EntrePrescott

all the more reason - whatever the observed timeframe - for us humans to not behave like assholes towards insects and other life or nature in general.

"Trust" would sound nice, but it contains "rust" so it might have given an attack surface for a trademark infringement lawsuit by some un-t-rust-able foundation.

Different sodium based battery technologies have existed for quite a while (much longer than lithium based batteries actually), and research as well. And there were already a couple niches where some of them managed to establish some foothold, e.g. in the domain of high-temperature batteries.

But most sodium based battery types either had a too low energy density to be competitive or they had other drawbacks that - while sometimes controllable in lab or industrial conditions, made them unsuitable for common mainstream mass uses where lithium batteries are established.

Only quite recently have we reached a point where new Na battery types emerged that simultaneously 1. do not suffer of such problems, 2. have a sufficient energy density AND 3. have made it to a commercially viable alternative to the common Lithium-ion-batteries for mainstream uses. Let's hope this time is the right time for the Na battery revolution. We'll see.

depends by what measure… if it's just about how much lithium is theoretically estimated to exist in the earth crust, then one could twist together an argument for lithium to be somewhat "abundant" (even though even by that measure Sodium is, depending on the source, 1000 to 2000 times more abundant).

But if it's in terms of practicably available (mineable or otherwise practicably extractable at a sub-exorbitant price) lithium reserves, it's quite bleak actually, and we are currently forced to either rely on a small set of limited reserves, mostly concentrated in a few rather uncertain countries of origin… or to resort to extremely expensive low-yield extraction methods.

In contrast: Na (Sodium) is trivially and cheaply extractable from salt, which is readily available everywhere in much larger quantities (be it as sea water or from salt mines which are enormously more common than lithium mining) for cheap.

Maybe the next big disruption is not about making better batteries based on Li (Lithium) but to ditch Li for most mass use purposes and go with a different material, e.g. Na (Natrium, vulgar name: Sodium)… which unlike lithium is extremely abundant. It would (at least in its early less optimized versions) have a slightly lower energy density at about 200 Wh/kg compared to the current best lithium-based state of the art batteries, but still be in a similar ballpark and easily enough for many applications, especially given the much cheaper price.

Some manufacturers (e.g. CATL in China) are apparently already ramping up for Na battery mass production.

https://archive.is/qJQPn

interesting. Here's another video where one sees how the precision of this Moore curve drawn with epicycles varies with the frequency range:

https://old.reddit.com/r/woahdude/comments/6udj3e/moore_curv...

… sounds like classic Google Graveyard

https://killedbygoogle.com/

The fact that the shutdown of nuclear energy in Germany is based on irrational ideological fearmongering and that it's doubly stupid to do so BEFORE having finished building up sufficient renewable energy generation and storage capacity, thus leading, at least temporarily, to a de-facto replacement of a sizeable proportion of the part previously held by nuclear energy with fossil energies like coal that are far more dirty (with CO₂ and other pollutants)…

… doesn't in any way change the fact that Germany has indeed been massively investing in renewable energies and has built up enormous capacities in that domain that account for a much higher percentage of renewables in the energy mix than the overwhelming majority of developed countries… and that those early and continuous massive investments by Germany have played a major role in bringing these renewable energies to the much improved viability, maturity and price level they now have.

There is no contradiction between those two facts.

just to avoid any misunderstanding: by "you don't even get decent dual-band GNSS receivers that output raw data but don't have integrated RTK like in ublox M8 times" I meant… "like in ublox M8 times" for single band.

setMode(CONSPIRACY_THEORY);

maybe because the NSA had enough compromising stuff (aka kompromat) on some high-enough Intel bigwig(s) to convince them to implement it. As in: "a nice career and family life you got there. Would be a pity if that all went down the drain just because of some stupid scandal, wouldn't it? Besides, by pushing this simple little feature for us, you'll be proving to be a real patriot. You wouldn't want to be a non-patriot now, would you?"

While I strongly doubt that, I'll still add the end of the joke:

… and Mitchell Baker will fire all of Mozilla's engine developers and use the money saved by that to give herself another multi-million dollar salary raise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker#Negative_salary...

