gregable

Unfortunately, dams really don't represent that big of an energy store in practice.

You are primarily going to get responses from people on threads like this who like and use DDG regularly. Selection bias. If you didn't find DDG useful, you wouldn't be using it, and probably don't have much commentary to add.

I don't see them truly competing with big budget search engines, but it's probably easy enough to make decent money from keyword ads and if you can sell the brand, you can get enough users to cover a smaller machine footprint and R&D budget that's orders of magnitude smaller.

The results are probably not awful (I don't use it). Result quality gets exponentially more difficult as you try to push that boundary, so you can probably get 80% of the quality there with 1% of the investment. The results may be good enough for plenty of folks, but I highly doubt they will ever be better than the big budget search engines.

I've been trying to figure out a good way to create a date picker for a user's birthdate, and coming up short.

Most date pickers assume that the date is in the near future and that the "day of week" context (ie: tuesday) is useful to the user is selecting the date.

Birthdays are the opposite. They are typically decades in the past, the user doesn't know or care what day of the week they are, and the user knows the numerical date by heart.

The only things I've come up with are:

1) Text entry that attempts to accept different formats and displays the formatted parse of the format next to it. Decent on desktop, text entry on mobile is poor.

2) Big array of Years / Month / Day buttons. The possible range of years is limited (nobody alive was born in year 1200) to a little over 100, so this does scale. User simply needs to tap on the correct button 3 times, which is nice, but the picker takes up sooo much visual space.

No clue. The value of stealing that trailer goes up a lot more though if it's a stack of high density batteries.

The gas range extender though means that you can take your EV on a road trip and refuel in a matter of minutes. Overnight you charge, but during the day, you fill up along the way.

Renewables do make for more intermittent supplies of power. However EVs have the potential to smooth that out. Charging speeds across a city can float somewhat with available power and most consumers will not care or even notice.

At some point those cars can actually be part of the grid's storage capacity, if the infrastructure is built to allow the car to put some of it's capacity back onto the grid during low availability. EV drivers willing to have 20% of their battery be drained when they need to drive can get paid a small amount for leaving their vehicle plugged in while not in use.

It seriously takes me 2 seconds tops to plug or unplug. That's zero as far as getting in the way of my life. And it isn't necessary to do this every day either.

This is a false dichotomy. One's own vehicle is far from one's only mode of transportation.

The DC fast-chargers are pretty good for me. I drive an 3y old Leaf with 85mi range, so I get an 80% charge in about 20 minutes though, which is hardly a big deal. It'll take me 5-10 to gas up as is, and usually the chargers are somewhere I can grab a coffee or whatnot while it's going.

That exists, but also is unreliable. I've seen chargers that believe they are operational but the card reader is broken for example, so there is no way to authenticate.

There is a DC fast-charger at a walgreens not far from where I live that is broken 90% of the time (*not scientific) and always reports available online.

Read the article. This isn't going towards buying EVs, it's going towards installing a public network of charging stations. Wealthy or not, you won't buy an EV if you can't charge it.

It also explicitly places an emphasis on placing stations in disadvantaged communities, and focuses on heavy duty vehicles including buses. This is not primarily putting in Tesla charging stations.

In theory, if you can pair generation and consumption more locally (such as a solar roof powering the car sitting under it), transmission costs can drop as well.

In the small scale, producing infrastructure that can bill your meter going both ways only increases the cost.

But in the large scale, not having to build and maintain more high-power distribution towers across hundreds of miles of difficult to access terrain decreases cost.

I think this is a bit far fetched, but I like the idea of something similar. Have rental stations with trailer hitch gas generators that I can pull along for longer rides. Turns every EV into a Chevy Volt.

I won't go somewhere with my EV unless I can get back without charging or there are 2 DC fast-chargers at different installation sites in the area I'm going. 2 chargers in the same parking lot are more likely to be 'down' for the same maintenance issue simultaneously. I still find DC fast-chargers are unreliable compared to gas pumps and there are far fewer of them. Though I will say the Evgo chargers at Whole-Foods/Amazon have been great.

About 1/3 of the time I'm doing this, I end up waiting in line for 20-45 minutes behind someone else anyway before I can start charging. I imagine this will only worsen if more infrastructure isn't built.

