While I don't know the specific of this instance, it generally requires that the local utility has an existing remote heating network installed. And those have been popping up a lot (at least in Europe) in the last decade.

If you are looking for a simple, but nice animation of the process, check out Infomaniak's press-release (the animation is half-way down the page) https://news.infomaniak.com/en...
They have been operating a datacenter that does just that since the start of the year. It was actually built within a residential area just for this purpose.

I find this all framed a little oddly.

What I see here seems to be people arguing from the predetermined biases without regard for the topic.

For example, claims of it having to do with abuse in any direction would require some substantial evidence.

But then, there's also bias in this:

"If you want to somehow tie feminism into the declining birth rates, especially given the relatively recent MeToo movement, a less tenuous tie would be the increase in awareness that women have to how abusive men are ..."

And in this:

"But it's the womens fault still?"

The idea of "fault" here seems to imply that falling birth rate is something that is wrong that needs to be blamed on somebody.

The available evidence of falling birth rate can actually be "tied" to feminism fairly easily, but in terms of women having choices and tradeoffs, including women becoming more educated and building careers. I don't think anybody would argue that these choices didn't emerge as a result of feminism. I don't know that anybody, or very many, would say that is a bad thing. Rather, an consequence of staying in school, going to university, and building a career is that marriage and having children is delayed, and having more children would mean more time out of their career.

For example, the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) summarizes the research nicely in their article, "Why is the birth rate declining" (May 6, 2021): "Between 2007 and 2020, the TFR in the United States declined from 2.12 to 1.64.3 This decline may signal a longer-term drop in lifetime fertility shaped by broader social factors, including postponement of marriage and childbearing to older ages and long-term increases in women’s educational attainment and labor force participation. Although most American women say they expect to have at least two children, many women delay childbearing whether by choice or circumstance to the point that they may end up having only one child or no children at all."

Refs:

Martin O’Connell, “Childbearing,” in Continuity and Change in American Families, ed. Lynne M. Casper and Suzanne M. Bianchi (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001).

Eve Beaujouan and Caroline Berghammer, “The Gap Between Lifetime Fertility Intentions and Completed Fertility in Europe and the United States: A Cohort Approach,” Population Research and Policy Review 38 (2019): 507-35, https://link.springer.com/arti....

You'll also note that while fertility rates declined for women of most ages, the rates actually increase consistently from the late 1970s to today for women in their 30s. That is, women have children much later than they used to, and have fewer of them total.

That is inconsistent with any links to abuse (in any direction). It a simple matter that the changing role and available choices of women -- which of course has a lot to do with feminism -- is a trade-off. There's finite time available. Women can't have children at the same rate as they used to, and stay home with them, and go to school, and build careers. That's impossible.

Instead, what we've learned is that when the choices are opened up, a very large portion of women prefer education and career over having children, or having them while young, or having as many. Is that a bad thing? It certainly has consequences on populations and demographics, but would it be better to declare the outcome "we" want and then force women to do the bidding to get that outcome?

By "we", I mean collective discussions about what "should" happen in society. A free country means the outcomes can't be dictated; if you want to dictate statistically outcomes, you have create an unfair, unfree society where individuals are forced to do what is necessary to get that outcome.

This is fundamentally the result of freedom along with the rapid increase in standard of living. People aren't forced into things by circumstance, government, or social pressure. (Sure, I've heard some objections that women have been pressured to not stay home and have children, but at the scale of whole population that would require a lot more evidence than pointing to a few feminist leaders who have said women shouldn't do that.)

It is what it is. It isn't a "fault" or a blame. It is an outcome of freedom and choice.

NextGen budget total from 2007-2022 was 14B, about 1B/year, not 17B last year. See the GAO report. https://www.gao.gov/assets/d24...

to clarify, I mean signs of intelligent life, of course. And the cities are a mix of brown and gray.

Ship tracks and aircraft contrails are the two most obvious signs of life on the planet when looking down from the ISS during daylight. Even the largest cities just look like brown smudges. At night, of course, city lights are there.

HVAC uses engine bleed air but that is turned off during takeoff to increase engine power.

Here's a simple example: perform the computation in the exponent over a finite field. Let's say you're doing linear regression and need to compute a*x+b. I'm going to pick a number g and give you g^x instead of x. You're going to compute g^(a*x+b) = (g^x)^a*g^b. Now you can twiddle a and b to fit a line. But you don't know the data x (because inverting g^x is computationally hard, aka the discrete logarithm problem). Note 1: this is vastly oversimplified to demonstrate the idea. Note 2: this is partially homomorphic encryption -- you can't multiply two hidden numbers in the exponent -- this is what is added by fully homomorphic encryption, which pulls in a mountain of new headaches.

Give me another way to turn real-world assets into cryptographic form without "trusting" someone.

Bram founded a new company, https://chia.net/ which is making a new bitcoin-derived crypto-currency based on Proof of Space and Time. Basically it fills the unused space on your drive with entropy, and uses this like a set of lottery tickets instead of Proof of Work mining. They're also focusing on features of the crypto-currency that will enhance "Layer 2" (like http://lightning.network/) to enable scalability. In an economic sense this construction shifts the costs of mining toward capital expenditure (for storage) instead of electricity consumption.

He and a collaborator recently won Best Paper at Eurocrypt 2018 for a Zero Knowledge Proof of Time https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/1... (presentation: https://cyber.stanford.edu/sit... )

Interesting things are coming from Bram.

FYI, the CEO of this new company (Bob Mumgaard) and CTO (Dan Brunner) helped answer the questions asked in the Ask MIT Fusion Researchers About Fusion Power in April 2012: https://hardware.slashdot.org/... Prof. Dennis Whyte and Dr. Martin Greenwald were also on that thread and are now core members of the founding team of the new startup (although they remain employed by MIT).

They're shooting protons at a LiF2 or LiO2 solid target. Why do we think there is not a (p,F) or (p,O) reaction contributing to this?

As a long time reader, I'm pretty severely disappointed by the responses to this post. No discussion of NTP, or GSM time distribution, or CDMA time distribution, or shortwave radio, or ANYFUCKINGTHING relevant to the poster's question.

Where did the knowledgeable people go? Because I really don't need some douchenozzle to tell me that the Amazon fire has a clock app, and see that that post has been rated +4?!?!?! WTF?!??!?!

Give mod points motherfuckers and I will clean up this mess.

It's hard to believe psychology studies are more reproducible than cancer studies (11% reproducible): http://www.nature.com/nature/j...

Unless you want to spend several months a year of your life auditing inefficient "charity" organizations and trying to make judgments about whether they're doing it right and spending your dollars wisely...and hey if you think you're good at that you should probably start your own charity. But if you do, everyone will expect you to work for free. It's a viscous circle.

Donate your time, you'll meet people too.

Unless you're a multi-billionaire, then start a foundation and direct where the money goes.

Also this is an awesome graph, and illustrates that the Earth is a horrible clock: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...