Industrial customers whose demand is outside peak times don't pay anything like 40c/Kwh.

School districts aren't going to be paying retail walk-up prices for electricity. They buy in much larger quantities, at predictable times outside peak demand periods.

Originally, for the USA, DC had the most deaths per capita because population density; there is no rural territory in DC.

Then New York took the top spot 'cuz population density (the NYC metro got hit pretty hard, which extends beyond just NY; CT and RI had pretty high numbers, too).

Then New Jersey took the top spot. It has the highest average population density of any US state.

Then vaccines came out and Blue States jumped on 'em. New Jersey is now bumped down to like #8 or #9 with Red States taking the top spots because their populations are less likely to get the vaccines.

Alaska and Hawaii both have very low population density, and low deaths per capita, but they vote differently. If you think about it, you would expect high-population-density to correlate with deaths per capita.

Utah is an anomaly partly for the reason you stated: they may vote red but the main influence in that area is not the population but the religion. They are also low population density.

If your definition is "whatever Zuck / Meta says," no. We don't need that. Zuck wants a playground where people will focus all their attention, as long as possible, so he can influence what you see and how you spend your money. He wants to make Fecebook more immersive. Again, we don't need that.

I'm a coder by day. If I had something which could use 3D rendering to show how the code I'm developing interacts with other code and other systems, that would be helpful. Having 3D for depth could really add to the amount of detail I can perceive and process, something which a 4K display (my current main screen) has difficulty with. I have a pretty good FoV with my 4K but there's only so much detail I can perceive on a 2D screen. "The Lawnmower Man" was fiction but I frequently find myself wishing I had an immersive, 3D environment like what was envisioned in there, not because it would give me superpowers (duh, no) but because of the visualized data in which I could immerse myself, such that my pattern-matching mind would have more data to parse. Visualization software would need to evolve but it's not going to evolve that direction until good, immersive 3D (which doesn't make you nauseous) is available at reasonable price. And it will be "read-only" until such time as someone can come up with a good, useful, systematized way of manipulating stuff in that 3D space. You need to be able to manipulate your position, your gaze, your zoom level and be able to move / manipulate objects "in world."

If I could use some kind of robot for telepresence, such that I could, say, tour the Parthenon in Greece without needing to get in an airplane and go there, and be able to perceive it all in 3D, as well as being able to steer the robot around (instead of just zooming in / out on some bubble-shaped image), that would be cool. At that point, you're not just talking about using a VR headset; you're talking a full 3D environment where you can remote-drive something to change the physical vantage point. That was part of the Metaverse, at least WRT the "Snow Crash" implementation. To make that happen, you'd need a way of

• turning multi-vantage-point imaging (on the telepresence robot) into a 3D model
• transferring that model from point A (the Parthenon) to point B (my system)
• getting said model into my head through my headset
• providing consistent controls for driving, gazing, zooming, etc.

You'd need a consistent methodology for all of this. The systematization of all of this would be a sort of 3D "operating system," on which a wide variety of applications could be built. That OS could, realistically, be known as a Metaverse. Just as a web browser systematizes the WWW (rendering stuff in consistent fashion, providing a recognizable set of controls and input mechanisms, etc.), a Metaverse could systematize all of this other stuff that we aren't really doing (yet).

Until such time as it is systematized, different apps will have very different abilities, different ways of manipulating stuff, etc. The WWW wasn't the first hyperlinked system (see Englebart's Online System - NLS - and Nelson's Project Xanadu). But it systematized things and opened it up for the world to play with. In that regard, HTTPD, HTML, etc. provide the OS upon which so much of our modern life is built, known colloquially as the WWW.

If I had a PHEV which could go, say, 50 miles on a charge, it would need considerably less battery than a full EV. I don't typically drive 50 miles in a week (my wife and I both WFH) so I wouldn't need to charge every night.

It also means the only time I'd need to buy fuel for it is when I do a significant road trip. Those happen a few times / year. I wouldn't need to worry about whether or not there's a charging station, is it functional, or is it full; I could pump a few gallons into the tank and get on down the road. That infrastructure is already built out. I'm just making considerably less use of it.

