They're "getting into" power generation? That makes it sound like this is something brand new. I remember when Apple put in its first natural gas cogeneration plant to take its build infrastructure off the grid, back around 2002 or 2003, I think. Google has massive generators around a bunch of its buildings, presumably for the same reason. Big tech has been in the energy business quite literally for decades at this point.
Might be worth looking at variable tariffs. For March-May the demand for electricity generation goes to zero in California on a regular basis, and even more often over the summer. While you might not pay $0 for it, the price should go way down.
That's *with* time-of-use metering. I'm pretty sure the price for EV metering has roughly tripled in the last five years. And only about 11 to 16 cents of that is the actual generation cost. The rest of it is profit for PG&E. The only way to get reasonably priced power in California is to build your own power plant, which will bring your price down to about 17 cents per kWh, and even that isn't much below the price of gasoline.
For a state that's desperate to push electrification, the state's utility regulators sure don't seem to be on board. That's probably why EV sales dropped last quarter for the first time in years.
We really need to break up the PG&E monopoly or let the state buy it and run it. It has never been more clear that regional-scale for-profit utility monopolies just don't work and can never work no matter how regulated they might be.
If Israel's Arab neighbors really wanted to destroy it, all they'd have to do is ignore it and watch it eat itself from within. But they, too, need Palestine as a dumping ground for their own violent internal dissenters.
Alternatively, if, rather than arming both sides with missiles and other weapons that help create bloodbaths, everyone instead treated both sides like small children, put a wall around the country, didn't let any new weapons in, and just let them all pummel the crap out of each other until they tired themselves out, maybe both sides would eventually start to act like adults.
The thing is, there's a second part of the problem, which is that at least some parts of the U.S. government seem to see Israel as their proxy in the Middle East, and I get the feeling that Iran and possibly other countries see the conflict as an opportunity to cozy up to Russia by arming the enemy of America's proxy in the Middle East. And as long as both sides are getting armed by people who are more interested in being the friend of the winner than in actually achieving peace, the conflict will continue to rage on.
It's not really a proxy war, per se, because both sides have kind of hated each other since time immemorial, but even though there was always a fire, various world interests have elected to throw gasoline on it, and that makes the problem worse. Were it not for the realization that there's no good way to keep foreign political powers (Iran, etc.) from supporting groups that attack Israel, my inclination would be to believe that the right solution would be to stop arming Israel entirely. After all, if Israel weren't so confident that the U.S. would always have their backs and supply them with whatever weapons they needed no matter what they do, they might just be a bit more respectful towards the Palestinians as a people. But those foreign powers on the other side make that solution problematic.
Either way, I'm glad to see the U.S. being a lot less vigorous in their defense of Israel's missteps as of late, and a lot more critical. I hope this marks a turning point in the relationship between the U.S. and Israel that pressures Israel to stop taking unilateral actions in retribution against Palestine and to instead start asking other nations to help them get things back under control in a manner that complies with international law.
The only practical solution that would actually end the eternal conflict would be genocide of both sides, and all the rest of the middle east, but that's not going to happen (and few would argue that it should).
Genocide, no, but I've been sensing for a few years that a lot of the war hawks in Washington D.C. (mostly people with an "R" by their name) are trying to come up with justification for bombing the crap out of Iran, which might not end the conflict, but would definitely reduce the amount of fuel being added to the fire. I could be wrong about that — it's just a feeling based on what politicians say — but if that happens, I won't be surprised.
Boeing airspeed indicator tricks flight crew into crashing plane.
I believe you mean the angle-of-attach indicator was causing a crash.
I AOA Disagree.
But seriously, yeah, it was Airbus that had airspeed sensor problems (pitot tubes).
But you don't, and won't - ever - talk about that, will you?
I absolutely will. Palestinians elected terrorist government that committed multiple war crimes and have a publicly stated goal of eradicating Israel. Israel is entitled to defend itself by retaliating proportionally. A lot of what happening right now in Gaza is well-deserved "find out" phase.
I would argue that Israel also elected a hard-line government (Netanyahu) that has repeatedly acted towards the Palestinians in a manner intended to subjugate them, limit their right to self-governance, limit their freedom of movement, etc.,.
Perhaps, after over half a century of Palestinians preaching - with guns and bombs - literal genocide, they're tired of it.
Israel has their share of sins to answer for, but the Palestinians begged for this. Many times.
But to play devil's advocate here, by that time, Israel had also been whittling away at their territory for decades, illegally taking land from Palestinians and giving it to Israeli settlers, all while denying the Palestinians any real say in the matter. They also occupied parts of Palestinian territory militarily until 2005, IIRC.
Don't get me wrong here. I agree that terrorism isn't an appropriate way to handle that situation, and I agree that Israel has a right to defend itself. But the Palestinians being angry at Israel over the situation isn't *entirely* unreasonable, and Israel's repeated disproportionate responses create martyrs and enmity, which is a bad outcome.
The Israeli people have a right to not be blown up by the Palestinians and vice versa. Both groups have a right to self-governance. Right now, it seems like neither side is willing to acknowledge those rights as applied to the other side. And that's the real problem. Both sides have to stop seeing the other side as a problem to be dealt with and start seeing them as fellow human beings before there can be any true and lasting peace. And that has to start with one side or the other stepping back from the extremist right-wing rhetoric and genuinely seaking peace. Until that happens, IMO, nothing short of outside intervention is going to solve the problem in any long-lasting way.
They're getting 200GB/s transfer rates for the on-die memory. It takes four DIMMs to total that much memory bandwidth on DDR5.
However, swapping to modular RAM has to be more performant than swapping to SSD. I don't know why they don't offer the option in at least the pro model. Sure, they have to add something to the kernel to handle two layers of swap, but that can't be too bad.
