That Wix is Israeli.
^^ Probably the most on-the-nose comment here. There are lots of exceptional people working at high level from unusual backgrounds. Unfortunately he got burn-noticed because he crossed the wrong person/s and was tipped off to local authorities, probably.
They'll make a deal with the king to promote more non woke content.
Well, at least that would still be some progress....
Other related terms:
* Pseudo-quotation: Putting a paraphrase or the general "gist" of someone’s argument inside quotation marks, rather than their literal verbatim words. Acts structurally like a quote, but semantically is a summary.
* 'Fictive Direct Speech (Esther Pascual): The structure of direct speech used to express a non-conversational concept, such as a belief, attitude, or general stance.
* Constructed Dialogue (Deborah Tannen): Used for "reported speech" - when people "quote" others in conversation, they are rarely reciting a literal transcript. Instead, they construct dialogue to dramatize a stance, represent a general attitude, or summarize a complex argument in a digestible way.
Sneer quotes (also called scare quotes) are similar, in that they summarize a person's stance, but have the distinction of also being dismissive of the person / stance as well.
That's not what "sneer quotes" do.
(And the quotes in the above are neither direct quotation nor sneer quotes, but use-mention distinction quotes, which let the sentence "know" that the thing in the quotes is the word/phrase itself, not what it refers to)
(And the quotes in the above are signaling quotes, to convey that a word is being used in an unconventional manner; it's a "clever" way to distance yourself from the word)
(And the quotes in the above are irony quotes....)
They think center-left is ultra right-wing.
Some mostly sensible people consider themselves center-left and feel hurt that the he Valley types are calling them fascists.
It's all complicated by the 1D spectrum model of the French Parliament being applied to politics broadly.
The Left Authoritarians really hate the Right Authoritarians while the Left Libertarians and the Right Libertarians mostly get along.
It sort of makes sense becauae violence is inherent in the former while cooperation is inherent in the latter.
But the angry aren't usually educated im polisci at all and just operate on the Friend/Eny distinction of their tribe's momentary collective preferences, which can turn on a dime.
The Valley oligarchs will also switch allegiances instantaneously if they perceive advantage in profit or control with shifting winds.
"Leaked"
*wink* *wink*
They keep adding timing noise to these API's as attacks show up but this really speaks to the need to have the noise in the core I/O libraries, not inside each new API.
If it's writing to disk in any way it should go through a code path with timing noise.
It would be easier on the feature developers too.
Probably in the network API's too. Have a turbo mode in preferences at one end of a privacy slider, maybe. Default should be safe but the browser benchmark people incentivize the wrong thing. "You get what you measure" and stuff.
It's an overseas market too.
Lots of defects in the case.
Somebody said his legal defense is that if Congress can do it he can. If true it could be an impactful case.
Yeah, I've been using canisters, and they're expensive and a chore (and because of that, it encourages me to give the plants much less than would be ideal).
The basic process is potassium carbonate/bicarbonate swing absorption. Potassium carbonate absorbs CO2 (and H2O) from the air at low temperatures , forming bicarbonate, but the bicarbonate emits CO2 (and H2O) at high temperatures. So the system has two modes: one, a powerful radial blower blows air through a pumice bed packed with potassium carbonate so that it absorbs CO2 (more specifically, it first absorbs H2O, and then CO2); and in the other, the fan is shut off and a PTC heater turns on to heat the pumice bed.
I'm trying to make the whole system as passive as possible. Since the fan is so powerful (you have to move a LOT of air to capture CO2), it's designed to blow dampers shut or open that control its path, while a different path opens up when the fan is not on. The PTC heater being on will automatically force the fan off. I've also set up (cross my fingers whether it works...) a weight-based system to control fan/heater switching. The core is PPS-CF (super heat tolerant) and mounted on springs, so it should move downward as it absorbs more moisture and CO2, and when it's full, it should force the fan off (even if my greenhouse controller hasn't requested CO2, aka triggered the PTC heater). And when the PTC heater is on, it rises from losing H2O and CO2 mass, and if it rises too much, that triggers a switch to force the fan off.
I'm also perhaps overcomplicating it and making a rod for my own back, in that I've designed it so that both modes have the air travel through a system of (also 3d printed) heat exchangers (in general, heat exchangers working with air have no issue with being made of plastic, because the heat flow from the air to the wall is slower than heat transfer across the wall). So these are big and made of multiple parts, in order to not slow down the airflow from the blower too much. But the idea is that the CO2+H2O flowing outwards cools and deposits H2O in the exchanger (then a secondary heat exchanger re-heats it to drive the convection force), while in capture mode, the incoming air can use that H2O instead of having to rely just on atmospheric H2O (which is viable, but does impose a capture delay). And of course, it helps maintain a warmer temperature inside the core on very cold days that might slow down the reaction (it's designed to be able to be mounted outside; the bulk of it will be printed in ASA).
Right now I'm in that annoying phase of prototyping where you print chunks of parts out, see if they actually print right ("whoops, there are supports in this area, but I CAN'T REACH THAT!"), actually fit together right (for example, dampers not jamming in their paths), the non-printed parts actually fit (I keep screwing up the mount for the blower, lol), that sort of stuff.
Dunno, but it's a fun project, and hopefully it will work
I do think your "you can't print horizontal holes" in PETG thing is pretty hilarious, BTW, because it's an open admission that you're terrible at understanding how to set print parameters
I don't plan to link anything with my name to you, so you can believe whatever you want, though if you'd like I'll 3d print something with your name on it, with horizontal holes, in PETG and post it online for you. And yes, I have a BA in Horticulture (subfield: greenhouse cultivation) from Fjölbrautaskóli Su[th]urlands (originally Landbúna[th]arháskólinn, in Hveragerði), along with a BS in CS - again, I don't plan to link anything with my name on it, so you're free to believe whatever you want, if it shocks you that people have more than one field. Just like you're free to believe whatever nonsense you want about forests.
https://carbonneutral.com.au/carbon-jargon-how-trees-capture-and-store-carbon/
Age also has an influence when thinking about collective communities of trees rather than individuals. Younger forests typically grow faster and absorb more carbon overall because trees can be crowded together when they’re small.
When forests consist of middle-aged trees, they also capture and store relatively high amounts of carbon, because middle-aged trees sequester more carbon than younger trees, and if any trees die, they are replaced by younger trees that grow more quickly.
Old-growth forests have a less fluctuating carbon cycle. There are usually fewer trees in an old-growth forest, and the large old trees dominate by blocking out light for younger trees.
https://www.stateforesters.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NCASI22_Forest_Carbon_YoungVsOld_print.pdf
Forests of different ages play different roles in removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in wood. Old forests
have accumulated more carbon than younger forests; however, young forests grow rapidly, removing much more CO2
each year from the atmosphere than an older forest covering the same area. Managing forests to avoid large emissions
from the loss of old trees while rapidly removing CO2 from the atmosphere through young forest growth can provide both
storage and sequestration benefi ts
During the initial years of stand development, either after a new establishment or a stand from regeneration after disturbance, the losses due to RA (autotrophic root respiration) and RH (soil organic matter decomposition) exceed the carbon sequestration resulting in forest ecosystems typically functioning as net carbon emission sources. The duration of this phase varies based on growth rates, site conditions, climate variables, and post-disturbance effects. Rapidly growing forests then transition to carbon sinks within approximately 10-20 years as increasing leaf area and biomass accumulation enhance carbon uptake and eventually surpasses carbon losses from respiration and decomposition. NEP reaches its maximum at an intermediate stand age, after which age-related declines in net primary production (NPP) occur due to reduced nutrient availability, increased mortality (Ryan, 1991; Hartmann and Trumbore, 2016), changes in stomatal conductance, and decreases in photosynthetic efficiency, which shift the balance between carbon uptake and respiratory losses (Bond-Lamberty et al., 2004; Gower et al., 1996; Tang et al., 2014), so that old-growth forests frequently function as a minor carbon sink, or remain carbon neutral, or even become a net emissions source, depending on various factors such as climate, disturbance history, and species composition (Chang et al., 2020; He et al., 2012).
The traditional view is that old-growth forests are roughly carbon neutral - that new growth happens roughly at the same rate as decay. This is not entirely accurate (esp. e.g. in boggy areas or other long-term-accumulation-prone habitats), but by and large, yes, old-growth forests are primarily neutral. Carbon-bearing matter grows, dies, and decays. Certain types of compounds decay faster than others - for example, lignin is humus-forming, and humus is very decay resistant, but is not immune to decay, and is lost over time from the soil. It requires anoxia or mineral binding to protect over geological timeframes. In general, the rates of this, if present at all, are orders of magnitude lower than than the influxes from photosynthesis and loss to decay.
To be clear, this is not that individual trees store less carbon as they age - just the opposite, rates continue to grow as a trees get older. But every tree is fated to die, and when it does, it overwhelmingly rots. Mature forests are in balance. It is forests that are not in balance - e.g. young forests, say 20-40 years old - that are massive at net removing CO2 from the atmosphere, because growth is fast but decay is slow (because not much has yet died).
TL/DR:
* Clearcut forest: terrible emission source. Lots of decay going on / soil carbon loss, even if immediately replanted. Takes a decade or more to go back to net sequestration
* Young growing forest: peaking at 20-40 years, massively net sequestering. Lots of new growth, comparatively little decay.
* Old growth forest: roughly in balance between growth and decay. Stores lots of carbon, but does not net sequester much, if any, carbon.
I hope that helps.
From what I'm seeing these local models can do what about 98% of the populace needs....and you aren't sharing your data with a corporation that is just sucking up all your data into their AI?
Loan-department manager: "There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it."