My wife and I have 2 vehicles, and only one is EV largely because of this issue. There are too many places I can't go with an EV without significant risk of being stranded. Stranded in this case may mean waiting 4 hours to charge up at the more common Level-2 chargers.

> But it is the only diet research that can actually generate knowledge.

> The studies you cite are nice and all, but the first two are for studies that measured outcomes after 6-8 weeks. If you assume an average lifespan of 70 years, the longest study represented ~1/450th of a human lifespan. And, as you mention, they only measure what we think are valid indicators, not actual outcomes! And the third study may control for all of the things you mention, but it doesn't control for the other foods the study participants ate!

I fully agree with everything you wrote about the science here.

However, many of the epidemiological studies are over very large populations and time periods, so it's not as though the body of evidence consists of a 6-8 week studies. And honestly the fact that the effects are so strong in such a short period of time strengthen the argument in some ways.

> Really the only piece of information that you need to know regarding red meat is that public health messaging for the last 50 years has been that people should limit red meat intake. And it was successful. According to this, red meat consumption has decreased from 133lbs per person in 1965 to 107lbs per person in 2016. But it is during this exact same time period that the obesity epidemic came into existence. So, perhaps red meat is marginally bad for you, but it is almost certainly not cause of all of the various afflictions that we think are caused in some way by our diets.

Interesting response. I never claimed that meat was bad, only that leafy vegetables were good. I find it almost incredible that your argument against the nutritional value of leafy vegetables is that there aren't enough double blind clinical trials, and then your defense of red meat uses a time correlation that doesn't adjust for any confounding variables at all. It also cites a document from an meat industry group. If you look at USDA numbers (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per...), overall meat consumption has been consistently and slowly rising, however beef is being replaced with chicken, so yes red meat consumption is declining.

I fully concede this (and jacobolus's) point. I'm not a health researcher either, so don't take my word for any of this.

Building a double-blind clinical trial regarding changing people's diets over their lifetime and observing cardiovascular mortality is very hard.

Some clinical studies do exist, but they are usually looking over shorter terms and at heart disease risk factors rather than mortality. These show similar results:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16368299 - Systolic blood pressure decreased from 144 (SE +/- 1.1) to 134 mm Hg (SE +/- 2, P < .001), and diastolic blood pressure decreased from 87.4 (SE +/- 1.2) to 83.4 mm Hg (SE +/- 1.2, P < .05) from tomato extract.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26328470 - In the subgroup of hypertensives, quercetin (onion skin extract) decreased 24 h systolic BP by -3·6 mmHg (P=0·022) when compared with placebo (mean treatment difference, -3·9 mmHg; P=0·049).

Many of the epidemiological studies also adjust for many of the features that you might look for. For example https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/30/1/130/619054 adjusts for "age, randomized treatment, body mass index (BMI), smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, history of diabetes, history of hypertension, history of high cholesterol, and use of multivitamins" and comes to the same conclusion.

This type of article also triggers confirmation bias. "I found an article that said eating salads is sometimes bad for me." + "I ignored the body of research that says that eating salads is almost always great for me.".

Honestly, whatever form of cooking gets you to eat them is probably the best preparation.

Some nutrients in some vegetables are diminished by cooking (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-3841... for example). Some are also enhanced. For example: lycopene from tomatoes. Overall, it seemed to me that cooking often harms nutrition more than it helps.

Keep things in perspective though.

That article mentions 3,000 people per year die from food poisoning, and leafy vegetables are the cause of 1/4 of that, or 750 deaths/year.

However, heart disease alone causes 610,000 deaths per year (https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm). "Individuals who ate more than 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per had roughly a 20 percent lower risk of coronary heart disease" (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...). 20% of 610,000 = 122,000/year. That the heart disease risk reduction is 162x more significant than the food poisoning risk increase, should be more than enough to outweigh the risk of food poisoning.

However, and less clear, there is also evidence that leafy green vegetables protect against diabetes, cancer, dementia, and Alzheimer's.

Depends on the locale. In many places, there is more housing than demand for housing, and so rent is based on the cost more than the ability to pay. In bay area markets, rent is based on the renter's ability to pay of course.

It is just a subset of HTML (as is amp). Most email providers that accept HTML formats already only accept a subset of HTML. This is just a different, more formally defined, subset.

That's fair, but I think losing perspective of the tradeoffs. The AMP preload will fetch only the main html file and AMP javascript. Images, videos, etc are all deferred until later. The javascript is cached for a year, so you probably already have it. So, compressed, this is probably ~100kb or less.

