$424 USD.

You're thinking of Nexus. Even by the end of the Nexus era, Google had shifted towards the flagship device market. Pixels have always been aimed at the flagship market.

If you want a cheaper option, look at the Pixel "A" series devices. They launch in the spring and generally have the prior year's CPU, less RAM, cheaper cameras and more plasticky build quality, but the prices are quite a bit lower. They still offer the same seven years of OS updates, though.

Yes. Always have. If you buy on a payment plan from someone other than Google they may keep it locked until you pay it off.

I live in a "high desert" region, in the mountains in northern Utah. Years ago I built a really nifty semi-passive cooling system for my house, which relies on the fact that even though the days get quite hot in the summer (~100F), as soon as the sun goes down the temperature drops, generally down to the low 60s, sometimes the low 50s or even 40s. Or at least it used to.

When I had to replace my HVAC system 10 years ago, I had the installers add an extra 8-inch vent pipe to the roof that comes down into the HVAC room and connects into the air return. Into this pipe I inserted an inline electrically-controlled baffle. I also installed a high-volume fan, the type used in greenhouses for plant ventilation, in the ceiling of my laundry room. It pushes air from the house into the attic, creating negative pressure in the house. When I open the baffle on the roof vent and turn on the HVAC fan and the attic fan, the effect is to draw air from the roof (from outside) and to push it through the HVAC system to my entire house, and to draw hot air near the ceiling and push it up into the attic (which is well-ventilated to the outdoors).

I then designed and built a set of ESP32-based microcontrollers, one each to control the vent baffle, the attic fan and a thermocouple that is installed in the roof vent, near the top, and I wrote some software that runs on an RPi and talks to the microcontrollers (via Wifi) and my smart thermostat (via its API). During summer nights, whenever the exterior temperature falls below the interior temperature and the weather forecast says the next day will be over 70F, the RPi turns on the fans and opens the baffle, drawing cool air into the house all night long.

In past years, most mornings I woke up to a house temperature in the mid-60s, and not just the air temperature; most of the house's thermal mass, especially that large amount of ceramic tile on the floors, had cooled to that level. Outside temperatures typically reach 80F by 10 AM, 90F by noon and 100F by midafternoon, but when the house starts at 65F in the morning, it typically takes until 4PM to reach 75F, at which point the AC has to begin working to maintain that temperature. The AC has to work a bit (not much) until maybe 9 PM when the exterior temperature falls. So vast majority of my summer cooling is done by running a couple of fans at night. If we were willing to accept 80F in the house, the AC might often not be needed at all.

Not this year.

This year, nighttime temperatures rarely fall below 70F. My system rarely kicks the fans on until about 4 AM, and even then there isn't much cooling going on because the temperature differential isn't large enough... and even when the house does cool a bit, it only cools the air. It's not cold enough long enough to significantly cool the tile and other thermal mass components. My AC sometimes runs during the night, consistently starts running by 10 AM and runs off and on all day, every day. I've adjusted the thermostat to 78F and I'm considering going to 80F, though I probably won't because my wife would complain.

Also, half of my state is on fire. Last night I disabled the system because there's a 15,000-acre wildfire 10 miles from my house, and if the system ran it would have pumped smoke into the house.

Of course, all of this is ultimately only an inconvenience to me. I can afford to run the AC all day every day if I have to. Not cooling down at night is a real problem for those who don't have the resources I do.

Your original comment, at the top of the thread was:

Are you claiming that this original belief is correct? Or have you admitted it's not, and are now discussing the other claim that it was "only app users"? If the latter, you're correct. If you're still maintaining that it must include people who submitted followup question so the AI result (or just "told the AI it was shit"), then you're incorrect.

So... I dug some more.

Yes, his vessels (both of them, the yacht and its tender) fall into the large vessel category but Frederick Sound has no VTS, so both were legally obligated to be listening on channel 13 and channel 16. And large vessels aren't allowed to use one dual-channel radio like small vessels do (mine does!); they have to have two separate radios monitored by two separate people. This isn't because dual-channel radios are unreliable, but because they don't want the crewman who's using one radio to communicate to miss messages on the other channel due to task loading. It's about keeping the two crewmen unencumbered enough to effectively monitor both.

I've never learned much about radio requirements of large vessels, so this was interesting :-)

Large vessels aren't required to monitor 16, at least when in an area with an active Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) operation.. They are required to monitor 13 (the bridge-to-bridge channel) and the VTS channel (the frequency varies; it's never channel 16). But if the Coast Guard was calling them they'd be calling on the VTS channel, which Zuck's crew should have been monitoring.

