Whatever, dude.

Efficiency is based on differences in energy that are economically accessible, not on some rambling theories in a newline-free paragraph.

You can access room temperature. You can' economically access the blackness of outer space from the earth's surface. Likewise, you can access the negative terminal on your battery, but not some static charge in the upper atmosphere.

You pump X amount of energy into a heat engine, it expels that energy to an accessible exhaust, and typically 70 to 95 percent of that energy is *not* converted to work. You pump X amount of energy into a battery, it dumps that energy through a motor to its negative terminal, and only 5 to 10 percent of that energy is not converted to work. That's the only way to practically analyze the situation.

We could also all have infinite free energy if we could access the levels below the zero point energy in the quantum fields. One little problem: that's not accessible either.

For the example in TFS of 200F water and assuming room temperature exhaust, Mr. Carnot says that the max possible efficiency is less than 20%. Any real world engine, including this one, probably ends up at a low-to-mid single digit percent efficiency. IOW, the vast majority of the heat would still be wasted.

The operator of the facility generating the waste heat might get more energy savings at lower cost by tweaking their processes to be a few percent more efficient in the first place, instead of trying to recover this low-grade energy source with an elaborate engine and plumbing.

They're still making DVD drives. They're just mostly USB now. Ripping is pushbutton easy these days. No messing around with getting a copy of DeCSS and such.

Read my post again. You didn't understand it.

Once you import numpy, Python has arrays.

Last I checked Ruby execution was slow compared to Python. That, however, tells you where you shouldn't use it, not *that* you shouldn't use it. And Ruby can easily call C routines (with the usual caveats).

OTOH, in some task spaces, design in Ruby is fast compared to design in Python, and in almost all it's fast compared to design in C. (That said, I generally prefer to design in Python and then re-implement in C++.)

Whether it's serious or not depends on what you're doing. For me it fails only because I require Doxygen compatibility. (Mind you, I would rarely choose to use *only* ruby, but for some things it would be the superior choice.)

OTOH, Ruby is not a low level choice. It's a slightly higher level than Python. And I often design things in Python and then convert them to C++ (with, of course, minor rewrites).

So, "What do you mean by 'serious'?".

I've read MRI scans require helium, and there is currently a shortage. It's not practically renewable or recyclable so far. If everyone gets an MRI it could cause a severe shortage.

I wonder if the tech can be reworked to not require helium or any other hard-to-find resource.

The medical industry already profits greatly from medical testing. Testing earns the industry lots of money; then, patients with positive results receive follow-up treatments, which nets the industry even more money.

Everyone screens for cancer now. Breast cancer. Colorectal cancer. Prostate cancer. The list goes on. (I'm even a cancer survivor myself.) And yet, to this day, studies question whether more testing results in longer life spans. Generally, it does not. Meanwhile, all the testing and treatments and post-surgery therapies reduces one's quality of life, especially the older one gets.

The cited article says it best: "How could it be that many cancer screenings don’t have an impact on overall lifespan? While screenings prevent some deaths from cancer, they don’t prevent all...At the same time, cancer screenings have associated harms such as false positive results, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment (not to mention the financial cost of all these cascade events). It could be that the benefits of screening that some people receive get washed out by the harms that others experience when looking at screening on a population level."

We are already pricing ourselves out of paradise when it comes to medical care, and full-body MRIs are only going to make it worse.

That would never fly. You just know that some dufus at the gym would bring a 10kg steel dumbbell into the MRI room and ruin things for everyone.

First,mandatory screen time needs to be limited. If they want text books in ebook form, great, but they'll need a way to restrict school issued pads to school work during the school day.

On the flip side, I have more than once heard a parent complaining that homework is being given that requires a computer to complete where a school doesn't allow chromebooks to be taken home. That's equally absurd. Not every family can afford to give each kid a computer, and sometimes computers break. It's not like parents can just grab an extra one at the corner store like they would a pack of pencils or paper. If school work requires a computer and/or internet connection, the school should provide it. If that includes homework, the students must be allowed to take it home.

If the schools don't like that or can't afford it, they can issue text books and homework that can be completed with pencil and paper (yes, that includes accepting hand written essays).

And as for not letting parents view the assignments, that's ridiculous. Of course the parents have a right to see it. If some company wants to claim that to be proprietary information, I guess the school can't use it at all.

It's crazy to complain about students on their screens too much and then have mandatory screen time. It's equally ridiculous to complain that parents need to be more involved and then shut parents out.

/rant

They tried, but quarreling parent groups couldn't agree on whether to teach the kids that they were coding with 3 registers or 259 registers.

I think that many of those people were also recent DOS users. Given that DOS systems would often simply freeze up several times per day and require a reboot (easy to do since any bug in the user's application could do this), once they added a protected mode pseudo-kernel to Windows (maybe starting with Windows/386 2.1), it was actually a slight improvement over what they were used to since DOS crashes could sometimes be isolated to one virtual terminal.

Do these people really think they're hiding Directive 4 from us?