icegreentea2

There's a link to product brief PDF from the bottom of the press release. Page 9 and 10 have product tables. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/content-details/8713...

P-Core Max Frequency 5.1 on the highest end, and the lowest at 4.4.

There's no hyperthreading: https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/processors/now-youve-got-so...

Dunno about AVX and APX. They're not making it easy to find, so... probably not.

It's cause you get better returns in centralized installations.

For example, NREL estimates that centralized installations cost half as much as commercial rooftop, and a third of residential (https://www.nrel.gov/solar/market-research-analysis/solar-in...) on a per-watt basis.

Now normally, in a commercial or residential installation, as an owner you don't need to pay for cost of property. But as a utility (or government, or whatever), if you need to offer loans to get these installed, then those loans act a lot like property acquisition costs.

There are definitely factors that can tip things in favour of such an approach (for example, if your land acquisition fees are particularly high for whatever reason, or you really really want a distributed grid), but I suspect that it's this fundamental aspect that keeps utilities from trying to push residential solar.

Micron pulled out of the consumer market, they're still making DRAM.

There's been no news on Samsung exiting any DRAM market as far as I can tell?

I believe HPV16/18 were considered the highest risk (in terms of causing cancer), even amongst all the other high risk HPV strains. In the intro, they state that prior to the start of the vaccination campaign 74% of cervical cancer cases in Denmark were HPV16/18, and the other 26% from the non-vaccine HR HPV strains. Following through to the referenced paper, in their study they found 20.5% of overall patients had HR HPV, with 5.4% and 2.4% with HPV16 and/or 18. However, for cancer cases, they found that 40% of cases had HPV16, and 33% had HPV18 (note that multiple simultaneous strains are possible).

There's a lot in the paper to summarize, but I think it makes a reasonable argument that HPV16/18 are especially high risk, and that "simple" replacement of the 5% HPV16/18 with another 5% of any of the other HR HPV strains would be beneficial. The linked paper suggests up to 74% (depending on your assumptions) reduction in cancer with "simple replacement".

Here's the CDC's most recent recommendations (from 2019) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6832a3.htm

The justification for 27-45 year olds heavily references a meeting. Based on time, author and title, I think either https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/78082/cdc_78082_DS1.pdf or https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10395540/ should be a fair summary of the meeting (I hope...).

I don't really have time to read it all, but the basic idea is as you said - the cost-benefit ratio is off. Basically expanding from something like the current case, to vaccinating up to 45 year old will avert an extra 21k cases of cancer (compared to the base case of 1.4 million) - so about an extra 1.5% cases averted, while the direct vaccination costs are estimated to increase from 44 billion to 57 billion (+29%).

The current guidance says "do not recommend" plus "consult your doctor". You should read that as "blanket vaccination as public policy is cost inefficient in that age range" not "you as a 45 year old should not get the vaccine categorically".

It was a misleading post.

For the HPV section specifically, there were at least two major omissions.

First, in his table showing autoimmune adverse effects, he has chosen to crop out the next column in the table containing the control conditions - which show very similar rates of adverse effects to the vaccine condition.

Secondly, when discussing negative efficacy in the case of existing persistent infection, he only quotes the data from one of three studies that the linked report covers. The linked report indeed covers the negative efficacy in study 013 as an area of concern. However, study 015 (which had roughly twice the number of total participants as study 013) showed no real evidence of negative efficacy. When all 3 studies are pooled together, the point estimate still says negative efficacy, (at ~-12%), however the error bars are quite wide.

Why this is tragic, is because these two omissions do actually point to failures in public communication about the vaccine. For example, the control condition in the Merck trials were a mix of saline injections (this is the traditional placebo), as well as injections with just the adjuvant (AAHS). This is less standard, and raises legitimate questions about why Merck used an adjuvant as the control, instead of just saline. There a cynical/conspiratorial angle to this question, which I think would be directionally correct.

The second omission is because I think there is a reasonable question of "are there extra risks associated with getting the HPV vaccine while having an active persistence infection", even when taking into account the different and larger study populations within the original trial data. Once again, I think the idea that both companies and public health agencies don't want to deal with a vaccine that requires testing before hand is true. I also believe that on a population level, even if there was a modest increase in risk in that specific subgroup, it makes sense to implement broad vaccination campaigns.

That said, I think the unwillingness of public health agencies to engage with this tricky area of communication and education creates these types of opening for anti-vaccine messaging. If you want a sense of "conspiracy" - here's a random review study - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8706722/

Notice that when reporting results, the groupings for HPV status at enrollment time are "naive" and "irrespective" - the "test positive" grouping isn't broken out.

EDIT: The article that we're discussing is https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-perils-of-vaccinating...

