Comment Re:You don't understand the difference (Score 1) 178
Why am I not surprised that rsilvergun reacts to a critical question with an ad hominem and then points to a youtube channel for "reeducation"?
Why am I not surprised that rsilvergun reacts to a critical question with an ad hominem and then points to a youtube channel for "reeducation"?
"marry two of the largest companies in any given field" should by default not be possible...
What possible good could come out of this for society as a whole?
I AM currently moving my homelab to Proxmox.
And it is as OSS as it can get: It's painful becquse even a clearly documented host key authentication between proxmox and TrueNAS ain't working out of the box.
OSS is still as much a pain in the arse as closed source, just for other reasons than closed source.
In my opinion, and it is just that, such sites don't need to be vastly expensive or large.
What they need to be is something for trolls on social media to point at as sources. If there's a list of three, people don't even click the links to read the content.
Well, we're building more than one of those 3MW wind thingamajiggs too, don't we?
While I get the concept of asking more money for the added bandwidth and not least the added production cost of these technologies, I gotta wonder how much chutzpah these streaming services have to test their customers' patience.
As far as I am aware, streaming is not the cash cow you can milk as much as you want.
His point does stand. Ships take much more maintenance than people seem to be aware of.
However these things seem small enough... and buoyant, so I guess it's feasible to just do maintenance on site.
We'll have to wait and see if the concept works out.
Both for supposedly weighing 28t and supposedly generating over one MW...
If this thing does work then I gotta say I'm very impressed.
Replying to myself because I got some updates.
I ran this through ChatGPT. Turns out burning fossil fuels releases way more water into the environment than hydrogen.
So moot point.
What it could not tell me is how the fuels compare in terms of water use across the fuel lifecycle but my gut/back of envelope thing tells me water vapor probably ain't gonna be the issue.
Hydrogen as a fuel is a stupid proposition to me still. I don't need effort and money wasted on it at this point.
And let's be honest. from THAT part it wasn't ever going to be more than lip service anyway. "Look, everyone, we're doing SOMETHING! We're not the bad guys, see?"
Something interesting was brought to my attention in a youtube comment. Yeah, I was shocked, too. That person's argument was that if we turned our life around this isntant and stopped burning dead dinosaurs in lieu of hydrogen... what impact would all that water vapor have on our climate?
And then I had to think about Sabine Hossenfelder's video about runaway greenhouse effect (as "seen" on venus) and how it was driven more by water vapor than CO2.
So I obviously don't know quite where the cutoff point is for a net positive. But I do find it, after all we've been through in the last hundred years, rather concerning when a technology is touted as THE savior with no conceivable downsides and NO COST should be too high to get this thing going yesterday.
We can already see problems in rivers where nuclear plants use the water for cooling. Imagine we proposed that ever last kWh on this planet should be produced this way. What would do that to the rivers and consequently seas and the weather?
Hydrogen could be cool for many applications. All of them, IMO, rather stationary ones. OR perhaps high sea tankers. Not individual transportation. Never that.
Copper is the medium, VoIP more in the range of protocol.
I don't know why you list VoIP as a replacement for copper. That would be fiber, 5G or perhaps Starlink over which VoIP then runs.
In my country it's gonna be a while before copper is out the door. Both cable and DSL use it.
The war and the climate HAVE our attention. But since we can not agree on what needs to be done globally, you could throw a trillion at the problem and get not one step ahead.
I mean let's be honest, instead of trickling money and equipment inti Ukraine, we could just cough up the dough all at once, arm them so hard the Russians piss their pants... but that might trigger extremists in Russia who might escalate to nuclear and then what?
So we're scared to go all out.
As for the environment, there have been many projects that turned out fraudulent or a net negative for the environment. So if we coughed up a handful of trillions, we run the danger of yet again feeding money into projects that make things worse.
Humans are cautious with good reason: There's morally decrepit people everywhere and they are certainly not above abusing your good intentions for their own gain, everything else be damned.
That's why we diversify. What's good for finances... well, this is finances so there you go
Ditch the internet, ditch the 50 inch TV screen in lieu of the dash, give me a full EV range of 100 to 150km with a zero to 100km/h under 7 seconds and put in a generator that gets to produce electricity in its optimal RPM range and a gas tank.
Make the car big enough to haul shit and tow crap.
Because I'm owning one car and one car only and that one will do everything I ask it to passably or GTFO.
I wanted to argue but you're technically correct... the BEST kind of correct.
I so seldom moderate and when I want, I lack points.
So: This. So much this.
My Mazda SUV guzzles 14l/100km... gets a new tank o' gas about once a month. Any smaller and my cursing would be worse for the environment than this car could ever be.
fortune: No such file or directory