Comment Re:We are not far behind (Score 1) 115
For example, Biden's justice department manufacturing novel legal theories [nytimes.com] to imprison non-violent political protesters...
Unlike Farty Don, who merely wants to shoot them.
For example, Biden's justice department manufacturing novel legal theories [nytimes.com] to imprison non-violent political protesters...
Unlike Farty Don, who merely wants to shoot them.
EVs don't scale well. At a gas station if you have two people in front of you, you wait 20 minutes. At an EV charging stand on the highway, lets say you can get the fastest charger; you may be waiting for an hour before you start to charge. That could be the difference between being relaxed for a flight and getting stressed out making it there just in time. The world has changed since the horse and buggy. Those days are gone, and a lot of times people are just trying to keep their schedule and know they can make it somewhere on time.
The difference is that a gas station requires a massive capital investment to build. An EV charging stand just needs the same electricity as any other business. In the long term it might be efficient for the market to produce an excess of charging stations.
Don't trust a company with "spin" in their name.
"this current change isn't really predicted by current models."
Huh? Then what are all those models alarmists have been screaming about?
The models have errors and uncertainties, including about when we might hit various tipping points.
The fear is that the "alarmists" were wrong, and the climate is warming faster than they thought.
That is so true it hurts.
You "win" the internet today for best gem of a quote. I'm stealing that.
I have read multiple articles in "peer reviewed" journals, trying to explain why atmospheric CO2 didn't drop when emissions plummeted, and why the earth got warmer when atmospheric pollution levels droped. The articles are gibberish.
Atmospheric CO2 takes a very long time to drop (and we're still adding more) and when pollution dropped more sunlight got through and raised temps slightly.
Sorry if that's too complicated for you.
I do remember that the environmental "science" classes I peeked at, then immediately dropped, when course shopping undergrad, contained the stupidist collection of humans I have ever run across.
Don't worry, the average intelligence jumped way up after you dropped.
I remember discussing the effect of the sun on the earth's temps with some enviro science professor, long ago. He said the sun had "no effect."
The prof was assuming you were smart enough to understand that everyone would know the sun warms the earth.
He was saying that sun's output was constant enough to have no effect.
Since I've finally realized how dumb the average person on earth really is, I don't care any more.
The midwit phenomenon is the great truth of our age.
I hope you can take some solace in the fact that the average person is still apparently much smarter than you.
Certain topics do not lend themselves very well to the scientific method.
It's kind of hard to set up 100 universes, say, and run them through a few billion years. You can't do the experiment part.
Sometimes a hypothesis has potentially observable implications, even if a mad scientist can't reproduce everything in their lab.
I think it has been decades since cosmologists believed the universe is expanding at a constant rate.
If the test article is not moving it does no work so no violation of conservation of energy. But as you point out you are going to need to carefully eliminate quite a lot, as everything contains electrons, those electrons can move and create polarization which can create electrostatic forces often in unexpected way. When I was playing with electrostatics it was terribly easy to get this wrong even in very simple scenarios. I expect a guy with as much experience as this guy purports to have would know that, but then, even the best of us get excited and overlook things.
The world is full of folks with impressive credentials, it's inevitable a few of them will dive headfirst into crackpot theories for a variety of reasons.
Not to say this guy is a crackpot, but what he's claiming should be pretty easy to demonstrate to credible outside experts. That he hasn't done that rings many alarm bells.
I'm not saying anything about changing temperatures are man fault or not, blah blah blah, but when has anything in nature stayed the same? It's in constant change. Some are slow, other can be quick, but it's nature. Stuff changes.
I'm just baffled by the statement "the past is no longer a guide to the future." It never has been. Just like investing.
I'm baffled by people who insist on taking statements completely literally when it's obvious that's not what the speaker meant. Especially when the person in question actually explains what the statement means!
"What if the statistical connections that we are basing our predictions on are no longer valid?"
ie, the scientist who obviously understands that nature changes, is worried because this current change isn't really predicted by current models. If the warming keeps up that means the models are wrong in the way we really don't want them to be wrong and that's bad news.
Read the article. No data was mentioned that the ban is based on. So, I googled to see if the British Columbian government was using data, say, from California, which has a lot of autonomous cars.
California has level 4 taxis (which have had problems) but few (if any) level 3 consumer cars. So I'm not sure what data you think BC should be using.
I couldn't find any mention of any data or any specific concern of data in any article.
You really need folks to spell out the concerns with untested level 3 cars?
First, no autonomous level 3 (or above) cars are available for sale in BC. The articles didn't state if this is because they're illegal or there just happens to be zero. That is, why would you ban something that you either can't buy because it's already illegal? In other words, is there already a ban on level 3 cars (or above) in BC, and this is why there are zero types of these cars?
