I don't really have one, my knowledge comes from having done preliminary market research for a sleep movement monitoring system.

As a general statement, I feel monitoring beyond that suggested by medical staff probably has more impact on the parents mental state than on the child's wellbeing.

SIDS is a terrible problem.

However I feel the baby monitoring industry that exploits it is even worse.

If a baby stops breathing from SIDS it cannot be resuscitated, survival rate is zero percent.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

Breathing issues such as apnea and periodic breathing are not SIDS.

Apnea monitors for children at high risk, such as those born prematurely is appropriate.
Such devices should be recommended by doctors and supplied through standard medical device supply chains.

If you read the marketing and the forums for baby monitoring devices you find an industry full of paranoid mothers fitting their three year old with multiple monitoring devices 24/7. This view is reinforced and exploited by the baby monitoring industry.
These people need psychiatric help, not miniature radars to measure heart rates.

It has become the SAP of software development.

Being the leader is the market means the decision becomes "safe", and adoption accelerates despite significant issues.

You have a large number of well armed and angry people collecting together with a stated aim of inflicting violence on others.

The law enforcement agencies would have been negligent not to have a response prepared.

The reason why those people collected together isn't overly relevant to the response.

The aluminium smelters received free credits to address the exact problem raised here, competition from overseas businesses. This is preferable to tarrifs, because of various trade agreements and WTO rules. Despite this, the aliminium smelter company Alcoa was the 13th highest payer of the carbon price. I believe this reflects the balance they tried to strike between incentivising behaviour and protecting industries from unfair import competition. I'm not convinced that they got the balance right, but making blanket statements about smelters being exempt is simply false.

The carbon price increased electricity costs by about 7%, which you can see by the drop in price after the carbon price was repealed.

Given that the average annual power bill is $1600, that is an impact of about $112 per year.

As everyone received a $2500 tax cut via the tax free threshold change that year, plus other compensation. This seems like bullshit.

People choosing to reduce the amount of power they use to heat their homes, for whatever reason, would however be the definition of a positive change in behaviour.

Nice story, not true.

Brickworks, Australia's largest brick manufacturer saw a 37% jump in earnings in their brick and tile division over the period of the emissions trading scheme.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2014...

Lovely words, but they seem to be in direct and complete opposition to the facts.

Net income is up 4x over Iger's tenure, the share price has risen 5x (the S&P 500 rose less than 3x over the same period).

Bob Iger was fantastic for Disney, and the share price shows that "the money people" agreed.

This is nonsense, the standard tape is the 3M/Scotch 33 Vinyl tape. It is rated to 600V.

The thicker 88 tape is rated to 1000V.

New nuclear plants don't make financial sense.

The nuclear industries own modelling shows that it costs about 5x as much to build compared to wind power on a per kw basis.

Recent nuclear construction projects have all blown out their projected costs, the South Carolina plant blew out from $10B to $25B before it was completed. We will never know if it would have blown out further as they cancelled the project, Westinghouse went into bankruptcy, South Carolina still had to pay $9B but only got a fancy concrete slab to show for it.

The Vogtle plant in Georgia had a budget of $14.5B, which has been revised to $27.3B. Construction started in 2013 and was expected to finish in 2017, this is now targeted at 2022. So costs are up 88%, time is up 125%, and we are only two thirds of the way through construction.

This isn't a US problem, the Olkiluoto plant in France and the Hinkley plant in the UK have both costed twice as much and taken twice as long as projected. Neither is yet operational.

So it would be more reasonable to say that modern nuclear systems cost about 10x as much to build compared to wind power.

Admittedly these are all big, centralised, "old" designs. However despite considerable investment small modular reactors have never been certified and the first ones aren't projected until mid 2020s. Until proven otherwise, I believe it is prudent to expect a similar cost and time blowout on these systems, so the first is unlikely to be operational before 2030. Advocating for an unproven product ten years before it is deliverable is a bit too wishy washy for me, especially when fusion is only 20 years away.