So, you're right in substance, just not about the particular channel.

Whether it's legally required depends on the type of vessel. "Voluntary" vessels, such as small recreational vessels, are not required to have a VHF radio at all. Those that have one are required to maintain a watch on channel 16 when they're not using the radio to communicate. In practice, most radios today have dual or triple-channel monitoring, so you can keep monitoring even if you've switched to a different channel to talk.

I had to look up the rules for larger "mandatory" vessels... and the result surprised me. Large vessels are required to have VHF radios and maintain a watch, but not on channel 16! They're required to maintain a watch on two channels, the bridge-to-bridge channel, 13, and the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) channel, which varies from location to location. I guess the theory is that if there are distress signals that the vessel needs to respond to, they'll be routed to the VTS channel by the Coast Guard.

Either way, it sounds like Zuck's crew wasn't maintaining the required radio watch.

I found it at a different URL: https://www.allrecipes.com/rec...

With conveniently-streamed video evidence identifying the vandal / assailant!

The 4 GWh per year makes sense. The factory will produce 4 GWh of batteries every year. So if each battery is (pulling a number out of my butt) 10 KWh, the factory will build four million of them per year, or about 11,000 per day (assuming 365 days per year operation).

As for the translation to households... I can't make anything sensible out of that number. I'll note that you (inadvertently, I'm sure) multiplied the number of claimed households by a million, but if we drop that down to the claimed 4M households, that means each household gets 1 kWh of the capacity, which is enough to run the average house for about 45 minutes of average consumption... so that's not "overnight" storage for solar generation, but it's more than you need for grid stabilization. Dunno. My best guess is that they were going for how many houses you could run for a month on that much storage and just screwed up the arithmetic by three orders of magnitude (one SI scaling factor).

The $71M figure is to build a factory that manufactures sodium-ion batteries, 4 GWh of them per year.

Nah. It's just like every previous innovation-driven boom (railroads, oil, telecoms...) the growth and buildout phase generates incredible new wealth, highly concentrated (Vanderbilt, Stanford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.), . Then there are several decades of adaptation and adoption, during which the benefits accrue to the population broadly. This doesn't decrease the wealth of those who got crazy rich during the boom, but their wealth stops growing rapidly and they just become the new "old money". Then the next innovation creates a new crop of winners and the cycle repeats.

We're really just completing the adoption and adaptation phase of the personal computer revolution, and maybe a third of the way through the adoption and adaptation of the Internet revolution (the dot-com boom).

This claim ignores the fact that each new boom creates an entirely new set of winners, nearly all of whom actually came from humble-to-moderate beginnings. The wealth isn't staying in one "ossified" caste, indeed it's the exact opposite of ossification. Of course, as I said above, the wealth of those winners doesn't decline during the adaptation phase, but the the wealth generated by the newly-realized productivity gains does accrue broadly -- and in fact those "winners" never actually had as much wealth as they appeared to, because their paper wealth was primarily composed of the market's projection of their slice of their company's slice of the broad future gains.

In the end, the tide does raise all boats. The US has been getting steadily wealthier -- at every quintile -- for decades. There have been some dips at each recession, but the trend line is clear. Look at the real median household income and the net worth of by the bottom 50%. Granted that inequality has risen... that's to be expected during and for the first decade or two after an innovation-driven economic boom, and we've had multiple, in quick succession. But the actual numbers show that the tide is lifting all boats -- though the boats of the big winners have rocket engines attached.

There is one very large caveat that we're dealing with right now, which is housing prices. Due to a combination of factors -- mostly dominated by increases in square footage per person and quality of amenities that we've become accustomed to accepting as the baseline, but also including excessive building restrictions and a minor real estate bubble caused by the pandemic and low interest rates, then compounded by rising interest rates needed to combat the post-pandemic inflation -- right now that increased income and wealth isn't enough for many to buy the homes they'd like. Wages continue rising and housing prices in much of the country are actually falling a little, so over the next few years that will likely equalize out, but right now it's painful for many. But that pain is generating a pessimistic view of the state of the economy and individual incomes that simply doesn't match reality.

There definitely is a risk right now that this could all go badly if the new winners are allowed to engage in extensive regulatory capture. That's how market-proof monopolies are built, by capturing and directing government power. If we can avoid that, though, and just let the market continue to work, the general wealth increase will continue.

Well, unless the AI singularity hits. It's impossible to know what things will look like on the other side of that.

What you say is true... but basically all of the other president have actually been pretty smart people. There are some who clearly aren't as smart as others, but I can't think of any who were as dumb as Trump.