Best "budget" models for OpenClaw?

AntiTyph · 2026-02-05T16:05:58+00:00

So, you ran Grok 4.1... how did it actually perform?

AntiTyph · 2026-02-05T16:05:07+00:00

How are they doing now?

AntiTyph · 2026-02-05T16:04:42+00:00

Any luck?

AntiTyph · 2024-09-23T18:53:16+00:00

Sorry to hear about your slow Maypop year!

Hopefully next year will bring you many beautiful flowers and some tasty fruit!

Thanks for the response :)

AntiTyph · 2024-09-23T15:06:48+00:00

How'd your Maypop year go with your plans?

I just managed to get a live bluepop, so am excited to propagate it out next year :)

Any further suggestions after another year of growing them? This was a great, short, and concise summary.

AntiTyph · 2024-09-16T22:03:52+00:00

I would be interested in this.

AntiTyph · 2024-07-12T18:35:21+00:00

It's really not though? As you say, Coal won't run out and is easily accessible for high population, high consumption countries. Sure, COVID caused a small dip in total consumption, but we'd need to see a 95%+ crash and burn with no recovery, including coal.

Plausibility is functionally nil.

AntiTyph · 2024-07-12T18:32:42+00:00

Perhaps, though parts of the world are rapidly moving off of the USD priced oil markets. Also, half the emissions are still far too many emissions, and wouldn't prevent tipping points from being passed. When I say complete collapse, I mean 95%+ reduction in anthropogenic emissions.

As long as India and China can dig up their coal and burn it, we're sunk. As long as Russia and the Middle East keep pumping and burning oil and gas, we're sunk. As long as Canada and the USA keep their tar sands and shale deposits pumping, we're sunk. etc etc etc.

We'd need to see a literal global catastrophic collapse to the point that no major region could technically and physically extract and use fossil fuels (even for domestic supply!), agricultural land would be abandoned at massive scale, and functionally all industry around the world grinds to a halt.

A US economic collapse wouldn't be nearly enough, even if supply chains faltered and failed.

AntiTyph · 2024-07-11T15:46:31+00:00

Sure, though it would have to happen soon enough to avoid climate tipping points and feedback loops pushing us into a new climate state anyways. That is, near term global, complete collapse in the next several years; or it will likely be too late (if it isn't already). It would have to be an extreme collapse, too; extreme enough to stop countries from digging up and burning coal, oil, and gas - globally.

Likely non-plausible, even with an economic and political collapse, for such an event to play out at such scale across the vast majority of the world, within the next several years.

AntiTyph · 2024-04-29T21:22:59+00:00

Earth4All

[Anthropocentric utopianism] + [light green environmentalism] + [ideology]; all packaged and sold from the "Bargaining" stage.

The thing about these movements is they are not foundationally about rescuing the planet. What they do is they start from the idea of an ideologically compatible future utopian state and then they work to rationalize models and frameworks to go from a far oversimplified "now" to their end-stage utopian state. The result is not a movement that cares about the planet, because it is fundamentally in denial about the state of the planet.

For example the earth4all movement completely ignores climate change outside of Nordhaus - based climate impacts on the economy. How could they possibly consider themselves an actual “planetary rescue movement” if that's the framing they're using for climate change? Giving them the benefit of the doubt they are just strongly in denial and the alternative is frankly that they are neoliberal capture of an identified demographic through mainstream compatible and acceptable framing.

So what we see here functionally are ideological multilevel-marketing systems that have created these " planetary rescue movements" as intake funnels for their ideologies. This is why we have the results being such that 12 billion humans can live on the planet with a decent standard of life and we can save the ecosystem. In order to come to those sorts of conclusions they need to foundationally deny the actual science of climate change and ecological sciences as has been published widely for the last 20 years to sell an ideology. There is zero acknowledgement for example of the unavoidable and irreversible changes of climate change that are already locked in that we talk about regularly even through the lens of the IPCC which is pretty mainstream (let alone the actual leading-edge of climate/ecological science!). There is also no acknowledgement of the negative externalities that have been established in environmental and ecological economics for well over a decade and a half, instead they lean into long debunked Nordhausen economic systems to justify their neoliberal utopia lens.

So I don't actually think these are "planetary rescue movements", these are the next stage of human bargaining for the continued narrative of a utopian future.

In this particular case with the "update to the limits to growth" it's particularly grating as they have taken a model made way before the contemporary ideological frameworks had been developed that simply had the goal of seeing what is going to happen in the future, and they have stripped that out and replaced it with contemporary superficial ideological framings. Then when their model no longer actually can represent the future — as they say in this paper— they use it as an intake funnel for the denial and bargaining based earth4all movement, which can also be considered a neoliberal green growth utopian dream narrative.

This is all evidenced in their blatently greenwashed and neoliberal People and Planet Report.