For 90+% of all my driving, I'd be doing it on electricity; I'd be within 50 miles, round trip, from my home and I can charge up at home. I care, considerably less at that point, about the public availability of chargers and charging networks.

When I lived in a rural area, a PHEV with 100 miles range would do 90+% of all annual driving on electricity.

We need to burn less gasoline; no argument. But there's a point of diminishing returns. If I can spend a little more money and eliminate 90+% of my gasoline usage (only needing gasoline for significant road trips), that's much more economically viable than shelling out 2 - 3x as much money for a vehicle which eliminates 100% of gasoline usage.

There need to be PHEVs with varying amounts of range, such as 50 miles, 75 miles and 100 miles range. Longer range = more $; that's understandable. So far, I'm having a hard time finding any with > 30 miles range. That would eliminate > 50% of my gasoline usage but I'd like to eliminate more.

In light of all that, he's not wrong. If we can make 6 PHEVs with 50 miles range, or a single EV with 300 miles range ... the former is going to make a bigger dent in gasoline consumption than the latter.

I drive a Camry Hybrid, which gets 40+ MPG in town. I'd love a way to upgrade that silly thing into a PHEV but that just ain't happenin'. I don't have enough $$$ burning a hole in my pocket to plunk for a Tesla.

As I understand it it, the screen is unrolling from one (maybe both?) sides of the frame as they stretch the frame.

So, the roll-up screens, as seen in "Red Planet," are finally becoming reality? I'd be ok with something like those. Retract it into a couple cylinders for storage / carry, unroll when needed. Bonus points if they can build in the tricorder functionality that can show you broken ribs, looking through a space suit and skin.

In "The Rise and Resurrection of the American Programmer," the author talks about creating code by plugging numbers into boxes. You're plugging in numbers for lower- and upper-bounds of ranges, with various things happening based on whether metrics are in this range or that range. This worked well for creating a certain amount of automation, usually for unit testing.

Does this constitute programming? If so, it's definitely a low- / no-code environment.

Does creating a spreadsheet constitute programming?

A spreadsheet may be an interpreter, and it may be rather slow, but yes, this is programming. Especially when you have formulae which implement if / then / else logic; now you're getting into Turing-complete functionality. If you keep the spreadsheet from griping about circular references, you can implement all manner of programmer-adjacent functionality.

Do you need a degree in IT or Computer Science to do that? I know plenty of people who have no formal training in programming getting the hang of this and getting it working, able to implement some significant logic.

Back before I got my degree, I was doing temp work in various offices. I was using Lotus 1-2-3, which actually had a very easy-to-use macro recording function. I blew away a lot of people with how I could record a macro which did something, then record a second macro which used the first, then record a third macro which used the second. I would end up executing one macro and it would sit there and crunch numbers for multiple hours at a time (I had one macro which ran for over 3 hours; it was an older, very-slow machine; the company for which I was temp-ing was expecting someone was going to have to babysit the machine for a couple days and I did it all in one afternoon). I had some high-school training in programming (Applesoft BASIC, for the most part) so I had SOME programming training and experience, but nowhere near a degree.

Was that programming? Yes. Was I writing code? Not really; knowing how to tell the app to record a sequence of keystrokes ... that's easily a low- / no-code environment. Even if it's not the type of environment the article's author is thinking of.

It likely will not REPLACE traditional coding altogether but it will enable companies to implement more and more automation without needing so many traditional coders. If future apps make it easy for a "real developer" to develop to add-ons which end users can automate ... look out world. You won't need AI to do the coding stuff for you.

Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. It's also no match for human intuition. Companies would be much better off trying to leverage the latter.

There was a book with that title.

An excellent book, I should add. At least one of the chapters, talking about how large telegraph offices were setup, sounds an awful lot like the architecture of a modern router.