Using rtklib like that with ublox modules was actually the common norm for affordable precision enhancement on a single band at the time of the ublox M8 family, before the era of dual band modules (such as the ublox F9 family), because you could still get relatively cheap modules that didn't have integrated RTK but gave you the raw data so that you could do it externally with RTKLIB. But single-band only i.e. not the same precision as dual-band today.

Nowadays, with dual-band modules, it's no longer necessary nor advantageous to use an external RTKLIB, as the sufficiently precise dual band modules all have RTK integrated i.e. you don't even get decent dual-band GNSS receivers that output raw data but don't have integrated RTK like in ublox M8 times, so there's nothing to be saved by using RTKLIB with available dual-band GNSS modules. And it's not practicable to do dual-band with two single-band modules because you wouldn't get their time references synchronized to a sufficient level for dual-band RTK iirc.

The problem is that the dual-band modules (F9 and such) are - for lack of competition and at least for now and the foreseeable future - waaay overpriced, especially since you need two of them (rover + base) to reach centimeter precision… hence the question about the possibility of doing it with a SDR instead.

Predators were… designed?

…that is: raised pigs of selected breeds, and more importantly: almost never uncastrated males, as their meat tends to have a bad taste (so-called boar taint, see link below) that makes it unsellable. That's why the overwhelming majority of raised-for-meat male piglets are castrated, so as to not develop that bad boar taint taste, at an age less than 14 days old. A cruel procedure by the way, which is at most places still done without any anesthesia or analgesia (pain relief). With feral pigs of course, none of that happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar_taint

Another prediction would be: maybe Western states start blocking Chinese businesses that don't comply with their laws.

After all, China already blocks the Western businesses that don't implement the spying/surveillance measures the Chinese communist party wants.

The more the Chinese communist government continues pushing a war course against Taiwan makes that even more likely, e.g. in the context of sanctions.

Just as a reminder: The original stated task was to protect against "untrusted intermediaries" and "patchy network connections", and in particular to make "sure that the *intermediaries* haven't added, changed or removed any posts in the feed." … which can perfectly well be done with simple signed, timestamped, indexed posts and having the reading client app check the signature and post indices.

In contrast, this here, which is the only thing the blockchain struckture really adds:

> The signer (malicious or not) can resign an old message & effectively overwrite a previous message

… is a rather radical shift of the goalpost, as the only capability the blockchain really adds is to protect against modification not by untrusted intermediaries (which was the purpose and which would already be covered without a blockchain) but by the legitimate owner/editor of the feed.

In other words: The only thing the blockchain adds is that it makes it impossible for YOU as the user to edit YOUR OWN posts. I'm not sure that's something most people in the social network context (as opposed to, say, a financial transaction ledger) would see as a feature and not an anti-feature.

> For SSB, the aim was to be able to gossip feeds via untrusted intermediaries, with patchy network connections all round, and be sure that the intermediaries haven't added, changed or removed any posts in the feed.

why would that need a blockchain (even without proof of work), as opposed to simple signed, timestamped, indexed posts and having the reading client app check the signature and post indices?

is it possible to use it to reach centimeter-precision with dual-band RTK like with two (base+rover) integrated dual-band GNSS RTK modules (e.g. ublox F9P or Skytraq PX1122R)? I mean, your first link seems to show a config example for 1575.42 MHz and 1227.6 MHz, so it would theoretically be imaginable?

I don't even need real-time. I'm fine with sampling/recording the data for the required duration and then running a lengthy (e.g. half an hour) calculation process on it, as long as I get centimeter-precision position data in the end.

These integrated centimeter precision dual-band RTK GNSS modules are unfortunately still terribly expensive (for lack of competition), so it would really be great if this was possible with a <= 250 dollar SDR solution (especially given that SDR hardware can be used for lots of other stuff as well instead of being a one-trick pony like a GNSS module).

and a few years later, we get Injecternetes … though I'm not sure if that will be the name of an improved fork… or the name of a security vuln exploit.

aside from the privacy thing and practical use, cash does have the following major advantage/function:

It's the one thing that stands in the way of governments (or supranational unions) pushing negative interest rates or even harder means to surreptitiously or openly disown citizens via the money itself e.g. as an easy way to reduce the state debt in times of state debt crisis.

Of course there are other ways for states to do that (e.g. inflation)… but those come with much bigger other problems and obstacles for any politician who would want to use them.

