Comment Depends on the model (Score 1) 121
How much air pollution does a burning Tesla make?
Depends on the model. A Tesla 3 might generate $42,000 of pollution.
How much air pollution does a burning Tesla make?
Depends on the model. A Tesla 3 might generate $42,000 of pollution.
On my good days [...]
You have good days?
There is literally no evidence they are capable of moral, responsible decision-making. It's like once you get past a certain net worth, your brain reverts to teenager-hood.
The "Great Firewall of China" is run by roughly 50,000 people, it's reasonable to expect that a couple of thousand look around on American websites and post propaganda of various sort, and it's reasonable to expect that a couple probably look at Slashdot from time to time.
This *has* to be some sort of Chinese plant to try to discredit capitalism or something.
I mean, it's blatantly absurd on it's face.
There is literally no evidence they are capable of moral, responsible decision-making. It's like once you get past a certain net worth, your brain reverts to teenager-hood.
Elon Musk did a lot of work making Tesla, which is a) getting other manufacturers to take EVs seriously, and b) weaning us off of gasoline (and diesel) in an S-curve adoption.
How, exactly, is that not moral and responsible?
Elon Musk is putting humans back into space, bringing internet access to rural communities, and gave free StarLink to Ukraine when Russia cut their internet lines.
How, exactly, is that not moral and responsible?
(He didn't allow StarLink to work in Crimea, that was by direct ask from the state department, because the administration views Crimea as a part of Russia now.)
And for X/Twitter, note that twitter was losing $4 million per day at the time of takeover, was largely losing money each year (with the exception of 2018 and 2019) and has had a steady increase of users. Musk has also stated the the number of bots was 20% at the time of takeover, and is lower now.
He also ripped out all the government censorship from what has become the new digital town square.
How, exactly is that not moral and responsible?
That's just one person, I can cite lots and lots of billionaires who do charity work.
I don't think it's likely that people who are not capable of moral, responsible decision making would become billionaires in the first place.
What specific moral and/or responsible decisions are you talking about?
Care to give a few examples of decisions you would *like* to have seen some of them make?
They could be pretty much from anywhere or anything. Human activity (ships, factories, space debris), metorites, comets, volanic eruptions.
Sounds like he's one of those types who has a theory he wants to prove and finds anything however implausible to back it up.
Avi Loeb's blog is an interesting read, at least the entries related to this issue - especially this one.
1) The spheres were found close or nearby to the path of the meteor, no spheres were found in runs more distant to the track.
2) The spheres were mostly iron and no nickel.
3) The spheres were consistent with a droplets from molten explosion in the atmosphere.
4) The meteorite is almost certainly interstellar. NASA is 99.99% certain, and the only push back (that it comes from our solar system) requires new science not in evidence.
If volcanic, then the spheres would be found over a wide area, and not localized to the area of the explosion.
Raw iron always has Nickel, because the two elements are formed at the same time with the same process. No known astrophysical mechanism will separate the two elements, so you need to explain why there is no nickel in the spheres. Unless the spheres were from metal smelted to make steel, which both humans and aliens would do.
The elemental proportions of the spheres does not match the proportions found anywhere in our solar system - by a wide margin. Some elements had hundreds of times the proportion of that same element found in our system.
Making this issue about Avi Loeb is a complete mystery to me. He lays out his evidence and invites comment. Those comments *should* be of the form: this can be explained *this* way.
And not "the conclusion is wrong because you're a whacko".
And on a final note, his expedition (to recover bits of an interstellar meteorite) cost a mere $5 million. That's peanuts, and easily funded by private donations. He wants to go back to see if he can recover a larger piece, which might take a little more money - maybe twice as much? - and I personally think that's a fine goal.
Indeed, who shouldn't have a reasoned debate with someone who equates you with a convicted child molester?
In an online post, Simberg compared Mann to former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, a convicted child sex abuser. Simberg wrote that Mann was the "Sandusky of climate science,"
I'm not entirely convinced of that. Saying someone is the "Sandusky of climate science," who "molested and tortured data", a clear reading of this in English implies that the person is *not* a child molester, but that the writer is using the term as a metaphor for imagery. Actually, as imagery goes that's a pretty good phrase, in the creative writing sense.
Implying that someone is not a child molester would not be defamation.
Defamation is a civil case, so it'll be "preponderance of the evidence" and not "beyond reasonable doubt" as it is in criminal cases. I don't see the Sandusky comment rising to the level of defamation, and Mann's published 4 books and over 400 publications, so I think he can reasonably be considered a celebrity, so the bar will be that much higher.
