Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@ir_rkp Kaukolämpön sähkökattilat myös samalle verolle. Ei ole järjettömämpää sähkön tuhlausta kuin veden keitto sähköllä surkealla hyötysuhteella toimivassa kaukolämmössä.

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@ari_oikarinen Missä se on?

[Linas Beliūnas @linasbeliunas]

Aswath Damodaran on AI bubble:

“Dot-com was an equity bubble. AI is becoming an infrastructure debt bubble.”

In the 1990s, many internet companies raised money, built websites, burned cash, and disappeared.

When the bust came, shareholders got wiped out.

AI is different, because this boom is not just apps and pitch decks.

It is data centers, GPUs, power contracts, fiber, leases, project finance, and private credit.

The numbers are wild:

↳ Goldman Sachs estimates hyperscalers may spend ~$5.3T on AI/data center capex from 2025–2030

↳ Morgan Stanley estimates ~$2.9T in global data center construction from 2025–2028

↳ Top hyperscalers are projected to spend ~$600B in 2026 alone, with roughly 75% tied to AI infrastructure

Dot-com asked investors to believe in traffic.
AI is now asking lenders to believe in utilization.

If demand keeps compounding, the buildout looks genius.

But if demand disappoints, the problem is not just “stocks go down.”

It becomes stranded capacity.
Refinancing pressure.
Private credit stress.
Defaults.

AI may end up becoming the defining technology platform of our lifetime.

But the bubble risk is not where most people are looking.

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@TumeniShots @IlkkaAuer Eikö näistä ole luovuttu aikaa sitten?

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@JukkaLepikko Bensa edelleen kallista. Onko jalostaminen pullonkaula

[Paul Powlesland @paulpowlesland]

The Environment Agency should definitely be worried now. My Daily Mail status has been upgraded from yesterday’s “do-gooder” to today’s “well-meaning”.

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@vontuchman Muskin puhalluksissa osake on se tuote. Eli kauppa SpaceX päätuotteella alkaa tänään 😀. Retail on kiinnittänyt talonsa ja ostavat päämärkänä call optioneita. High 200. Sitten WS alkaa myydä optioita ja close 124.

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@vontuchman Uskonnollinen tapahtuma. Kulttipastori Musk saarnaa.

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@VartiainenPasi Miksi 100% autoilijoista ei hidasta? https://t.co/RuoXpxpCVE

[Tomi Ihalainen @tomiihalainen]

Väistämisvelvollinen kuorma-autoilija ehtii ekana kolmion takaa risteysalueelle.

Saattaisi ehtiä edestäkin, mutta odottaa.

Henkilöautoilija voisi hidastaa risteykseen ja ”joustaa”, mutta ei.

Turvallista ja selkeää.

Miksei pyöräilijän väistäminen onnistu yhtä helposti? 🤔

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@vontuchman Suomessakin jo gigan verran paneeleita. Jenkeissä paistaa paremmin ja Mississippistä länteen on paljon tyhjää tilaa. Talvella sitten ajellaan puolitehoilla.

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@pirijanne @aki_nieminen Balttiaan on tullut isokasa aurinkopaneeleita lisää viime vuoden aikana.

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@jain_harshit @Bing_BangBoom45 I thought is was Integrated Circuit.

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@Isotuoppi Toivottavasti tämä oli vitsi. Entä jos 8v pääse hengestään tolla viritetyllä skootilla?

[Gabe Wilson MD @Gabe__MD]

PREPRINT REVIEW
—————————
45 domain scientists spent 469 hours rating 2,960 individual criticisms from peer reviews of 82 Nature-portfolio papers, mostly from Nature Communications. The reviews came from both human reviewers and three frontier AI models deployed as tool-equipped reviewing agents: GPT-5.2, Gemini 3.0 Pro, and Claude Opus 4.5.

Averaged across papers, GPT-5.2 had a higher rate of fully positive criticisms, defined as correct, significant, and sufficiently evidenced, than the top-rated human reviewer baseline. 60.0% versus 48.2%. P = 0.009. In holistic expert judgments, it matched or exceeded the top-rated human on about half of papers. All three AI reviewers exceeded the lowest-rated human across every dimension.

The tradeoff matters: AI reviewers were less factually correct than the top-rated humans (86.2% vs 92.3%). The win was on significance and evidence quality, not accuracy. Their accurate criticisms were more often rated as significant and well-evidenced, and surfaced a distinct 26% of issues that no human reviewer raised.

The honest limitations: AI reviewers overlap with each other far more than human reviewers do, 21% versus 3% for cross-reviewer pairs. They exhibit 16 recurring weaknesses including limited subfield knowledge, poor long-context management across multiple files, and a tendency to be overly critical on minor issues. The authors position current AI reviewers as complements, not replacements.

The most actionable finding is not "replace peer reviewers." It is "add one AI reviewer to a human panel." In the paper's simulation, a 2-human-plus-1-AI panel preserved the amount of useful unique feedback while reducing reviewer noise.

This connects directly to the Rodman conversation from earlier this week about evidence infrastructure. Peer review is one of the primary bottlenecks in the scientific evidence pipeline. If AI can surface a quarter of issues that human reviewers miss while producing higher-significance critiques on the issues they share, the implications for the speed and rigor of scientific publication are significant.

Posted to arXiv this week. Preprint. But the signal is strong enough to take seriously.

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@alatjon @koukkarijukka @Geenimetsuri @MikaelNiku Ihan sama homma. Jalka tulehtui ja alkoi paisua limpuksi. Kuvat chattiin ja sen jälkeen juuri kerkesin apteekkiin joka sulki klo 23. Kyllä digiloikalla saatiin tehoa.

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@SuominenJyrki Vastike unohtunut? Oikeasti monttu vieläkin syvempi.

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@muatiaiskissa "AUTOILIJOIDEN MAALITUS ON ERIASIA"

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@muatiaiskissa Kannattaa tutustua. Siellä maalitetaan usein myös ala-ikäisiä eikä eri asteiset väkivallalla vihjailut ole poikkeuksia. Sitä ryhmää kun luet niin et ehkä fillarin sarviin en uskalla.

[Apina 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 @api__na]

@mattimolari Yksi syy lisää vetää nimimerkillä. Voimia.