1,112 karma · joined June 8, 2020
Measured over 10 s after a 10 s burn-in period, Julia 1.7 on Ubuntu 21.10.
Ruby is slightly slower than Python or Rust, 11 MB/s. I was expecting Python to be slowest among the interpreted languages, apparently not. Pypy yields a speedup to 70 MB/s.
Summing naive implementations (for each i: start with empty string, append fizz/buzz based on the modulus of each, then conditionally append i and print):
Julia 45 KB/s Ruby 11 MB/s CPython 15 MB/s Rust 16 MB/s Pypy 70 MB/s C 160 MB/s
I would guess it's the println! macro eating the time.
>Third, a heatwave in August of 2020 led to rolling blackouts across [California] as demand for electricity (to power air conditioners) outpaced supply.
Dry hot places have a better power solution, trivially.
Cold places, for the same reason, do not.
Meanwhile, parts of the former USSR have heat that really is too-cheap-to-meter.
I've lived somewhere with storage heaters. They are horrible, practically indistinguishable from no heating at all. A large enough thermal mass would require a complete rebuild.
Could pose some organisations an interesting dilemma, where to draw the line for the extra expense.
Housing, for the most part, does not do this. New housing is rare, and I can't walk away from that market, or even reduce my usage without severe loss of quality of life.
So yes, the only thing a landlord did for me is have more money than me when I was born, which if you look closely, isn't actually a service at all.
The wind lobby has professionals who made the case to people who matter. That's not evil, that's your - the industries - job.
At a high level the nuclear industry, sorry to say, honestly doesn't care. It's the Boeing of the energy world, except even more so: wring every last drop out of dead tech, and never invest a cent.
It takes very little empathy to realise that driving a car is a huge technical barrier compared to a wheelchair/scooter/just walking slower. There is no reason you need to be healthy to avoid car use... except one. That motorists will kill you if you don't quickly get of out their way. I've seen large parts of my local area become completely inaccessible to the less-abled because of fast roads, so can it with the "I'm thinking or the sick!". You're not.
Or to just go look at which cities are not color-coded into mansions and slums, and notice those cities are ones where the poor do not need to maintain their own expensive machinery for basic tasks. Because ... again, I don't believe I need to explain that. It's a deliberate choice you're making to not understand it.
Except they're not comparable are they? A decent chunk of that 75% is winter heating. Which, weirdly, lots of Russian districts have pretty much solved, somehow, without gas. Wonder how?
It got to the point we were redesigning components to take into account vastly decreased maintenance intervals.
Whilst I don't want to defend the plastics industry, I have to find my delivery today funny: a small plastic part carrying a prop 65 warning. The part is made of polyacetal, and so contains no flourine, amine or cyano groups, no aromatics, not even a double bond.
How?!
- track record of linux compatibility. If it's Windows or out, I'm out.
- good keyboard.
- good screen, > 1920x1080 although 4K is overkill, preferably 16:10.
Macbooks look tempting, but I just don't trust Apple to not break any workflow that isn't editing videos about how great Apple products are. The current keys are good but - sorry, the (pre-butterfly!) keyboard on my OH's MBP is awful, easily the worst keyboard I've ever used on a >$1000 laptop.
Radioactivity is, funnily, one of the easier human health hazards to manage for precisely this reason - by definition, it's (generally) detectable. Not as easily as, say, a bear, but easier than a virion or most regular chemical contaminants.
Plus, radionuclides don't actively evolve.
Just like SpaceX, like it or not you're not going to avoid some government involvement. (You know what, I wouldn't call the unashamedly public-sector development in the '60s sluggish either.)
Being super preachy, as a cliched straight white etc etc... after riding a bike I sort of get complaints about -isms, emotionally, in a way I wouldn't without.
Everyone has already concluded that you deserved it. Whatever happened. It does not matter if you were wearing hi-vis, or had a light, or were in a bike lane, or the nearest bike lane is 5 miles away and on the pavement for some reason, or were 3.1 ft from the kerb or 2.6. If you were stopped at a red light and are now sprawled in front of it because a van didn't, you're clearly lying. If a motorist jumps a set of temporary lights and hit you when you had the green, you're clearly lying. You deserved it, always and forever, is the only argument you need to know, the rest is window dressing.
Now we wonder why kids don't get exercise.
Incidentally, look up the radionuclide emissions of a coal (or even heavy oil) plant, such as the one used when the wind stopped blowing. They're literally only allowed because the radionuclide standards applied to fission aren't applied to coal.
No one in the private sector has much faith that any decade-long giga-reactor project (in the West) will come to fruition, let alone the multiple projects needed to leverage assembly-line economies.
A rejigged submarine reactor already has those economies, and might have a better chance of producing profit within five years.
For reference, the amount of the very nasty waste produced by a lifetime's electricity demand for an average European citizen (so you probably want to multiply by 2 or 3 for future usage), immobilised in glass, is about the size of a hockey puck. A very deadly hockey puck mind, a kill-you-from-twenty-paces hockey puck, but a solid hockey puck.
You know what we haven't figured out? How to even re-concentrate the several tonnes of dispersed waste product fossil fuels put into the atmosphere for the same number of kWh, not as an accident but as part of normal operations, and that's currently wreaking havoc everywhere.
If that's her calculation, she needs to redo it.
Of course, and for everyone but contrarians, sometimes the US has goals that are a net good. Sometimes the US doesn't, and sometimes the US uses the military inappropriately for commendable but open-ended goals. This isn't open-ended, and not having the tanker is a net good, and you'll notice I emphatically did not suggest using only the US military. I suggested the US military provide security for whatever deal is struck.
Assuming we're living in reality, what non-force-backed solution do you propose that doesn't end with "Thankyou for $ASSET. There has been problem. Send more $ASSET."... Forever?
The non-explodey solution is most likely going to require *both* sending enough money to Houthi leadership to save face, plus turning up with enough muscle to ensure an agreement to remove the oil is honoured.
Sounds like a macro-economist to me.
There's a full-blown, easily predictable and indeed predicted, environmental crisis that's *never* going away. Mitigating it requires a commitment to what any reasonable person considers a significant drop in living standards in both the developed world, *and* among the peoples of the developing world, who did nothing to deserve it.
Let's say you have two vehicles, both doing 10,000 miles per year. One gets 10 mpg and the other 50.
Would you rather upgrade the 10 mpg vehicle to 13 mpg, or the 50 mpg to 100 mpg?
Not only should you pick the former - you should pick the former even if you could upgrade the 50 mpg vehicle to run on nothing.
Though in that specific situation, the sufficiently smart and motivated could probably infer hand information.
1. Allocation of new space is free, at least up to 2x the input size. 2. Moving a contiguous set of elements is as cheap as moving one element. 3. Moving an element, or set of elements, has a cost proportional to the distance moved.
True. From an amoral perspective it raises the question, why did the fossil industry win?
Usually, the given answer for an upstart industry failing is "they're small and idealistic, thinking that the best idea rather than the best lobbyists determine success". But that's clearly not true here.