Google doesn't start preloading 50 documents, it loads the top result or 2. Even viewing a hundred amp pages in a month is going to cost you less data than one 10kx10k unoptimized image that a publisher decides to load, which happens a lot. Note that AMP optimizes images too taking into account your device resolution, so it's most likely saving you bytes.

Note also that Google doesn't show AMP for desktop user-agents.

Good question. Preload that actually renders the documents includes running enough javascript and parsing enough CSS that the initial document will render. With a non-constrained document, that can include fetching resources not on Google's servers and which can peg the CPU, causing jank.

If you do constrain what can run in your preload to avoid these, you end up designing AMP.

This is strictly slower than an AMP preload, which is why I mention that even a .txt file will load slower. The .txt file document still requires a network round-trip, regardless of javascript.

On some wired connections, a network round trip is within user-perceivable 'instant', but for many people on mobile devices, this is very noticeable.

https://hpbn.co/mobile-networks/

Even on the best LTE networks, the 'core network latency' is 40-50ms. 'core network latency' is the latency for getting the packet from the phone to tower to the packet gateway. This is before the packet even goes on the internet. And you need to double it for the round trip. You usually need to double the whole thing for initial DNS lookup.

Best possible latencies for an html page load on excellent LTE connections without prefetching are around 150-200ms. Most users in the world will experience >1s. A United States major city wired connection is not at all representative of what most people experience on a mobile connection.

  >  MAX = <reasonably fast load time>

If you define 'reasonably fast' as ~10ms after click, the only possible option is AMP. Even a .txt file will be orders of magnitude slower.

Privacy reasons mean that it is basically impossible to load the content from the publisher's server until after the user clicks on the result. If you wait until the user click event to load the content, then there is nothing you can do to avoid a full network round trip.

AMP preloads the minimal content before the click, removing the round-trip. That's the whole magic, and the only way to get the 'instant' load.

There are unavoidable technical requirements to do this:

- Loading from Google's (or link provider X's) servers to preserve privacy.

- Constraining the html so that the load itself can't break privacy or add jank to the search result page.

If you aren't willing to accept these constraints, then you are always going to face a network round-trip in added latency. You can't have all 3 of:

- Zero perceived latency

- Privacy

- Serving from the publisher server

You can only pick 2. AMP forces choosing the first 2 which are what the vast majority of users care about.

Then AMP goes way out of it's way to give publishers back everything they could possibly miss from the 3rd.

The look-and-feel argument is a misunderstanding of AMP. What you probably notice are pages generated by the Wordpress AMP plugin, which does not implement much in the way of different templates.

AMP has some severe constraints on javascript, but is pretty non-constrained on HTML and CSS.

Nearly all HTML5 tags and attributes are supported, including non-standard tags like <big>. It even allows super-non-standard tags like "<o:p>" which was part of an old microsoft word export-to-html feature.

Take a look at some of the examples on https://www.ampstart.com/

http://ampproject.org/ is AMP and https://daily.spiegel.de/ is AMP. These look very different.

There are thousands of threads on search ranking forums of folks reporting traffic rising or falling significantly, right after making change X on their site, for myriad values of X, many of which make zero sense as a ranking factor.

Search ranking is complex, and sites move in search referrals by ~30% on a daily basis without making any changes. Perhaps a different major site removed pages. Perhaps a few important links were added to your site (or to a site linking to your site).

This is really beautiful. I love that the images are SVGs as well, makes perfect sense for these line drawings. Though it is a little bit of a bummer that all of them have embedded fonts, even those that don't use text.

Note also that due to browser caching, Google wouldn't even get some sort of "tracking benefit" if they wanted to. Most of these documents do not trigger an actual browser request for these javascript files.

Also, if the webmaster wants, they can simply add `rel=noreferrer` to the script tags. This is still considered valid by the AMP Validator.

If the publisher provides both AMP and non-AMP versions of a document, it is possible to write a browser extension that will redirect to the non-AMP URL when provided.

You would want to look for <html amp> to detect this case, and then <link rel=canonical> to determine the possible non-AMP URL. If that URL differs from the current URL, redirect to it.

If you personally want a per-user option here to override the publisher, this seems like the way to go, but there is some similarity to ad-blocking here.