usefulcat

> Imagine if some paper hits arxiv and the 256 GB requirement for some model now becomes 64. Woops!

If you were a DRAM manufacturer, isn't this exactly the kind of thing that would make you think twice about investing years and $billions in new fab construction?

> Arguably, NG powering central electric power generation and then used for resistive would be overall more efficient.

It depends on the particular furnace or NG generator in question, but if you take the best case for each, then this does not appear to be true.

The most efficient combined cycle NG plant is around 65% efficient, without considering transmission losses. The most efficient NG furnace is 90+% efficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-fired_power_plant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced-air_gas

For the most efficient kinds of natural gas power plant (combined cycle), around 35% of the energy (from burning NG) is wasted.

Compare that to a modern NG furnace, which can be 90% efficient or more.

So if you just want heat, burning the NG directly is generally more energy efficient than burning NG to boil water to drive turbines to generate electricity and then converting that electricity back to heat via resistive heating.

Presumably because they also see at least some value in technical innovation.

It's possible for driver skill to be important without being the only thing that matters.

Crashes don't directly make for a better race; what matters is the amount of actual competition, and for that you need variation.

If every driver drove exactly the same way, then the race would be 100% down to basically just team strategy and the car itself. For fans of strategy that might be fine, but I think most people would find it much less interesting.

> Incandescents are 100% efficient in cold seasons (heater AND light).

That's resistive heating, which is the most inefficient means of heating. Worse than natural gas or heating oil, and much worse than a heat pump.

I immediately thought of this video.

There can be a lot of variation. From what I've seen, I'd say 2-5 years is a typical lifespan for an LED bulb. We have some recessed lights in the kitchen that require brighter bulbs, and those typically last only 1-2 years. But then we also have some other (non-replaceable!) recessed lights that are 14 years old and still work fine.

There was one time I bought some cheap ones from Amazon, and several of them failed within a few months. There was also an LED bulb in the front porch light (so, outside) that lasted around 10 years, despite being outside and used daily. I had several of that same type and that particular one lasted longer than all of the others, where the others were all inside and not installed upside down. So yeah, it varies.

In the one that I'm familiar with, they put the battery and all electronics in the part of the probe that sticks inside the meat so that the temperature of that part never exceeds ~212F. The part that sticks out and gets really hot is probably just an antenna.

A clever design to be sure, but still a long way from electronics that can survive anything near your typical oven temperature, much less the surface of Venus.

Hindsight is a whole other country.

Obviously the correlation is there, but the causation could go either way, if it exists at all.

Can it? Sure, sometimes, to some extent.

I think a better question is, how effective is that compared to legal requirements.

That could be true regardless of average drive lifetime..

> so the impressive ~100 MPG figures are actually worse than ICE.

If you have a specific example of a hybrid that gets worse mileage than a comparable non-hybrid ICE I'd love to hear it, because that directly contradicts my lived experience.

At various times, I've owned a 2003 Prius and a 2012 Honda Fit. The Prius was larger, had better acceleration and routinely got nearly twice the MPG of the Fit.

That was ~20 years ago; I believe newer models of Prius use different battery chemistries. On the occasions when I've driven a newer model, it got better mileage than what I experienced back then.

The problem with having everyone rely on gains from home appreciation is that it doesn’t continue to work over time.

Yesterday’s home appreciation is today’s price increase for new home buyers. In most places in the US, home prices have far outpaced inflation for several decades now.

It seems silly to even be arguing about whether or not it’s deserved when we already know that it’s not remotely sustainable.

> But you can't argue Flock the technology itself, and especially Flock the company, are totally innocent

For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that Flock is 100% evil/guilty/blameworthy in this case. Even in that case, two things are still true:

A) Flock has no authority to arrest anyone B) Flock has no authority over the police

The buck has to stop somewhere. It’s counterproductive to focus on what Flock did, compared to what the police did. And I say that as someone who is not a fan of Flock.

FWIW I totally agree with that. What I (and several others) disagree with is the idea that the concept of fiduciary duty confers an obligation to pursue profit at the expense of all else.

Is there an incentive to do that? Yes, or at least it's obviously quite possible. But is there an obligation? No.

Relative to the comment you were responding to, it sounded like you were defending the idea that an obligation exists.

The distinction matters because if such an obligation did exist it would effectively excuse a lot of bad behavior.