For someone complaining about data it seems to have eluded you that level 3 vehicles are so new that they haven't even made it to the Canadian market.
All that's mentioned is a quote from a BC politician who says that BC takes a "traditional" approach to this type of technology. I don't know what this means.
It means common sense. Before deploying level 3 cars on public roads they want more data.
In any case, I don't understand how a law can be passed, on a product, that may not be more dangerous (or more safe) than most drivers.
When reasonable people have a reasonable expectation that the new product may be more dangerous and they don't want to wait for a bunch of fatalities to occur to stop it.
Funny enough a STB even last decade were using the 6502 in the ACP chip!
This is a great talk: How Do I Crack Satellite and Cable Pay TV? (33c3)
Linus totally misses the point, which is kind of unusual.
GPT-4/5/6 might not replace him as a kernel architect, but it sure as hell is (and will increasingly be) making a ton of people in a lot of industries waaay more productive. There isn't an infinite supply of work, so a lot of jobs will go away--never to return.
And no, this isn't some millennial/Zoomer potshot: I'm two years older than Linus
I'm not sure your intuition is correct. Sure the supply of work isn't infinite but it does increase when productivity goes up.
Look at a website designer, in the early 90s you were writing HTML and CSS by hand, drawing icons with crappy editors, etc, etc.
Now, you've got crazy libraries and full-fledged website builders, I'm guessing a modern web designer is MUCH more productive.
The result? There's waaay more website designer jobs out there, that's partially because the Internet is bigger, but also because you get way more value for your cash buying a website designer now.
Some of the same will be happening with software dev. Sure, some companies that doesn't see any need to do more than they're currently doing may cut staff, but a lot of other companies will realize that the software project/product they were thinking of is now viable.
IANAPhysicist, but isn't a thrust of 1g specific to the mass you are accelerating? Same device pushing heavier mass gives less acceleration?
Is a claim that you can create a thrust of 1g even meaningful without additional details?
I live in an urban area and they are all urban kids (I grew up with farm kids). Not a single one of them can see the American flag without making a derogatory comment. They automatically look down on folks wearing any type of red/white/blue or patriotic clothing or accessories.
I'm guessing that folks using the US flag as an accessory are generally pushing a fairly specific political belief.
I'm in Canada and a bunch of a-hole truckers and their followers blockaded the Capital and border crossings to try and blackmail the rest of the country. And of course they flew Canadian flags everywhere to pretend like they were being patriotic.
I love my country and my flag, but if I see some truck driving around with a Canadian flag I know it's probably some Fox-News watching Trump fanboy who was trying to extort the rest of the country which is pretty damn un-Canadian to me.
I asked them once "In terms of our political parties, who provided the greatest opposition to the Civil Rights era marches and the Civil Rights Act itself?" Their answer "Republicans of course!".
And they were right of course! (well kinda right anyway)
The real divide was the former Confederacy vs the rest of the country. Because the South was Democratic there were a lot more D in opposition than R.
But it was a Democratic President who pushed it. But if you look among legislators in the former Confederacy, Republicans were more likely to oppose it. And similarly outside, Republicans were more likely to oppose it.
So saying Republicans were more opposed isn't really wrong.
I asked them which state probably had the most slaves. Their answer "Texas, of course!"
That feels more like trivia, particularly considering the different populations at the time.
I asked them "What is inflation" they answered "Prices going up". I asked what causes it and they said "Greedy corporations".
To be fair, economists struggle with that too.
I asked them how the Jews got to Israel and they answered "They took it away from the Arabs after WW2"
Not entirely wrong. Not that the Jews sitting around in post-WWII refugee camps had many other good options.
I asked them "Did the Jews buy any of their land or live there before as far as you know?" Answer "No, they were invaders".
From the local's perspective, they kinda were invaders.
I asked if the arabs fought for the Axis or the Allies (had to explain what that meant) they said "Allies".
I asked about Freedom of Speech and they are mostly hostile "Free speech is used to bully minorities by old white men." I asked them what percentage they think old white guys are notably racist. Answer "99%". Okay what about Sexist? "95%". I asked how many are pedophiles. They answer "probably at least 50%" I asked if healthcare and education should be free. "Absolutely" I asked who should pay for it "Rich people." I asked how. "Income taxes and seizure of their assets" I asked if rich folks were better or worse than drug dealers "About the same"
At that point they're probably just screwing with you.
So, these days we skate and I don't talk to them about politics, history, or anything that would upset their fragile (and completely wrong) view of reality.
Just curious, do you think the COVID vaccine saved lives? Do you believe in AGW? Do you think Trump won in 2020?
Because I can find a lot of people on the right who espouse some pretty nutty beliefs on those topics, and they aren't the equivalent of the kids skateboarding, they're literally the leaders of the GOP and the associated media outlets.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
