Last I checked, a combustion engine practically can't get above 50% efficiency.
The limit is actually 42%, Carnot Principle. In reality they are around 19%
I guess turbochargers don't follow that principle. Mercedes recently broke 50% efficiency for their F1 engine, albeit not in race-like conditions.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131772/mercedes-engine-hits-remarkable-dyno-target
For $200 I could just build a regular PC or buy a pretty sweet used machine. I don't get it.
I doubt that would be as silent and as UHD capable as the Shield TV box. I'll agree it's not for everyone, but the Shield TV box is the best purchase I've done in years.
ITER, this is where the money should go. Either that, or show us a new structure, and the math/simulations that say it will get to break even more efficiently. Or don't show us... just do it.
I just watched this presentation yesterday by Dennis Whyte from MIT, and I must say it looked quite promising. His main point was that the recent development of commercially available high-temperature superconductors has radically changed the fusion playing field.
This is due to HTSC's having much larger operating windows compared to traditional superconductors. This allows one to scale down the reactor size while maintaining the magnetic field strength. And smaller size means cheaper and faster development.
He probably glossed over some hard problems, but I must admit it sounded a lot more realistic than other fusion proposals I've heard about.
But in Norway, doesn't the tax system give everyone about the same net income, no matter how much they may gross?
No. The base tax is 36%, but there's a decent base deduction on the gross income to find the taxable income. Then, if you make more than a certain amount (taxable, higher than the average income) you pay an extra ~10% on the amount above that limit.
The "intelligent" lock screen is actually the Peel Remote app's doing. Uninstall it (ie, revert it to factory version) and the lock screen will be normal again.
Eating less often matters more than eating less overall; extended periods of fasting (such as night time) are the moment where weight loss can be triggered.
I took a simple approach and simply targeted kcals, ignoring where those kcals came from. In order to reach the kcal goal, I found that eating two meals per day works very well for me. I have a late breakfast (9-10am) consisting of two slices of 100% wholemeal bread and then dinner in the afternoon (6pm-ish).
A nice side effect of skipping lunch is that I don't get the post-lunch drowsiness I used to get. In general I feel my energy level is much more constant during the day, which has increased my productivity at work.
And as mentioned, by keeping protein and fiber high, I'm stuffed for the rest of the evening, so most days the thought of a snack doesn't even cross my mind.
Yes it's early days still. But I have high hopes for my changes to stay, given that they require very minimal effort to maintain.
Is the Tempest Attack still a thing these days?
In short, yes. Here[1] they extract AES-256 keys in minutes or seconds (depending on distance) with inexpensive equipment.
From the paper:
Using improved antenna and signal processing, Fox-IT and Riscure show how to covertly recover the encryption key from two realistic AES-256 implementations while:
1. Attacking at a distance of up to 1 m (30 cm in realistic conditions; "TEMPEST"),
2. Using minimal equipment (fits in a jacket pocket, costs less than [EUR] 200) and
3. Needing only a few minutes (5 minutes for 1 m and 50 seconds for 30 cm).
The specific target is a Cortex-M3 processor.
[1]: https://www.fox-it.com/nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/Tempest_attacks_against_AES.pdf
Come back in one year and tell us about it. 6 months is not evidence when it comes to diets; most dieters gain back the weight after 12 to 18 months.
Well the thread won't be open then. But the point I was trying to make is that I'm not on a diet. Specifically it is very important for me not to feel like I'm on a diet. That way I won't have to resist my old life style going forward.
Instead I've changed my life style in a way that minimizes the amount of "force" required by me to maintain the new life style.
A key component for this was to make sure I could still eat the things I want to eat. Instead what I do is I adjust portion sizes and relative abundances of ingredients to make sure my meals fill me up for longer, and that they're below my kcal target. Specifically I try to make my meals contain much more protein and fiber compared to my old meals.