The reality is that a variety of communications techs came about in conjunction with the telegraph. Pneumatic tubes were originally developed because getting data a short distance from the one location to another was too slow via Morse Code (or any of its predecessors). Paris had a system where you could put messages in boxes on trams and have them delivered elsewhere in the city within a matter of hours. It was possible to get messages back-and-forth across Paris, using this tram-based system, doing two round-trips in a single day (not impressive by electronic standards but EXTREMELY impressive when you compare to modern postal systems).

Just as the Internet unified a variety of different technologies, telegraph offices of a prior century tended to be hubs unifying a variety of different comms techs.

To one of your points: the workers find they don't add enough value.

That's the crux of the whole argument, yes? If a union adds value (gets you better conditions, more money, etc.) workers will want it. If it doesn't (caving to the employers' demands, taking too much in union dues) they won't.

This is an opportunity for unions to make a comeback. Too many people have been screwed over by employers for too long. But unions need to actually provide some value. Too many of them quickly became mini-corporations in their own right, enriching their own C-suite at everyone's expense. They will need to do better than that, if they are to actually make progress.

I have a smartphone (recently upgraded from a Pixel to a Pixel 4a). And I have a tablet (currently an Asus Zenpad Z8).

For calling, texting and navigation, the phone gets used. It's narrow enough I can hold it and operate it one-handed.

For reading / composing long emails, reading longer articles and planning trips, the tablet gets used. For messing with docs and spreadsheet on Google Drive, the tablet, MOST DEFINITELY, gets used. I can use a smartphone to look at an existing spreadsheet but composing one with a smartphone is just painful.

These are different tools which are better suited for different jobs. A lot of younger folks don't have tablets (using the smartphone for everything) but older folks, who can't read 4 point type anymore or who actually need to do something other than watch video clips on TikTok or "like" stuff on FeceBook, need more screen real estate.

Samsung, and other fold-able manufacturers, are trying to create one device which will do both jobs. It's compact, so you can put it in your pocket and text with one hand. It also has a larger screen, so you can see and compose more text. One device, multiple tasks. And the competition in the traditional smartphone space is pretty cutthroat, so they're looking for SOME way to create a differentiated product, for which they can get a higher profit margin.

That's what they're TRYING to do.

They are failing at this. They end up with a jack-of-all-trades and master of none, and it's more expensive and fragile to boot. I will need to replace my tablet, at some point in the future, but it won't be with a fold-able device. There's a better than 50:50 chance the replacement will have an e-ink display; some of the newer color e-ink displays are quite good, even if they're not suitable for watching YouTube or playing fast-paced games (I do little of either with my tablet).

A limited number of apps supported Cardboard. Google decided to put all their effort behind Daydream, which would make the device more-or-less VR for all apps. Then they stopped supporting that.

I was looking at that, once upon a time. Like you, once Zuck bought Oculus I lost all interest in them.

Cardboard was just a stereoscopic viewer. There is to more to VR than "just" a stereoscopic viewer.

That said, using a decent stereoscopic viewer as a more-immersive display, while using my phone as the rendering engine and controller, could be useful. I had high hopes for the HTC Vive Flow but HTC seems to be so schizophrenic that they can't seem to get anything working and supplied. They list few use cases for that gizmo (to go with the relatively steep price, for what it is) and it doesn't work with any phone I own, or am likely to own anytime soon.

I don't care about VR gaming. If I could put my desktop up there and use my keeb and touchpad with it, in lieu of the limited display on my laptop, that could be genuinely useful. Cardboard couldn't do that, either.

How many people are working from home, using some laptop, wishing they had the space and $$$ for some big display where they could work? A better keyboard and mouse can be had for a reasonable price but you're still stuck with a limited-area and -resolution display. A wearable headset which filled that niche, and worked well, even if tied to the DP on the laptop, wouldn't be so niche and would likely pry some $$ loose.

LIDAR works great when you're the only person using it.

When multiple vehicles in the vicinity are using LIDAR, you end up with a ton of interference which basically renders all of them useless (or nearly so). You may be sending out narrow beams but the reflections are not narrow beams; the beams are hitting surfaces and scattering, reflecting in all directions, and it's that scattered light that you're looking for. If every LIDAR out there was using a slightly different frequency and you could differentiate your emissions from everyone else's, it might work. But there's little variation in frequencies used and there's precious little filtering to extract ONLY the reflections from your emitters.