If Russia wasn't currently locked in a land war with Ukraine, that would largely be true (assuming that you were NATO and wanted to play by both the rules of being real democracies, and also respecting international law).

But since Russia IS locked in a land war with Ukraine, in a hypothetical world, you could retaliate by upping aid through Ukraine, OR (if you were being sneaky), laundering your actions through Ukraine.

If you want to research this, the terms to look for is something like "Russian hybrid warfare goals and objectives in Europe" (can also try greyzone warfare).

For example, here's a CSIS (American think tank) report: https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-shadow-war-against-wes...

Put simply, the goal is to add friction to anything NATO tries to do to aid Ukraine, and/or generally to improve its posture against Russia, while also trying to crack apart and erode both broad based and elite support for acting against Russia.

The Windows 11 default context menu uses a newer API (IExplorerCommand) compared the older method which involved screwing around with the registry, and having everything play nice.

Here's a MS blog post explaining why they want to move to IExplorerCommand: https://blogs.windows.com/blog/2021/07/19/extending-the-cont...

Frankly, this just follows all the same problems that MS has had with since after W7. Their own APIs have a lot of warts and problems, but MS has not been able or willing to follow through on the migration required to actually move to a whole new API. This has shown up in their Windows GUI frameworks, it's the exact same problem with the Control Panel vs Settings, and here it is again.

I can sympathize with many of the stated goals/benefits, and I can understand the technical difficulties with transparently porting registry craziness into their new framework, and infact I applaud that their fallback is "perfect" - it is just the old context menu. I just wish there was a setting toggle to set the default.

The real problem is there's no setting to default to the classic menu, and you have to do regedit BS.

The point of this entire website isn't about gold vs equity as an investment, it's about gold vs fiat currency as a superior measurement of value.

https://pricedingold.com/about/

Depending of your flavor of how the rapture is supposed to work, there is supposed to be a 7 year period of tribulations between the rapture (when X population get pulled up to heaven), and the actual second coming of Jesus. That 7 year period is generally expected to be very challenging to Christians.

Within the Left Behind book series... by the end of the first book (of like 10+), they've already revealed who the Anti-Christ is going to be, and foreshadowed the broad outline of his plans (use the UN and the forces of neoliberalism to do his bidding), and he has already basically mind controlled all the world leaders in attendance, and by the end of the second book, the Anti-Christ has managed to trigger WW3.

Direct control is by Space Force. However the US Navy Naval Observatory is responsible for (amongst other things) providing timekeeping for the DoD.

In this context, they feed timing updates to the GPS operators https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-N...

He didn't use 20C as the temperature of space. He used the OP's example of comparing the radiative cooling effectiveness of a heat SOURCE at 90C (chosen to characterize a data center environment) and 20C (chosen to characterize the ISS/human habitable space craft).

I only looked at the study about the open/free font. Two things I noticed were that the experiment design seemed to use lists of words, instead of reading in sentences or paragraphs, and that the base performance of (for example the correct letter rate) the traditional fonts were also very high (basically already 100%).

It's possible that the test used does not generalize to other reading contexts and populations.

When I feel deeply cynical about the quality of our modern life, I imagine that one of the reasons it's so easy for us to "settle" for the "good enough" output of AI in certain areas, especially around corporate copywriting, art, and yes perhaps even code is that these areas already fundamentally suck.

I believe that good skillful writing, drawing, or coding, by a human who actually understands and believes in what they're doing can really elevate the merely "good" to excellent.

However, when I think about the reality of most corporate output, we're not talking about "good" as a baseline level that we are trying to elevate. We're usually talking about "just barely not crap" in the best case, to straight up garbage in maybe a more common case.

Everyone understands this, from the consumer to the "artist" (perhaps programmer), to the manager, to the business owner. And this is why using AI slop is so easy to embrace in so many areas. The human touch was previously being used in barely successful attempts to put a coat of paint over some obvious turds. They were barely succeeding anyways, the crap stunk through. May as well let AI pretend to try, and we'll keep trying until the wheels finally fall off.

We can't observe these ancient snakes or sharks actually living, so we can only make assumptions based on their morphology. And morphology certainly constraints and suggests behavior, and so we can make some assumptions here.

That being said if the question is "why have we not seen significant morphological changes" - there are a few ways to think about this.

First is that we would be blind to many types of morphological evolution. For example, if an isolated sub population of snakes or sharks started shrinking due to isolated environmental pressures, we would be unlikely to see this, but also if we fixate on the "largest anaconda", then we would filter out all "smaller snakes".

Second, the way we talk about "not evolving", especially for sharks is probably misleading. When we say sharks haven't changed, we mean to say that the shark body plan hasn't significantly changed. And this makes sense - they have a very efficient body plan for being a hunter in the see. We have "proof" of the suitable-ness since dolphins and other whales have converged onto a very similar body plan. Conversely, there are plenty of extinct sharks with body features that seem totally bizarre (https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/four-fossil-sharks-are-cool...).