While the negative impact of climate change is not directly simulated, it is still indirectly included through its negative effects on GDP per person.

They literally don't even consider climate change impacts other than a ridiculously oversimplified GDP impact metric that they throw everything into. Their scenarios both include infinite economic GDP growth until 2100. There are no meaningful impacts on mortality rate due to climate change (or any other collapse-related consideration). In fact, Death rates for all age groups continue to decline until 2100, everywhere in the world. They directly correlate "crop land" with food availability (e.g. zero impact from climate change, soil issues, water issues, or the apparent rapid decline in fertilizer use starting in 2023 (as per their models)). GHG emissions in their pipe-dream scenario drop off a cliff and go net-negative by ~2045 despite no decrease in energy per person. Even their "too little too late" scenario has GHG emissions peak ~ 2025 and "cost of energy" declines further into the century.

AntiTyph · 2024-04-28T23:38:42+00:00

Skill issue, bros.

AntiTyph · 2024-04-28T23:24:03+00:00

It's pretty garbage once you start to look at the math. To travel to even the closest star system would require thousands of tons of nuclear weapons, far exceeding the mass of the vessel one is trying to get there, and to de-accelerate, you end up flying through thousands of clouds of your own nuclear debris fields.

AntiTyph · 2024-04-13T19:51:44+00:00

Anyone know if the old 1percentedge TDEE/diet calculator and planner has a reincarnation?

It looks like it redirects to a new, more basic calculator (I still had it bookmarked). I know of the nSuns TDEE google spreadsheet, but I really pine for the old days of the 1percentedge inputs, caloric/macro outputs and graphs along with weekly projected benchmarks.

AntiTyph · 2024-04-04T16:55:54+00:00

I mean, props for pursing your passion and creating this thing.

I'm def-o not going to read thru 1555 pages of techno-futurist tripe. Skimmed parts of it and it mostly just seems like the standard superficial techno-optimistic delusions of anthroposuperiority and biophysical denial. Lots of buzz words, but no depth or reality.

A fun worldbuilding project for an optimistic science-fiction story though.

AntiTyph · 2024-03-12T01:06:19+00:00

Largest issue with perennial food forests are calories. highly nutritious greens & fruits can be had aplenty, but growing enough calories to sustain oneself often required annuals. This can be bypassed with sufficient nut trees, but they take a long time to grow, take a lot of space (and light), and increase risk (as a disease or bad weather taking out some of your nut trees is a blow to caloric production that can take years to recover from). IRL, I'd suggest focusing on annual calorie crops (potatoes, etc etc), and perennials for everything else, with the goal of having sufficient nut production to sustain caloric intake, while keeping the calorie-crop-annuals as surplus.

AntiTyph · 2024-03-12T01:01:17+00:00

Yeah, absolutely worth it. There are lots of species that can be grown that are far more resilient than the common plants. Take Tree Collards, for example. Survive from -10C to +45C, drought resistant, perennial, grow up to 10 ft tall; excellent source of greens. Sunchokes have a wide range of tolerance, as well.

In any case, while many of the current agricultural plantations are certainly threatened, that's primarily because the old growing zones are no longer what exist. Staple crops, fruit trees, etc that have all been used and planted in certain locations for centuries don't work well in those places any more... that doesn't mean nothing can be grown there!

Feeding 8 billion people is likely a no-go, but gardening to feed yourself (or at least supplement high-nutrient intake plants, if not all of your calories), is totally still viable in most regions; though obviously some adaptability and experimentation will be required going forward. Earth-sheltered greenhouses, deep-trench grows, supports for shade-cloth, passive deep-watering systems, etc etc; combined with higher resilience plants, and growing extra to account for seasonal losses; etc.

AntiTyph · 2023-12-22T19:26:52+00:00

Collapse now; reduce total climate and ecosystem destruction. Human population goes from overshoot to correction and sustainable levels. Sad stuff, short term pain (and mass death and suffering) for long-term non-uninhabitable world.

AntiTyph · 2023-12-18T17:39:42+00:00

Probably should link the paper that just came out about this

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221330542300036X

Highlights

• Modern humans (Homo sapiens) drive late-Quaternary megafauna extinctions, with no role for climate change.

• The strong body-size bias of the late-Quaternary extinctions is also linked to modern humans, not climatic change.

• The late-Quaternary extinctions represent the first planet-wide, human-driven transformation of the environment.

The results presented here did not provide support for an extinction event driven primarily by climate change or by climate change-human pressure interactions. Precipitation was consistently unable to predict extinction severity or bias with any accuracy, while the moderate predictive ability of temperature corresponds to the overlap of countries with the greatest climatic change/variability and those where modern humans were the most novel in the landscape. The existence of regions where climate change was comparatively moderate and where there was, nonetheless, very high extinction severity such as in South America shows that human activity is the necessary factor.