Maybe there's something else in the suit, but from the description it sounds like simple resentment.
These tests were declared racist?
If the SAT score were racist it would under predict the success of black students. It does not.
The problem is that millions of morons today equate facts with "activism and ideology."
So if someone reports facts about the net positives of immigration on the USA or how sex education reduces the abortion rate or the success of mass vaccinations or a hundred other examples those reporters are accused of "activism and ideology" when it isn't that at all - It's the presenting of facts.
Most topics are multivariate and can be marginalized to highlight certain aspects with the intent to mold public opinion.
For non-math people, the data of a concept is usually multidimensional: if plotted, it becomes a multidimensional object. You can shine a flashlight on the object and look at its shadow on the wall - effectively collapsing the multidimensional object to two dimensions by ignoring the other dimensions. Since the object is multidimensional, you can shine the flashlight from a number of directions and get a number of shadows, each of which shows a particular aspect of the object without regard for its overall shape.
Taking capitalism as the object of example, we can show any number ways that capitalism is bad, and this is regularly done here in this forum by people who advocate for change, and in particular advocate for throwing out capitalism entirely in favor of communism.
Capitalism results in wealth inequality, and this doesn't seem equitable. Corporations can downsize and put people out of work, and this doesn't seem fair. Corporations are greedy and this leads to corruption.
But capitalism as we practice it today is finely tuned to create the most wealth with the least suffering. Capitalism has resulted in a worldwide reduction of poverty by over 40%. Capitalism has driven our scientific advances in medicine, food production, and lifespan. Capitalism gives everyone a chance to amass wealth.
So which is it? Is capitalism good or bad?
This is how citing facts is equated with activism and ideology. Cite only the facts that support your ideology, don't consider countervailing issues, and use personal attacks to humiliate your opponents. ("You're a science denier!")
Citing facts is easy and shallow. Instead, cite in-depth studies backed by trial runs with a way to measure the results.
The lack of journalists has a multitude of factors but [...]
Lack of journalists - are you nuts?
Everyone with a cell phone is now a journalist. Many high profile, highly regarded online news/opinion bloggers started out when someone with a cell phone went to a newsworthy event and discovered that the reality didn't match the MSM reports.
As one blogger noted (don't remember who), early on he went to a political rally and it was unimpressive relative to the MSM reporting. He then went to a rally for the opposing side and noted that it was a) much larger and b) completely unreported in the press. He said something like "wow, I'm reporting real news" and that feeling/experience led him to a career in amateur journalism.
The MSM is trying to promote a narrative, both left and right, all the while bloggers are showing unedited clips of things actually happening.
Lack of journalists? You must mean lack of "professional journalists at legacy media".
We can do without most of those.
You just know capitalism is inhumane when company financials improve with fewer humans.
A fine statement that I agree with.
The problem is the alternatives. We have several other models to choose from: communism, socialism, fascism, and totalitarianism to name a few.
No other model has worked as well as capitalism, and virtually all of the others have resulted in far greater suffering.
Another way to view it is to note that economics is a multivariate function. If you marginalize it in one dimension you can easily show that it's unhumane, or evil, or unfeeling, or any other way you want to describe it. But in other dimensions capitalism has raised the wealth of humanity so high that we've accomplished tremendous things: reduced poverty, cured diseases, and fed the world - all of which have resulted in *less* human suffering worldwide.
Changing one variable in one dimension might reduce the inhumanity dependent on that variable, but result in an overall increase of suffering worldwide. Effectively, we're at a local minima in the multivariate function.
This idea that capitalism is bad, we should go to a completely different system is insane. None of the other systems mentioned were ever as effective or efficient as our capitalistic society is right now, and there's strong historical evidence that no variation on those systems would be more effective than capitalism at building wealth.
Or another way of thinking about it, if we move to one of the other listed methods, we'll never be able to address climate change. Anyone who remembers the USSR can think back and imagine how they would have dealt with the oncoming climate crisis. Compare the USSR's attempts at space travel with those of the US, and translate those efforts to a similar project fixing the climate.
So while capitalism can be considered inhumane in certain aspects, at the same time it minimizes the inhumanity inherent in all economic systems.
I think the hackers would pretty much just need to alter the results of the ballot counting in such a way that it isn't likely to trigger any hand recounts.
The way to do this is to slowly add fake voter registrations in the weeks leading up to the election, then enter create ballots for all the fake voters. Some of these can be absentee ballots.
The focus on ballot counting machines and process problems during the election night are completely misdirected - you need a way to cheat that would be undiscovered during a hand recount.
