The Apple App Store takes a similar slice of revenue and has a much smaller addressable market -- including just about none of the high-end gamers, given that current Macs are stuck with whatever GPU is built onto the CPU. "Might" is doing an awful lot of work in your comment.

The turbines are a sunk cost and so there's value in conversion than turning them to scrap and building fuel cells.

There are no sunk costs around the turbines. The existing turbines will be replaced. From TFS:

In their place, the DWP will install new combined-cycle turbines that are expected to operate on a mixture of natural gas and at least 30% hydrogen with the ultimate goal of running entirely on hydrogen as more supply becomes available.

They're reusing the land and part of the existing structure on it. Almost everything else is getting replaced.

Modern combined-cycle gas turbines are much more efficient than that. Most new installations now get around 60% efficiency if not better, and the current record is 64.18%, set by a Siemens turbine at Keadby Unit 2 Power Station in the UK. The end result won't be 68%, but it also won't be 34%. Given the losses associated with electrolysis, the net is likely to be around 50%, which still makes it a bad idea.

Well I *meant* to post as AC. I'll have to apply those mod points elsewhere :( ... and ironically Slashdot is throttling me, for reasons unrelated to whether my ISP uses CGNAT.

Can you elaborate on #2? In principle, an IPv6 firewall / stateful router can protect devices on the LAN by essentially using NAT logic except for rewriting addresses, right? Assuming that a more naive approach of blocking incoming SYN packets by default isn't good enough, at least.

(Posting as AC so I can moderate up some deserving comments below.)

The problem in this case, as usual, was lazy government rather than big government. A government with high capacity to get things done is not necessarily bad, but usually government turns into a power trip or a mire of reasons that things cannot be done -- and big or effective government is bad in both of those cases.

Did TFA explain why the mother didn't get a court to order her ex to transfer the parental role to her? There are decades of precedent about how to have courts sort out custody disputes and to deal with people who won't cooperate. As an added benefit, it is almost entirely independent of the account provider -- it will work for Apple, Google Samsung, whomever.

Sure, if by "evidence" you mean simulations of a two-seller market where one of the two sellers in a market has a strategy that is essentially only flipping a coin.

This is evidence about the sorry state of economics research much more than about the real world.

2K and 1080p are the same resolution, but 2K -- like 4K and 8K -- is an approximation to the horizontal resolution, whereas 1080p is a combination of the vertical resolution and the scan mode (progressive scan rather than interlaced).

720p: 1280x720, 1080p or 2K: 1920x1080, 4K: 3840x2160, 8K: 7680x4320.

Sure, but their calculation was that a 4K screen is sharper than human eyes can resolve for a 44" screen at 2.5 m (8.2 ft) away. A hypothetical 2K 44" screen needs to be 5 m away in order to give the same number of pixels per degree (PPD) -- and most people are not sitting 5 m away from their TV, especially if it's 44" diagonal. 65" screens are pretty cheap nowadays, and a 50% increase in diagonal size would translate to a 50% increase in viewing distances to get the same PPD.

Their online calculator makes it clear that a 2K 44" TV at 2.5 m is limited by the screen rather than a typical viewer's eyes -- so the Slashdot headline is a lie.

If you're afraid of spreadsheets in the financial industry, you should probably just keep your eyes closed. The entire industry is built on them to a very large degree. I've been in IT for almost 30 years, and over most of that, I've seen Excel spreadsheets used throughout the various accounting departments of companies ranging from small operations of a couple of dozen people up to multinationals with tens of thousands of employees, with some banks in there. Some of those spreadsheets are enormous and are doing complex calculations across sometimes a couple dozen worksheets, where changing one number can take several seconds to recalculate everything even on a reasonably modern computer.

I noticed a rash of these in my spam box a few days ago. The email bodies had lots of fixed content that made it pretty clear that some support system was getting abused, but it wasn't obvious exactly what the cause was.

Unlock all interactions? No. Unlocking a specific interaction? Maybe.

For common uses (like the public web), the most likely approach to decrypting a specific interaction is to break the RSA (cert-based) on the outside and then the Diffie-Hellman (ephemeral per-transaction) on the inside, then recover the symmetric encryption key to decrypt the rest of the conversation. But this is not trivial, and it requires more work than to just toss the transaction into the quantum computer.

The ephemeral layer is where things get harder. Even if you can derive the RSA key on a regular connection, you've got the first layer, but the DH layer is redone for each new connection. (Some sites don't use DH, or are vulnerable to downgrade attacks where DH isn't used, but DH is pretty widespread.) Every ephemeral negotiation has to be individually cracked. Tor uses DH or x25519 on all connections, so each has to be individually cracked. It is expected that breaking an individual 2048-bit RSA or DH encryption would take several hours if one had a quantum computer of sufficient power. Cracking 3072- or 4096-bit RSA/DH will take even longer, if it's even possible on the same systems. However, we appear to be a long way from such capabilities, and the NSA isn't likely to use it to break arbitrary Tor connection encryption, saving it instead for much more practical items. As soon as the NSA has practical quantum computing, it's going to have decades of backlog to go through just for the international signals, and getting anything moved up in line is going to need a damned good reason.

> Making Alexa is not THAAAAT hard

Last year, the WSJ reported that Amazon lost $25 billion on Alexa from 2017-2021, partially from selling devices below cost but mostly because of development costs. It seems like it's harder than you think.

https://algassert.com/post/250... addresses the case of 21.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.007... seems to be the paper about 35, although it says that noise meant that "the algorithm fails to factor N = 35" (and didn't do a great job for 21 either).