Almost nothing thatâ(TM)s this cool, this ambitious, and this expensive - comes to fruition. Just sayinâ(TM). Hope Iâ(TM)m wrong.

Danny Goodman to the white courtesy phone, please -

Sorry about the text encoding problems. Somehow the "smart" quotes feature went wrong. Here's the comment with fixed quotes:

"What’s Wrong with this Study?"

"To begin with the text of the Stanford press statement has a caveat the size of the Brooklyn Bridge."

“The analysis was difficult, because none of these reactors are in operation yet,” said study co-author Rodney Ewing, the Frank Stanton Professor in Nuclear Security at Stanford and co-director of CISAC. “Also, the designs of some of the reactors are proprietary, adding additional hurdles to the research.”

"This is a significant shortcoming of the report. The absence of quality assured test data is a compelling reason to question the report as a whole as well as its particular findings. Had the authors called for such testing, rather than leaping to conclusion in its absence, the report might have built a stronger case for its conclusion."

"In short, without this kind of information, the report’s conclusions will be seen as resting on conjecture, and theory, and not engineering test results. It is plausible to predict the report will be strongly criticized on this point. In point of fact, the report’s press statement notes, “results from case studies were corroborated by theoretical calculations.” Simulation and modeling will only take you so far."

"Also, the authors don’t include references to any findings about the spent fuel from SMRs that have emerged from the NRC’s licensing review of NuScale’s SMR nor any of the pre-licensing topical reports from other vendor applicants that can be released without compromising proprietary information. There are multiple light water and advanced reactors in pre-licensing talks with the agency so there is no shortage of data in the NRC’s ADAMS online library to review."

https://neutronbytes.com/2022/...

âoeTo begin with the text of the Stanford press statement has a caveat the size of the Brooklyn Bridge.â

âoeThe analysis was difficult, because none of these reactors are in operation yet,â said study co-author Rodney Ewing, the Frank Stanton Professor in Nuclear Security at Stanford and co-director of CISAC. âoeAlso, the designs of some of the reactors are proprietary, adding additional hurdles to the research.â

âoeThis is a significant shortcoming of the report. The absence of quality assured test data is a compelling reason to question the report as a whole as well as its particular findings. Had the authors called for such testing, rather than leaping to conclusion in its absence, the report might have built a stronger case for its conclusion.â

âoeIn short, without this kind of information, the reportâ(TM)s conclusions will be seen as resting on conjecture, and theory, and not engineering test results. It is plausible to predict the report will be strongly criticized on this point. In point of fact, the reportâ(TM)s press statement notes, âoeresults from case studies were corroborated by theoretical calculations.â Simulation and modeling will only take you so far.â

âoeAlso, the authors donâ(TM)t include references to any findings about the spent fuel from SMRs that have emerged from the NRCâ(TM)s licensing review of NuScaleâ(TM)s SMR nor any of the pre-licensing topical reports from other vendor applicants that can be released without compromising proprietary information. There are multiple light water and advanced reactors in pre-licensing talks with the agency so there is no shortage of data in the NRCâ(TM)s ADAMS online library to review.â

https://neutronbytes.com/2022/...

His record includes ups & downs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Your information is > 6 months old. There is no technology upgrade.

Actually, that's not what Tag Heuer promised. They said that after two years you could exchange it for a mechanical Tag Heuer — for a $1500 fee. Not so impressive.

I took this years ago at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville AL.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kimhill/4412421201/

Wide shot: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/s5msc1.jpg

I agree about Gladwell. The way he talked about Jobs not having original ideas showed that he really has no clue about how the technology industry works. The smugness that went along with this was fairly insufferable.

I didn't have a particularly positive impression of Gladwell to begin with – but it's even lower now.

Actually, he said "late capitalism," apparently as a Marx-affirming flourish. Problem is, 20 years post-USSR, this comes off more like a Marxist version of the Black Knight from Monty Pythom & The Holy Grail... "It's only a flesh wound!"

But voice recognition is only the less important part of Siri. You're forgetting the natural language processing (which goes beyond traditional command processing for limited domains like phone calls, audio player control, etc.).

The expression, "Dragon voice recognition > anything apple has" - is not meaningful.

And after all that, they'll still need to operate their system long enough to harvest consumer usage data that allows them to augment/fine-tune the system. By that time, Apple will be, potentially, years ahead.

I knew that if I read down the page far enough, I'd find an intelligent comment.

I didn't say that Apple was first- just pointed out that the "grid icons are actually from palm pilots" claim was pretty weak.