Live up-to-the-minute reporting is a big help here. You keep track of which candidate is winning, estimate how much your candidate will lose by, then drop off boxes containing only enough ballots for your candidate to win by a small margin. This minimizes the number of fake ballots entered into the system, and reduces your chance of getting caught.
For extra safety, cook up some reason to pause counting until the next day, then drop the boxes off late at night when everyone's asleep.
Bayesian prior: if this practice were widespread, we should see a large number of elections where candidates win by a thin margin, and not several percentage points.
Bayesian prior: if this practice were widespread, we should see boxes of ballots dropped off late in the process (ie - late at night, after counting has stopped, or after polls close generally).
Street lights are spec'd for incandescent bulbs
Sodium vapor in most cases. That would be about 70 Watts per fixture. Bring that down to 10 or 20 for an LED and maybe you could free up enough power for one Level 1 (120V) plug at best. We have one street light for every 400 or 500 feet along our street. So the battle over who gets the one plug for an all-night charge will get interesting.
Our street-light poles are on the wrong side of the sidewalk for convenient charging. Because of the handicapped access.
Sodium lamp street lamps can draw up to 1000 watts, and be replaced by a 70 watt LED. There's a lot of variation, but you don't need to convert the low power lamps.
It's also not directly a difference between new and old - the wires powering the lights are underground, use standard wire sizes, and are in most cases underspec'd - they calculate the total power and use the next higher wire size that will handle the power.
So in reality there might be 900 watts available at the pole. A Tesla battery can hold 50 kWh, so you could charge 1 Tesla from *zero* to full charge in about 55 hours.
But...
The use case is for people who commute, which is typically 30-60 miles each day. The high figure of 60 miles would be about 1/6 of the total charge (50 kWh), so:
About 7.5 hours of charging to recover 60 miles of commute.
This should be studied in detail, but the back-of-the-envelope calculations pan out. Two outlets per lamp post would handle most situations.
Street lights are spec'd for incandescent bulbs and are being replaced with LEDs. They have excess power capability
All you need is an appropriate outlet and a way to charge for the energy. Have the car send an ID to the lamp post where the owner account can be accessed.
An electric device that replaces the access panel at the base of the lamp with 2 outlets and a microcontroller. Add data line for communications and account verification.
Communication to the central office would need to be added, but there's probably an RF solution using the wires in the pole as an antenna with BLE to a box on the street connected to a data line - in the manner of a phone line box or electrical box. One box could probably provide data service for 50 lamp posts in the area.
Sounds like a business opportunity for someone who can design consumer power electronics.
He's far too intelligent to not have believed he was "right" to murder or he would not have murdered, therefore all repentance gestures are attempts at duping the credulous.
Lots of errors in this analysis.
You assume he's a psychopath, or has psychopathic tendencies, because you assume he made the decision to murder his wife clinically. With that implicit statement, you assume he is also narcissistic and thus conclude that we (the readers) should give him no pity.
To be fair, narcissism and psychopathic criminality tend to go together in highly public cases (don't know how often they are associated overall in the population), but the vast majority of murders tend to be emotionally driven.
The hypothesis that he's psychopathic (no emotional bonding with others) does not track with the rest of his life. His life simply doesn't "fit" the profile of someone highly intellectual that commits crimes for personal gain without regard for others. He doesn't have a psychopathic history.
Looking over the Wikipedia page for the murder it seems that, although his wife didn't deserve to be murdered, it looks like she wasn't a particularly nice person and could have been putting the children at risk.
The murder described in the Wikipedia page sounds a lot like an emotional murder. They argued, he believed she was inventing illnesses for the children, she defied him, and he snapped - strangling her in the heat of the moment.
That doesn't sound at all like someone who considers whether it's "right" or "wrong" to do the murder, it sounds more like emotions overwhelming common sense, then trying to hide the murder.
I dunno... if someone gets angry and kills in the heat of passion, and claims to be remorseful, is there no room for forgiveness here?
The big question will be can you fill one up before the warranty expires?
Having everything on a single large drive is less effective.
A single drive has a lifetime of about 5 years, so if you have data that is only occasionally accessed the OS can spin down the drive and save wear and tear over time.
Rather than have a 30 TB drive, six 5 TB drives will last much longer. Assuming that 5TB chunks meets your needs, put your OS and projects and work data on a single drive, then put your music library and vacation video collection and photos on a 2nd, all the AI training data on a 3rd drive.
The OS drive will wear out first and you can replace it, while the unused drives will be available when the first drives start to fail.
"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs
