I was following the situation closely at the time and saw a different movie being shown on that same screen.

A lot of studies popped up that purported to disprove his thesis about HCQ, but a careful assessment of the experimental method showed that no paper actually tested what he was claiming.

So for example, one paper gave late stage Covid patients - people on respirators who were expected to die in the next few hours - the HCQ treatment to see if it had any effect. Double blind, enough patients for statistical strength, all of that. The result was that there was no statistical advantage to giving HCQ to these patients, therefore HCQ does nothing. (Note: Covid death is due to complications, and once major complications begin killing the virus does almost nothing.)

Lots and lots of papers popped up, I remember reading at least six that came out against HCQ without testing his actual claims, and kept wondering when someone was going to actually test his treatment plan.

His claims were easy to disprove, but no one bothered to actually find out!

The reason people disagreed with Raoult is because his treatment didn't have any sort of model or rationale for *why* it worked. It isn't an anti-viral so there's no logical reason why it *should* work in the first place, and everyone latched onto that without thinking things through.

There are counterexamples in medicine, some things are prescribed "off label" because the side effects are beneficial in certain cases. Finasteride is used for hair loss, but helps with erection dysfunction. How could a hair loss medicine affect erections? It doesn't make sense, but it seems to work.

Anyway, after trying to follow the controversy and reading several papers trying to disprove the theory, I finally gave up. My assessment of the situation was that this was a political situation and that it was impossible to sort through the bullshit to get to the truth.

  (This was an outgrowth of my personal campaign to go to ground level truth as much as possible.)

The "drinking bleach" thing was a hoax, he never said that (and what he did say was nowhere near that), but a fuckton of people believe that he did because there was political capital to be gained.

The HCQ thing is no different. I'm 'kinda on the side of HCQ doesn't work, but to this day I have nagging doubts about that position simply because there is so much FUD and misinformation that I don't believe anyone can sort through it all. And the fact that everyone is shouting the same thing in lockstep simply increases my doubts.

You shouldn't have to shout, or lie ("drinking bleach"), or insult, or rant about facebook posts.

Simply say "this is disproven, here is the paper", and move on.

This is an actual concern for republicans in general.

House representatives are allocated based on population, and not specifically citizens. There are about 2 million non-citizens in California (out of 39 million), and about 12 million non-citizens in the US generally.

The extra population gives California more House representatives in congress.

This is believed to be the driving force behind the sanctuary state/illegal immigrant controversy in the country today. If blue-leaning states allow unrestricted influx of people (and red states don't), then they get an outsized level of influence in the legislature.

Note the "that Donald Trump hates" phrase in the OP above. One side always always always frames the issue in terms of "words of power", such as racism or sexism or hatred of others and the like.

It's never "legitimate concerns, and here's why".

We need to stop the name calling and start discussing the actual situation.

The US population is getting fed up with these sorts of tactics.

You do realize MIT made a breakthrough in fusion a year or two ago, had a long video on YouTube explaining exactly what they found, and all that information is available for your perusal, right? And there was an article here on slashdot, right?

Fusion return is proportional to the fourth power of the containment field. By using modern superconducting magnets and some innovative design, they are able to achieve a much stronger confinement. This results in a longer, higher pressure burn (various, depending on which parameters you want to emphasize) that's more stable.

Why people have to be snippy and insulting instead of just asking "what's the science behind this" is beyond me.

Maybe it's an echo from the recent election, I don't know.

Lots of informed people would just tell you what you want to know.

Wooden utensils and chopping boards are one of the best surfaces for harbouring bacteria.

Very difficult to lock down the human element.

Offering an employee $100,000 for their key is difficult to detect and track. Even a multiple key system (multiple employees) would fall to this type of exploit.

A strong logging system might help (ie - always log who is using the feature, and verification with an associated court order ID), but sysadmins can still wipe logs, hand-edit log files, and so on.

Maybe we should start with an open source signed logging system. Something block-chained, so that no individual log could be altered without breaking the entire chain. If there were a comprehensive open-source implementation of such as logging system, it would find use in all sorts of applications. (Voting comes to mind, as well as court paper filings, legislation edits, and so on.)

It literally is.

You haven't paid a penny extra to produce that surplus. It comes from the system which you have to have as a certain size to get through the winter.

Thus in the summer, you're MORE EFFICIENT than you need to be (no different to having an AC that you turn off in the winter... it's not "inefficient" to have that AC!).

So putting that energy to literally any further usage that costs you nothing (not even any extra maintenance, etc.) isn't less efficient at all.

And if your overspec of the system in the first place leads to full utilisation in the winter, and profit in the summer, and pays for itself in a reasonable period even without using up the entire surplus... that's literally TOO efficient.

I'm still trying to work out why I would want something randomly screenshotting my screen constantly and storing those screenshots on my computer forever.

I don't really care what it blurs or doesn't. I want to know why you need that at all, as a user.

Because selling it is less cost-efficient than using it.

As I provide as an example - bitcoin mining. Or run an atmospheric water generator (turn your electricity into clean water). Or put it into your car.

An excess of electricity is something that's extremely simple to manage and doesn't require you to do ANYTHING with it at all. You can just throw it away. It's cost nothing to produce.

But tying into the grid requires a whole different set of integration requirements, generates only a comparative pittance of income, and is least in demand when your solar is most productive (because they have their own!).

My tiny house in Oxfordshire begs to differ.

As do several surrounding neighbours with "normal" sized houses.