Where on that page is there anything to indicate that hiring more QA or mods would be so bad as to be considered a breach of fiduciary duty? That seems like a pretty big exaggeration, at best.

This behavior is a matter of incentives, not obligations. No need to apologize for them.

"Fiduciary duty" does not mean "pursue profit to the exclusion of all other considerations".

> They have more of an obligation to make money for their investors

"Obligation" is the wrong word. Should be "incentive".

"Our product is so amazingly powerful that it just might result in the extinction of the human race."

A lot of people will only hear half of that sentence. Semantically speaking.

For me personally, the prequels were very much an "emperor has no clothes" moment. There's a lot of "meh" in the prequels--in the writing, in the story, and in the direction. Some of the scenes between Anakin and Padme are just downright painful. But I could also see someone being able to overlook at least some of that, especially if they first saw the films when they were young. So I'm not here to complain about any of that.

I can sum up my biggest problem with the prequels (well, with Lucas really) in one word: midichlorians.

When he decided to explain how the force works, he took something that had been so eloquently portrayed in the OT*, and reduced it to something banal and mechanical. And there was no reason to do that. It's not like Darth Vader needed a blood sample to know that Obi-Wan was on the Death Star. And yet Lucas chose to do it anyway.

That choice showed such a baffling level of cluelessness. Like here's this guy, this supposed visionary, who has carte blanche to do whatever he wants (with what is supposedly his own story, no less) and he just.. doesn't really seem to get it?

It really made me question whether the OT were as a good as they were because of him or in spite of him. Apparently I got something out of the story that he did not.

* I'm referring particularly to Yoda's speech to Luke about the force in ESB. "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter!". Beautiful writing, still gives me goosebumps. No wonder ESB is often considered the best one.

On one hand, you do have a point, if perhaps a somewhat technical one. OTOH, have you seen what passes for political discourse on FB?

Calling it a dumpster fire would be an insult to dumpsters.

There's a big difference between a forum where every visitor sees the same front page (more or less) and something like Facebook where every visitor sees a list of things curated just for them.

If you are only exposed to points of view that you already agree with, over time it's easy to forget that some people have other points of view (which are actually not always completely ridiculous, despite what you may have heard). Note that rage bait does not count as a divergent point of view; it's almost always a cherry-picked caricature, not anything close to a good faith representation.

This might not sound like such a big deal, but do that for billions of individuals and you have the perfect recipe for the political polarization we are currently enjoying.

It’s not about the moral or ethical qualities of the CEO. It’s about the structural incentives of the organization as a whole. This is even more true in a larger organization, where any one individual has relatively little effect on the behavior of the organization as a whole.

Companies that don’t do a good job of making profits tend to go away, thus there exists natural selective pressure to put profits ahead of other concerns. Note that none of the above has anything at all to do with morals or ethics.

It's not "we didn't think of it", it's literally "the standard has nothing to say about it", which means that any standard-conforming implementation is free to do whatever it wants, meaning that different implementations may handle it differently.

> It's not literal UB it's well known what it compiles down to, every time. (.loop: jmp .loop)

That might be true for a particular version of a particular compiler, but if you assume that it's true for all standard-conforming compilers (now and in the future) then you're making an assumption that is not supported by the standard.

Yeah, I don't get it either. Like if I wanted to call std::thread::yield() inside an infinite loop, I could, you know, just do that myself?

An obvious question (that TFA does not address) is, why is the forward-progress guarantee needed? Since that is the ostensible justification for this new invisible behavior.

There would also need to exist sufficient demand for video, which hasn’t happened yet.

Those numbers are in units of "Consumption per Real Dollar of GDP", which is defined as follows: "Calculated as energy consumption divided by U.S. gross domestic product in chained (2017) dollars".

I don't know exactly what it meant by "chained", although from the context it does sound as though it might mean something like "inflation adjusted".

> The pilot monitoring saying go around should have caused an immediate reaction

Is there evidence that PM ever called for a go around? I mean earlier, when it would have actually been possible, not 15 seconds before the end of the flight data recording.

From what I've heard, PM stated (repeatedly) that they were too high and/or too fast, and PF was not heard to respond.

iPhone 11 coming up on 7 years old in December, still at ~85% capacity.

Really it mostly depends on how heavily you use it, and maybe to a lesser extent charging habits (charging slowly, not charging to 100%, etc).