Ditto for any kind of RADAR or SONAR. The moment you have more than a handful of sources, things get really messy. If you're overly dependent on same, you will be incapacitated pretty quickly.

I understand Tesla's preference to go entirely passive. Yes, it does make things more difficult. But it's more sustainable in the longer-term.

We are asymptotically approaching FDS Levels 4 and 5. The nature of an asymptote is that it makes excellent progress at the beginning and achieves diminishing returns with time, approaching but never quite reaching a particular value. I think everyone underestimates just how good a system has to be to get there. Getting there in a "laboratory" setting is never enough for "the real world" because there are simply too many corner cases out there. Because Tesla vehicles are actively collecting info on those corner cases and communicating that info back, Tesla has a higher probability of achieving it than anyone else. But I still wouldn't make any bets on getting there in the next decade.

wikipedia article describing it

5" AMOLED screen. If I can't manipulate the entire screen while holding it in one hand, it's a phablet, not a phone. I can barely manage the entire screen on this one.

I don't want a phablet. I want a phone. I have a 7.8" tablet for the stuff which needs a larger screen.

It's getting behind the times, as the original Pixel is no longer supported, and the ever-more-bloated apps are making it difficult to keep all the apps I want in the rather-limited RAM. Upgrade the RAM, keep the size and keep updating the OS and I'd have no reason to replace it.

Consumerism only works if there is an artificially-high amount of purchasing. The easiest way to accomplish that is more consumers. The other way is to put more money in the hands of the existing consumers, so they have more to spend. Too many people are sold on the idea that higher wages = smaller bonuses for management so management will never favor that approach. An ever-expanding population will ensure that there are always plenty of people competing for jobs, helping keep wages as low as possible. So, for our current version of consumerism to continue, there must be population growth.

Consumerism != capitalism. Capitalism can still work with stagnant or reducing populations. But that would entail getting away from consumerism and trying to achieve some degree of sustainabililty. Among certain groups of people, that word is almost as scary as "socialism."

Most modern ways of getting wealthy are dependent on consumerism, particularly while keeping labor costs as low as possible. So the people who are trying to get rich, not just get by, are always going to be in favor of more population. How we're supposed to do that in a finite world ... let's become a multi-planetary species so we can export our problems to an even larger area and keep growing, forever and ever amen.

Kinda depends on the turbine. And the people.

Some of the turbines are as quiet as you mention. Some of them do cause a persistent buzzing sound. Some of them create the buzzing sound at a lower frequency, below the range of human hearing (infrasound).

I used to discount people being disturbed by EM fields. Then I married a woman who can tell, quite clearly, when I turn the wifi off on the router. She doesn't sleep well if there's a wifi source to close to the bedroom (it's at the opposite end of the house). We pointedly did a trip to Green Bank, West Virginia, where such things are not allowed ('cuz big honkin' radio telescope). She could tell, quite clearly, when we entered the federally-mandated radio quiet zone.

I can't perceive any of this. Wifi and other EM noise doesn't bother me at all. But that does NOT mean that it isn't there and it doesn't affect anyone. The fact that she can tell me when I turn the wifi on and off, without her being able to see me doing anything ... that's repeatable and consistent. She can perceive it.

I'm all in favor of more solar and wind power. But I don't live near any major wind turbines, nor am I aware of being near any other sources of infrasound so I have no idea how far it would carry or if it would bother me. Lower frequencies tend to travel longer distances than higher frequencies (anyone who's been in traffic near some fool with a noisy stereo knows this; you hear the bass, if nothing else). Infrasound is much lower than the buzzing of a power transformer (being too close to one of those, long-term, DOES bother me). As a general rule, sound is going to behave like radio waves in terms of propagation; double the distance and the intensity goes down by a factor of 4 (intensity approx = 1 / distance^2).