Of course, in the summer, those same panels are pulling in many, many kilowatts and you'll struggle to use or store it all but... that doesn't matter.

I technically have capacity for about 8 times more panels than I have, and I'm already charging 1KWh+ every day even at the moment (wind, rain, etc. even snow the other week). My average daily usage is 7KWh. My battery capacity is 4KWh with a max of about 16KWh in the space/system it's currently in.

With an electric car, that would be even greater. And if you want you can just remain on the grid purely to load-shift from off peak to peak hours (sign up to Octopus Flex, charge batteries at 2p / KWh, use them when they are 30p / KWh, etc.).

Solar is not only viable in the UK, it's literally being used like that already.

The rooftop is not the problem. I just passed a very ordinary house this morning with a very poorly laid out arrangement of 13 panels, which I believe are ~400W each. That's 5.2KW. Even at 5% effectiveness on their stated rating, that's 2KWh per day. I'd have got 4KWh / day out of that roof, easily. I literally look at those things now because I've done it on my own.

Hell, I could have fitted twice his system on my roof, which is about 2/3rds the size.

With the shitest panels in the world (cheap 12V flexis, laid on a shed, facing whatever direction of the shed happened to be nearest south, with the shed lower than the roof slope), I was generating 1KWh per day even in the winter with an area approximately 1/12th the size of my actual south-facing roof.

Also: If you need to start up a generator for a couple of days a year and your solar is free the rest of the year? Welcome. That's still off-grid.

And with an electric car that 20 times your daily consumption (140KWh for me) is perfectly viable. Hell, 100KWh cars are hardly unusual on their own, let alone if you also have a household solar system of any decent capacity.

The tables turned. Household self-sufficient solar is possible and even practical even in Nordic latitudes nowadays, using nothing more than available roofspace.

Just in time for me to stop caring because I can now turn my all-electric house into a self-sufficient all-electric house on a small budget and no longer require that utility at all (even in the UK, solar and batteries for 24+ hours is more than viable).

Honestly, I can see the electricity sector start to tank now because why would I pay you for something I can do for myself just as cheaply? That was never historically true, but with ridiculous unit prices (still set based on gas prices, ironically) and cheap solar... it's perfectly viable.

And starting from 2030, more and more houses will be required to have bought a very large battery in the form of... an electric car.

I started building out my own solar because I see no utility in my future retirement. 20 years from now, I'm not going to need the grid for anything. To quote Tom Goode in The Good Life (Good Neighbors in the US): If I could invent a water pill, the water board can go stuff itself too.

Honestly, I bought an all-electric house a couple of years ago, after living in an all-electric house for about 5 years, with the express aim to be independent of the utilities. It's not even particularly difficult to do. Currently 4KWh storage for 7KWh average daily usage, and I've barely even started putting panels on the main roof of my tiny place.

I will move to an all-electric car when my current one dies, and won't use a fuel station ever again. Hell, I'm looking at atmospheric water generators and greywater systems and even electric incinerator toilets (a bit drastic, because I'd always have sewage, but a great option). Amazing how all that lot needs is electricity, too.

And will I feed so much as a watt back to the grid? No. Why would I? Why should I help them out for an absolute pittance? I'm not a believer in such nonsense but it would be technically better deployed running a Bitcoin miner from the excess than all the hassle involved in feeding back to the very utility I'm trying to get rid of.

The video examples are here.

Taking one in particular, the alien walking on a busy street, note that at the very beginning, over the alien's right shoulder, the taxicab sliding sideways on the road. almost at the end a taxicab slides dangerously across the crosswalk through the crowd of people.

Everyone is walking in the street.

People disappear as a cab passes in front of them. (Behind the Alien to his right, two people walking across the street and not "down" the street")

Hilarious! OpenAI should totally announce that product and make it available for use!

Close to the end check out the guy walking across the street carrying a blue umbrella.

And of course, why is he carrying an umbrella when it's not raining and no one else is carrying one?

I was under the impression that inaccuracies of GPS were caused by variations in the speed of the radio signal, variations in the speed of light in the medium of atmosphere due to variations in moisture content.

How will more resolution in the reference clock make GPS any more accurate?

Can someone familiar with GPS tech explain this?

(I am assuming that we replace the clocks in the GPS satellites with the newer technology in newer satellites.)

It was always clear that they wouldn't win - precisely because of the way they went about this which was to just assume they had the right to do it, knowing that wasn't true, but hoping for a change in the law.

At no point has any "library" ever been able to just wholesale scan any works they liked and offer them under unlimited terms to the world for free. It doesn't even work like that for the oldest libraries in the world in the most permissive societies.

IA were always in the wrong. That they've finally dropped the case - and that they lost and had to appeal it several times in the first place - means they knew that.

Just because you think a law needs changing doesn't mean you can just break that law continually in the meantime.

In addition to that, the *correct* way to deal with the issue is to get legislation passed.

We're about to have a new administration with a panel looking into efficiency - I'll bet Elon Musk would be sympathetic to the idea of modifying copyright law.

I'm pretty certain that Elon could come up with a law that would allow for the free exchange of abandoned books, but also allow long-term rights holders to retain their rights. Something like a trivial $10 renewal fee would suffice.

While we're on the subject, someone please ask Elon to look into fees charged to view scientific research that was government funded. Taxpayers paid for the research, we should be able to see the results for free.

(Again, maybe a rule change for studies "going forward", which would placate the large publishing houses in the near term.)