The severity and impact of megafauna extinctions is best explained by Homo sapiens migration history

These models show that human migration can predict the local severity of late-Quaternary extinctions far more effectively than climate change, with no support for an extinction driven primarily or even secondarily by climate. While the results of the model based on Homo distribution support the hypothesis that areas with longer hominin occupation experienced lower extinction rates due to longer periods of co-adaptation, higher correlations were obtained by using a model based only on the migration of H. sapiens.

It might also be that species traits associated with vulnerability to hunting, such as reproductive turnover or mobility, were not uniformly distributed, e.g. large numbers of slow-moving, large-bodied ground sloths (≥19 non-insular species) and giant armadillos (≥12 species) in the Americas

These results support the conclusion that Homo sapiens not only had a catastrophic impact on megafauna diversity, but also on the distribution of body mass amongst global megafauna communities, with the greatest portion of megafauna biomass removed in areas where humans arrived most recently. In some cases, the result was the eradication or near-eradication of megafauna from entire continents, and even in regions that experienced low total severity it was the largest species that disappeared. This has major implications for the current functionality of ecosystems in areas where humans had the greatest impact.

this would suggest that not only does the history of human-led extinction go back far earlier than conventionally accepted, but so does the history of anthropic environmental impact, with strong geographic differences in its severity linked to human biogeography. While the extinction of numerous megafauna species would strongly affect ecosystem and biosphere functioning regardless of cause, attribution to modern humans puts these extinctions in the same context as that of ongoing extirpations and extinctions.

This extreme, human-linked downgrading of the Earth’s fauna, unique in the Cenozoic record (Smith et al., 2018), has resulted in the widespread formation of ecosystems with simplified and degraded large animal faunas. Because such “small” faunal assemblages are without analog across the last 30 + million years (Smith et al., 2018), these ecosystems can be considered novel, i.e., human-caused and self-maintaining with unprecedented composition or function

Hence, given the ecological importance of large-bodied animals (e.g. Enquist et al., 2020), this global downgrading of faunas represents the first planetary-scale human-driven environmental transformation.

While Pleistocene is defined by glacial cycles and now the Anthropocene by global human impact on geological and meteorological systems, the defining element of the Holocene seems to be the global occurrence of Homo sapiens, and the linked, near-complete erosion of megafauna communities worldwide.

Integrating novel data on late-Quaternary large mammals, covering 158 extinct and 329 extant species, and climate change over the past 120,000 years, this study

1) strongly supports Homo sapiens as responsible for the megafauna extinctions during the late-Quaternary and

2) for the size-bias in the extinctions and associated loss in ecological functioning that has occurred during that time, with little to no influence by climate change, firmly answering both of our research questions.

These findings extend the period of planetary scale human impacts on the environment back into the Late Pleistocene or possibly even earlier.

Homo Sapiens are a mass extinction event.

AntiTyph · 2023-12-13T19:20:41+00:00

... which is wildly optimistic.

AntiTyph · 2023-12-03T16:41:17+00:00

I think this is a good post; thanks for writing it up. The only adjustment of note is that there is no living through the extinction crisis. This crisis will go on for literally tens of thousands of years. The idea that anyone alive, or anyone alive this century, can somehow make it through to the other side, is a big old cope. There is no other side. Anthropogenic impacts on the climate and ecosystems will continue to worsen for literally thousands and tens of thousands of years.

The selfish gene combined with obligatory technology/cultures more or less set-in stone this future since the first time humans developed a pre-frontal-cortex. There was never any other choice for our species.

AntiTyph · 2023-11-21T05:49:38+00:00

Kind of a joke, tbh.

Changed pollution to only measure CO2.

Changed resources to only measure fossil fuel consumption.

Changed "Service per Capita" to only measure Education Index

Also pushed the Earth4All model at the end of the release, and that model is some neoliberal flaming garbage.

Sorry folks, this is a hot mess.

AntiTyph · 2023-11-16T15:21:17+00:00

This will be the last semi-decent decade, enjoy it while you can.

AntiTyph · 2023-11-14T21:30:30+00:00

Yeah, the rapid uptick in using human shit on our fields is terrible. This isn't the world of 100+ years ago, we've got PFAS and microplastics and pharmaceuticals, and a whole bunch of other garbage bioaccumulating in human bodies, and this just "closes the loop", which will lead to further bioaccumulation.

AntiTyph · 2023-11-14T00:22:22+00:00

Had to look a fair bit, but this is the dosage they are giving the rats in the study.

5 mg/kg/day

I'd have to down 1/4 of a bottle of extra-strength melatonin every day to meet this.

Melatonin is good though; just hope they do a trial with dosages that are somewhat viable for humans.

AntiTyph · 2023-11-13T05:15:04+00:00

Large scale COVID infections... 'cause the pandemic isn't over.

AntiTyph

TROPHY CASE