At least DW is totally transparent about it. A quick look at their web site gives you that info immediately. The info page about it even figures as one of the top Questions in their FAQ:

"DW is Germany’s international broadcaster. It is organized under public law and funded by the German federal tax budget."

https://corporate.dw.com/en/what-kind-of-company-is-deutsche...

"DW is financed via funding from the state, i.e. from tax revenue. This is in contrast to the domestic public channels, which are funded via broadcasting fees."

https://corporate.dw.com/en/who-finances-deutsche-welle/a-36...

> The only good customer is one that willingly opts into all ads I guess.

There's indeed some truth to that as well in the sense that the customer is the one who wants the ad to be displayed in the first place and pays for it. So it's a form of opt in as well.

That being said, the user who sees the ads is not the customer but the product. And yes, the best sellable product (i.e. user) for Meta (Facebook, Instagram etc), Alphabet (Google etc) and the like is the one that willingly opts into all ads.

Is there a big difference in principle between that and the "shared video memory" that has long existed on cheap x86 machines?

…or is it just that the latter had a way too weak iGPU and not enough RAM for AI purposes, whereas the bigger ARM MACs have more GPU power and enough RAM (more than most affordable discrete graphic cards) so that they are usable for some AI models?

yeah, LOL on that. Their idea of "public benefit" is of course that they benefit publicly, though for marketing purposes "public benefit" sounds nicer (just like the "Open" in "ClosedAI") because people would tend to emotionally associate something nicer with it.

Reminds me of the (possibly LLM-generated) marketing tirade of a voice faking text-to-speech service recently here on hn, which ended with: "We are thrilled to be sharing our new model, and look forward to feedback!":

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35328698

… "share" yeah right… like: where can I download the model then? Of course they didn't mean to actually share their model but only to rent out remote access to it, but that doesn't sound as nice as "share".

Feel free to come up with a new system that works better. Good luck (so far, all alternatives have proved worse, and not just slightly worse but terribly worse)

And we in the photography business have a term for a person like the author who takes/collects lots of pics of fins:

a FinFisher aka FinSpy.

Of course we are free to do that, and in fact you can easily find such comments on Western forums, whole subreddits full with such drivel and even specialized forums just for that. It's called freedom of speech and is one of the basic rights in liberal democratic societies, as opposed to totalitarian societies (be they communist, fascist or theocratic).

If only there was also a country where GPUs are cheaper by the same factor.

> That’s a fast track to undermining any moral right whatsoever

What is? If you mean the absurd idea of wanting to base those on the murky and subjective notion of "natural" rights, then I fully agree. If on the other hand you mean the reminder that such subjective notions of "natural" rights are a shitty wobbly base for any moral rights (or most other rights as well for that matter) legislation, then no, not at all, quite to the contrary:

The fact of being aware of what rights are (a civilizational norm that grants the individual the protection of their possibilities, as opposed to some inherently subjective notion that a physical possibility would somehow be more special than another because of a subjective view of "god" or "nature") is actually positive for individual autonomy… and a crucial part of enlightenment as far as the legal parts of civilization goes.

In contrast, arguing for concepts based on what they believe to be "natural" is what reactionary forces do in order to restrict individual freedoms. Not so long ago, we had lots of discriminations based on that, e.g. on the idea that black people were "naturally" below white people, that women were "naturally" to obey some role models or that being gay way an abomination against "nature". Arguments based on ideas of "natural rights" have - outside of very narrow special subgect niches directly related to the individual's life and bodily autonomy - always been a major factor against individual freedoms.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that legal systems can also come up with factors restricting individual freedoms based on totally unrelated factors.

> It restricts what you can say or write

so do laws against slander and laws against unconsented divulgation of personal data. Now don't get me wrong, I agree that the domain of copyright does need some reform. But it's clearly not as simple as just to remove everything that somehow restricts (be it copying and sharing of data or other possibilities).

Otherwise any privacy laws and laws for data sovereignty and against unconsented divulgation of personal data would fall as well. They too are based on the legal concept that everyone has an ownership of their data. And more generally, laws about rights are almost always the result of a complex balance to find between the rights and possibilities of many sides.

how would you compare (both in terms of what relevant difference it makes from a usage perspective and of a qualitative evaluation of what's better/worse) Bazel's Starlark with Nix's own functional DSL, for the purpose as a language for build file definitions?