Finally, especially in the context of "the largest" - the largest animals that can exist in a given environment is.... environmentally constrained, especially for land animals. The largest anaconda is likely near the largest sizes that the local environment to support, and so something larger appear is unlikely, without drastic environmental changes.

C&C RA (1996) and RA2 (2000) both had significant naval units. RA3 (2008) went.. maybe a little overboard with naval units as well. That said, all other C&C games (Tiberium and Generals) both avoided naval units.

They did have downloadable patches for WC2 though.

It's true that it's a carve out, and current young generations are having huge problems getting homes in a lot of the world.

But in the Netherlands, the overall home ownership rate is still about 70 percent (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ilc_lvho02__c... might need to drill down a little).

In the US it's 65 percent.

Carve outs for home owners are some of the most understandable political strategies across the developed world.

I think in more general usage if you asked people what assets "taxing unrealized capital gains" would cover, you could get a basket if things like shares, real property, businesses, etc.

The article indicates that the Dutch government has decided to treat startups and real estate under the bucket "capital gains", and stuff under "capital growth".

So for an more informal standpoint, the title is a reasonable way to summarize what's happening to the layish person.

The grounding is for 6000 of 11000 A320 series. I believe it's some combination of software and hardware configuration that is at risk.

That's because politico reports on politics from an "inside baseball" perspective. The focus is much more on the mechanics of politics and government as it happens/operates, and less so on the actual policies. To do this effectively, they need access, and so will consistently softball or smooth over things.

As they say right at the start of their "About Us", "POLITICO illuminates the forces shaping global power".

For all we know that is a contingency. DoD is relatively public and transparent, but they don't reveal everything.

If that was a contingency, it would just play into the the whole cyber/information/electronic/space domains aspects of the whole "multi-domain" stuff.

Surely both China and the US have contingencies in place to try to determine if the opposing side is exploiting their PNT systems, and then figure out ways to subvert that in various ways.

Something like LORAN would be useful for operations near friendly nations and/or relatively uncontested areas.

They don't particularly help with striking Chinese assets. Which is what the DoD funding is primarily about.

It was a consideration. This is why M-Code exists - so be spoof resistant. And jamming is just a fact of life, which is why the vast majority of US military GPS guided munitions are actually GPS/INS guided munitions. They are all capable of falling back to inertial navigation, with some degradation in performance.

USG is in this position for a few reasons:

* It is actually technologically difficult to create GPS equivalent INS (or similar system). Everyone is pursuing this, not just USG/DOD. The Chinese are too for sure.

* It is true that the DoD became somewhat over reliant on GPS from a training and doctrine perspective. While they continued to develop and buy systems and munitions with INS backup, you can't operate with near total air/space/cyber dominance for ~2 decades without it somehow effecting your culture

* The war in Ukraine has been a catalyst for all sorts of technological changes, both in the West, but all across the world.

When I first booked with Sonder back in 2023 in Montreal, they were $20-40 less per night. This year, things were about break even.

At least in Montreal, the Sonder offered a very nice location in the city (especially taking into account my office location) where there were very little chain hotels nearby. I saw it as a "more predictable AirBnB".

Bummer, I really liked being able to stay in that area.

Sonder has been bleeding cash ever since it went public (via SPAC).

https://companiesmarketcap.com/cad/sonder/cash-on-hand/

It's agreement with Marriot was "completed" in August 2024. It was absolutely a hail mary.

While they might describe it as a integration failure, I think what they were actually hoping for was:

a) integration into Marriot's reservation system would reduce operating costs. From my user perspective, it looked like the Sonder system got completely replaced (like I had to make a new account and upload new ID...).

b) "Somehow" the Marriot integration would lead to increased bookings.

Both their 2025 and 2024 annual filings indicate that they were well aware of where things were going. Honestly, the filings don't really paint an optimistic picture of their ability to succeed, even with the Marriot deal.

Maybe not -40C, but honestly that's not required to capture a huge chunk of the Canadian market (BC around Vancouver, and SWO Ontario).

China has significant climatic variation, and Harbin (for example) at around 45 degree latitude is right in line with Montreal.

https://english.news.cn/20230712/a56c80cac8e749f0bcf02579463...

Plugging in 35k ft altitude, and 775 ft/s velocity here (https://www.spaceworks.aero/fcc2/index.html) gives dynamic pressure of 220 lb/ft2, vs ~2100 lb/ft2 for 1atm at sea level (the same calculator says 7k ft altitude has a static pressure of ~1600 lb/ft2, or rough idea of cabin air pressure).