For example I use Romaine lettuce for my chicken or salmon salads as it has much more fiber compared to Iceberg lettuce. When I wok I use more chicken and veggies, and skip the rice and noodles. When I have a hamburger I use a bigger patty and skip the french fries.
I do that because I realized one reason I snacked a lot was that I got peckish late at night, before bedtime. Changing my meals the way I did means I feel stuffed until I go to bed, so I don't get any craving for snickers bar or whatever that I have to force myself to resist.
To lower the target weight, the key is not to exercise more or eat less, it's to gradually increase sensitivity to leptin, by having a carefully tuned rotation of high fat and carbs aspects to the diet.
My personal experience is that that is BS. In January I decided I should do something with my weight. I had a BMI of 34.1 then. As of today I have a BMI of 25.6, a net loss of 29kg.
I didn't do any "careful balance" of anything except making sure my daily energy intake was ~500kcal below my target. I still eat pizzas and hamburgers whenever I feel like (which is quite often). I'm still losing weight, as I'm still consuming less energy than I expend on a daily basis.
My key for losing weight was to figure out ways to hit my reduced kcal target without feeling like I was on a diet, so that I wouldn't have to resist urges for a snack or an extra meal.
The top quark has a lifetime on the order of 10^-25 seconds, so short they don't hadronize. So doubt there's any chance we'll make tt particles.
You see the same with programmers. With each new framework, with each new testing suite, code profiler etc.pp., the number of people necessary to develop and maintain a given project is reduced. While programmers will be needed in the foreseeable future, their number might be much less than today.
This assumes the projects will stay the same in complexity and in numbers.
At least at my work, for almost every project, there's a large number of things the client would love to have but which we can't do because it would require too much manpower and thus is too expensive for the client. Some projects are just too expensive in total, so never gets off the ground.
So I think the increase in productivity would be offset by an increase in overall project complexity, and in the number of projects that become viable to do. Of course it's hard to predict just how this interplay will pan out.
What I find puzzling is when looking for a good horror movie (because there are so many bad ones) I see a lot of movies with critic ratings in the 90s and audience scores in the 40s or 30s. That isn't the genre I would expect that in.
Audience score of horror movies seem to be strongly correlated with gore and "direct" scare amounts. That is, popcorn flicks. Critics score them quite differently, at least so it seems to me.
For example take https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_blackcoats_daughter/. It isn't a movie with lots of teenagers getting ripped to pieces or similar visual gore. It doesn't have monsters jumping out at you etc.
It is slow and creepy, and you have to work a bit to piece together the story. So as a popcorn flick, it's a complete miss. But I wasn't after that, so I enjoyed it very much when I watched it.
What is XML even used for?
We use it a lot for data exchange with various other systems. Most systems we talk to have moved away from fixed-width, comma-separated or EDIFACT files to XML.
Of course, frequently the XML files we get has clearly been generated by a bunch of printf()'s with all the specification-breaking stuff that can lead to. Still, it's nicer to work with than fixed-width or comma-separated files, and easier for humans to read and manipulate than EDIFACT.
Being "royalty free" can mean different things, so I checked the source, which is quite explicit about this point:
In addition to Intel's Thunderbolt silicon, next year Intel plans to make the Thunderbolt protocol specification available to the industry under a nonexclusive, royalty-free license. Releasing the Thunderbolt protocol specification in this manner is expected to greatly increase Thunderbolt adoption by encouraging third-party chip makers to build Thunderbolt-compatible chips.
So yeah, seems there shouldn't be any legal reasons preventing AMD to implement it.
Given the direction of Windows 10 I though I should check out the state of desktop Linux again. So I installed it on an Intel NUC I borrowed and hooked it up to my secondary monitor.
Been using it for a couple of weeks now with KDE Neon and it's fairly nice.
However one thing is sorely lacking compared to Windows: decent remote desktop software seems to be non-existing. By decent I mean near-native speeds on good (100Mbit) lines, bidirectional clipboards and sound-to-client. Without that, I can't replace Windows.
Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"
