.
This would be the politicians I mentioned.
> The market does not fix the administration cancelling grants for clean energy projects and subsidies for electric cars, and adding tariffs to solar panel imports.
This would be the politicians I mentioned.
> And US car manufacturers are enthusiastically moving away from their efficiency goals.
I was unaware car makers were part of the energy supply industry.
> That market is not moving quickly to renewables.
Most car makers are creating more and more electric cars, some makers are committing to 100% electric soon. Increasingly energy efficient ICE cars take engineering time and money to make, money they'd rather not spend. By not making them spend it, they won't. They'd do the same for safety features if we let them.
And none of that results my core statement which is the energy supply market (and you knew that's what I was talking about because that's literally the topic) is still moving to renewables. More renewables come online every month.
The politicians are not "making noise", they have actual power and are making a real difference. (Except for the coal plants, so far, that hasn't held up in court.)
I know you were talking about energy industry, but I think mypalmike was being broader. That's why I called out that I was switching to talking about a different industry.
Efficiency goals are for the whole fleet of cars and don't just include making efficient ICE vehicles. They are moving the target average from 50 MPG to 35 MPG by 2031. That means fewer electric cars. “The standards finalized under the previous administration effectively required a switchover to electric vehicles that was out of step with market realities and customer demand. Today’s final rule is an appropriate course correction” --John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. https://abcnews.com/Business/trump-administration-rolls-back...
They ARE making noise because they can't actually turn back the tide. They can try, but they can't succeed. There's too much money in renewables and the momentum is too much to change now.
The US is switching to cleaner (coal -> gas) energy, renewables (solar and wind), and BESS almost entirely because it's cost effective and cheaper than the alternative.
Not a response to this comment's author but, I'm always apprehensive that other people read comments like this without the context or history of how cleantech has actually developed and internalize these overly reductive views which make us think our political system is less flexible than it really is, or that past actions are somehow divorced from what progress we do have.
> ... because it's cost effective and cheaper than the alternative ...
The wind, solar and ess manufacturers got down the learning curve largely because of industrial energy + market transformation policy. You can literally see wind installations just go to near zero whenever the PTC doesn't renew in annual installations numbers. It's great that these technologies have matured and are now the least cost resource (in some models, new solar + storage even outcompetes existing natural gas which is very exciting), but market development is a public/private partnership. I can't see what good it does to talk in broad unfounded aspersions.
I suspect that beyond just marketing, these pursuits yield plenty of useful information about model design that will likely lead to model improvements and optimizations for both mathematics and general reasoning going forward.
The Supreme Court has set precedence that video recordings of public spaces fall under the plain view doctrine: police don't need a warrant or probable cause to record things in public view.
Chatrie. It's about the use of the data, not the data itself.
Law enforcement searches a database of recorded, retained, aggregated data about people who have not committed crimes: this constitutes a fourth amendment search. Go ahead and record all you want, but when law enforcement decides to use that data, they have to get a warrant.
That case didn't cover public-facing cameras, that was about the government demanding telecoms hand over geolocation data on their users. The government was demanding that mobile providers hand over private data, akin to asking Google for your gmail contents.
This is far removed from a camera set up in a public space.
Chatrie held that the government conducted a fourth amendment search when it got the location data, even though the data was held by a third party. The reasoning was that the data revealed Chatrie's physical movements, not that Google itself was somehow a constitutionally private space.
It didn't just reveal Chatrie's movements, it revealed to movements of everyone in the geofenced area. And more importantly, it revealed movements even in private not just in public.
Again, this is far removed from a camera in a public space.
Chatrie was not about the dragnet capturing people in private spaces. It established that LE acquisition and aggregation of location information can constitute a fourth amendment search even when the observations are made in public.
But the observations in the Chatrie case weren't made in public. This was private information that only Google had access to, and law enforcement went and demanded that Google hand over that private information.
By contrast, a person can stand on a street corner with their phone and record everything a Flock camera records.
The SC's holding was that the government's acquisition of location data from a third party was itself a fourth amendment search because the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt location data. So you're kind of agreeing with me here: the data is either private and subject to a warrant, or it is in public where individuals do have a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt aggregated location information.
And again, a person standing on a street corner is constitutionally distinct from LE following and tracking individuals movement over time.
> The SC's holding was that the government's acquisition of location data from a third party was itself a fourth amendment search because the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt location data.
Specifically, the GPS coordinates logged by their cellphones.
> So you're kind of agreeing with me here: the data is either private and subject to a warrant, or it is in public where individuals do have a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt aggregated location information.
You're missing the point: Flock camera's don't record where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
> And again, a person standing on a street corner is constitutionally distinct from LE following and tracking individuals movement over time.
Wrong: as long as law enforcement are only tracking your movements in public, they don't need a warrant or probable cause.
I’ve worked on games with intentional determinism, and it’s a very valuable tool. A playtester can hand a dev a recording of the game inputs (including clock) for whatever bug they encountered, and the dev can fast forward to the exact point and repro it 100%. The amount of time saved chasing down difficult bugs is enormous.
reply