Once operational nuclear is one of the cheaper systems to run, but operators have been seeking subsidies recently, and this in no way offsets the interest costs of having to pay off the upfront capital expense.

Nuclear power plants have never existed without considerable government support. Advocating for them is great, but I feel advocates should be upfront as to why it is worth spending billions extra for a fungible product.

I am a big fan of these kinds of systems.

Until recently I worked in a high school. Circumventing the school network filtering systems taught the kids more about networking than the final year IT course.

It's like hiding vegetables in meatloaf, this is how you build the next generation of IT professionals.

This reminds me of the joke where a Mathematician is in a room with a fire and a fire extinguisher, declares that a solution exists and then goes back to sleep.

It's funny because the Mathematician is an idiot.

The current USA government has gone out of its way to allow coal fired power plants to continue without restriction.
The Australian and Chinese governments have approved new coal mines this year. The Australian mine has an expected operational life of over 60 years.

The fact is emissions continue to rise and have every year, the first IPCC report outlining a clear case for action was in 1990. Thirty years ago we knew what was required and how to do it.

You are right, a solution exists. But we aren't doing it, and the policy of most major governments around the world is to go back to sleep.

1. The plane in question is manufactured by Airbus not Boeing.

2. Of course they are using 32 bit. It is an embedded system, most processors are 32 bit ARMs or 8 bit chips.

3. The plane in question started manufacture in 2010 (Wikipedia), the subsystem design would have preceded this by years. Arm didn't release their 64bit architecture until 2011.

4. A 32bit count of milliseconds corresponds to 49 days, a long way from 149 hours. It does correspond with a 32bit counter and an 8kHz clock though.

Until recently I worked performing car accident rescues. New cars are significantly stronger than the old REAL steel models.

An illustration of this is that rescue crews have transitioned to unbolting car doors rather than using hydraulics (jaws of life) to tear them off. The strength of newer cars makes it considerably harder to pop the doors, it also means that when the hinge does give way there is significantly more shock traveling through the car into the patient. Current best practice is to expose the hinge and unbolt if possible, better for the patient and faster.

The current advanced high strength steels are six times stronger than classic mild steel, and getting stronger. The new structures are thinner, lighter but stronger and still very much made of steel. Manufacturers are also much better at forming well engineered precisely designed shapes.

You are far more likely to bend an old Ford by sitting on it than a new lightweight compact car.

Commercial electronic components are generally rated for 70 degrees. Then you take into account the localised heating in the chassis by the components and the fact that you need a temperature differential to dispose of heat and appliances are often rated (read that as tested) for 50 degrees, which is hotter than the room you want standing in. The localised heating impact can be huge but doesn't occur if the device isn't powered.

In practice 70 degrees isn't going to cause a failure. Virtually all components are put through a soldering oven which heats them up to 250 degrees for a short period of time. Prolonged time at high temperatures will shorten the lifetime of delicate components such as LCD screen and Lithium batteries, a few days a year shouldn't have enough impact to be noticeable. Various components such as timing crystals have their operation impacted by temperature changes but don't suffer damage, most GPS units will drop their tracking if you transition from a heated house to a snowy driveway.

At higher temperatures integrated circuits start suffering from atomic migration in the internal wirebonds, transistors suffer from thermal runaway and PCBs can delaminate. These sort of failures require a temperature of 150 degrees, the difference between the device rating of 70 degrees is largely to manage the localised heating that occurs inside the component. A failure of this type only occurs with poor thermal design and again only while the device is in operation, in my experience the thermal margin is big enough that an few degrees of environmental temperature is fine. These failures are also a concern in the manufacturing process, for example if the part is subjected to the oven multiple times.

The airlines already assign an approximate weight to each passenger. The weight is determined by a lookup table using if the person is an adult or child, male or female. This is used to adjust the total fuel load as well as the balance of the aircraft.

While the table is an approximate and is clearly going to be incorrect for any given individual, this doesn't actually matter. Once you put 200 people on a plane the statistical variances balance out and you approach the mean.

There isn't actually a significant gain to be had by weighing everyone individually.