There's no reason in principle that you couldn't do this. Just stick a bunch of RAM on a PCIe bus and provide a driver that exposes it as a memory-mapped device under
I wonder if recompiling the FreeBSD swapctl command would make it possible to just add a huge swap file on such a device. Depends on whether they've kept the same syscall hooks under the hood, I guess.
They're struggling to keep their planes in the air right now, much less cars.
Boeing: The sound your flying car makes when it unexpectedly lands on the roof of your neighbor's house.
But you don't, and won't - ever - talk about that, will you?
I absolutely will. Palestinians elected terrorist government that committed multiple war crimes and have a publicly stated goal of eradicating Israel. Israel is entitled to defend itself by retaliating proportionally. A lot of what happening right now in Gaza is well-deserved "find out" phase.
I would argue that Israel also elected a hard-line government (Netanyahu) that has repeatedly acted towards the Palestinians in a manner intended to subjugate them, limit their right to self-governance, limit their freedom of movement, etc., and that Hamas becoming the government of Gaza more than a decade later was the entirely predictable effect. From the moment he was first elected, I predicted that he would end up radicalizing the Palestinians.
None of what's happening now should be a surprise to anyone. Some Israeli settler gets murdered, and Israel launches missiles. The disproportionality of Israel's response then radicalizes more Palestinians, who commit more atrocious attacks, and the cycle of hate is perpetuated, with both sides believing that they are justified. And that's what happens when you put hard-line right-wing leaders in charge.
IMO, there really are no clear good guys in this war, and plenty of bad guys on both sides. At this point, I think nothing short of the U.N. sending in peacekeeping troops and insisting that both sides disarm completely for the next hundred years is going to fix it, because both the Israelis and the Palestinians have consistently shown unwillingness to stop fighting, and have consistently elected leaders who spew anti-other-side rhetoric and foment war. And until everyone disarms and is under the protection of a neutral organization like the U.N., I don't see that changing.
I read it, and don't find that response credible. Apparently there were 3 strikes on the convoy, where multiple times survivors got into remaining cars. Apparently IDF was informed in advance and approved convoy's route and cargo and were contacted again shortly after initial strike. That makes accident a lot less likely. I see it as deliberate targeting.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by total incompetence just as well.
Of course, if it was incompetence, I'd also expect high-level military leaders to be fired, new training programs instituted, etc. to ensure that it never happens again. If that didn't happen, then the problem is systemic at the leadership level, and whether it was intentional or not stops being interesting at that point.
So as someone who hasn't followed any of this, the first question I would asked is who got fired for that incident.
The way you have a country is that you have a border. The way that you have a border is that you have a military. (Even if you elect not to enforce it against illegal immigration.)
Or elect not to enforce it at all, e.g. the free passage of people within the EU and the lack of physical impediments to doing so.
To be pedantic, ultimately, what makes a country is a defined border and a government that rules over the people within that defined border. Nothing inherently prevents a country from having only a police force and no military, so long as their neighbors aren't war mongers. But millennia of history shows that eventually one of them will become war mongers, so pretty much every country has a military so that it will *stay* a country.
When a protest crosses the line and interferes with the rights of another person, it is no longer a freedom but an assault.
No, not necessarily. When a protest interferes with the rights of another person by physically attacking someone, that's an assault. Someone blocking a street for a protest parade, with police lines shutting down the street, etc., might be an inconvenience, but it clearly isn't an assault. Everything in between is shades of grey.
To be fair, it is private property owned by a company that employed at least some of the protesters, in a building that the protesters presumably worked in, so it's not quite as clear-cut as occupying someone else's yard. More like your teenage kid occupying your yard.
Confusing terminology by co-opting accepted terms already in common use.
We're going to name this golf cart "Jet Plane"!
We're going to call this jet plan "submarine"
We're going to name this sailboat "family car".
We're going to make this snowmobile "toboggan"
Sorry. Stupid shit like this makes it impossible to take anything these people say seriously.
Now that I realize how they use terminology, suddenly Amazon's search results make sense. If I really want a Bluetooth keyboard and not some wireless USB keyboard, I should search for FireWire keyboard, and if I really want a wireless USB keyboard, I should search for PS/2 keyboard.
It's hard to know whether this is something harmless or a sign of a serious design flaw in Discord without more information.
If this company is just assuming that Dumbledore32168 is the same user on server A and server B, then either:
and I have no idea which of these is the case.
If, however, they are doing something more clever and matching people even when they have different usernames, then this suggests a *major* design flaw.
It should not be possible for anyone other than the actual owner of the server to obtain any identifier for a user that is shared across multiple servers. Other people should be able to see your local (per-server) username, period. There are reasons for a signed-in user to pass uniquely identifying values *to* the server, and there are legitimate reasons for the server to store that mapping, but there are no reasons for there to be any web-facing API for converting from a username back to that identifier, period, under any circumstances. Even things like private messaging should be sending the local username or a local user identifier, not any sort of global identifier.
And even during the sign-in/sign-up process, the identifier sent from the authentication server to the content server need not be shared across servers. There's nothing inherently preventing discord from providing a different per-user unique identifier to each server, and if privacy were a serious consideration in the design, they would be doing this. So again, if they are successfully tracking users across servers when usernames don't match, then Discord's entire security architecture needs a major overhaul, because that would mean that Discord as a platform is severely flawed architecturally, and that privacy was not a serious consideration in its design.
So could someone from Discord please clarify what is happening here?
These actually likely served a purpose. If some other company made an exact copy of their mask, they could go to court and immediately prove that it was a copy. It's the chip design equivalent of the "Stolen from Apple" art hidden inside the Mac ROM code so that if someone tried to sell a clone similar to what happened with the Franklin Ace, they would potentially have an easy way to prove in court that the code was copied.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
