Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Please fix the title (Score 1) 618

There's not a single actual bit of information about how the cheat was implemented in the article. Can we stop the hype (at least on tech oriented websites) until someone with inside information can actually tell us more about the real details? Not that they matter, but the rest is totally uninteresting.

Comment Wrong by 5 orders of magnitude (Score 5, Informative) 90

Original article has two flaws with the number you quote. It's not 566TWh, it's 5.66TWh (that's the value advertised for yesterday as total energy), that's 2 orders of magnitude. And it's not "typically" since it's the accumulated value over the service lifetime. If you want to quote a typical value, you quote current power (in W, not Wh) and the website advertise it as 6.74 GWp (p for peak, the bullshit suffix used by the solar panel industry (should be 6.74 GWbs IMHO), so the actual value is even less), that's another 3 order of magnitude. I guess the actual numbers are less impressive...

The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was.