Maybe Roku has been paying to carry Fox content, or Fox has been paying Roku to carry content (I don't know how their deals work), and now that doesn't have to happen anymore?
Let's do the math:
($Fox + $Payment) + ($Roku - $Payment) = $Fox + $Roku
That's a zero-sum transaction. No $400M savings there.
All of the discussions say that the utilities pay for the electricity they buy.
If it's anything like how they pay for solar, they'll tack on so many bullshit fees you'll be lucky to break even.
Hopefully more than the pay for solar, since they buy solar when the seller has extra power, while they will buy battery power when they need extra power.
"Battery breakthroughs will lessen AI's demand on the electricity grid,"
No it will not. AI demand on the grid will be whatever it is, and that will never lessen.
Depends on what you define as "the grid". If you define the grid as merely the transmission lines, but not including the power sources, then you are correct. Most people, however, will loosely define "the electrical grid" as the transmission systems including the generators that power it. In that case, batteries will lessen AI's demand, since the grid's limiting factor is providing power at peak demand, and every watt provided by batteries is one watt less for the grid to provide.
It's called "peak shaving".
Batteries may help the grid cope with that demand, but demand won't be lessened a single watt.
Demand from the customer won't be lessened by a single watt, but demand that the grid needs to provide will lessen by one watt for every watt the battery provides
I think I would be pretty dismayed to hop in my car to head out for work in the morning and discover that it dumped half it's charge for datacenters...
My car has a range of 300 miles, and I have a commute of ten miles. The average American car is driven about 35 miles per day. I wouldn't mind if I hopped in the car to head for work and discovered half of the range miles that I don't use had been sold.
As long as I can turn off that feature when I have a long trip scheduled the next day, I wouldn't mind buying electricity at low rates and selling it back at high rates.
and that GM took profit out of that, to boot!
All of the discussions say that the utilities pay for the electricity they buy.
No the battery will not outlast the EV unless some breakthrough in reliability.
Have you looked at recent data on EV battery lifetimes? There have been a number of breakthroughs in reliability.
Making a better battery, or commercializing it, is a milestone. Putting a research battery into an airplane is not a milestone. It's a publicity stunt.
Building a reliable long-range monoplane in 1927 was a milestone. Flying it solo from New York to Paris was a publicity stunt.
Which of these two actions do people remember and celebrate today?
That's why we need fusion. If you tell everyone "hey, look, magic spit out energy for free machine that runs on sea water" they'd probably move to it in a hurry just for price.
I love fusion as a science fiction device, but your term "magic" is the operative term here. Magic that spits out energetic neutrons and runs on tritium, a substance you make by alchemical transmutation of lithium (and can't get from seawater). It's not just that we've never made a self-sustaining fusion reaction; it's that we don't really have a good plan for how to make usable energy if we did.
I read that and immediately thought, "Betteridge's Law of Headlines confirmed again."
its a noble effort, but you are posting to an environment where everyone here knows that wind+solar+batteries is cheaper than gas or coal, because the wind and the sun are free, and they have no fuel costs.
True, but this is location dependent (and also time dependent). Solar, and solar plus batteries, is an excellent technology for many applications in many locations for exactly those reasons, but as the fraction of solar and wind generation increases, the technology is going to be implemented into progressively less-favorable locations. The hope, of course, is that the technology will keep improving, and right now that actually seems to be the case. But, most likely, the solution will have to be a mix of energy technologies.
They also know that the only people who are skeptical about this are climate deniers.
Most of the "skepticism" we hear is completely one-sided skepticism: people who profess skepticism about one side that they are opposed to from some ideological bias, but completely credulous about believing any claims that attack that side.
These deniers keep talking about something called Net Present Value and claiming that is the correct way to evaluate and compare costs of generating systems.
A good technique if you doing economic analysis, but has a lot of problems in that it doesn't really deal with tragedy of the commons (your own net present value is always increased if you use the free resources of the commons, regardless of whether everybody using the resources makes problems), and it fails if you can't quantify the economic cost of actions in the present causing problems in the future.
Net Present Value is a concept you will find in all kinds of Corporate Finance textbooks, well, do I need to say more? Its hetero-normative, racist, patriarchal and neo-colonial, and probably Islamophobic and transphobic with it and denies indigenous wisdom.
WTF??? This is very confused. I don't think I've heard any of those adjectives applied to renewable energy systems; this seems to be just a buzz-word jumble.
Its on the wrong side of history, like coal, gas and nukes. Of course it pretends that wind+solar+batteries is actually a very expensive technology. Well it would, wouldn't it?
Solar turns out to be a low cost technology, due almost entirely to a significant research and development effort in the 1980s and 1990s, funded primarily the US Department of Energy. Batteries, separately, have dropped orders of magnitude in cost, but due to a different driver: cell phones and laptops initially, and electric vehicles today. So, yes, the purported "skeptics" saying solar+batteries "is actually a very expensive technology" need to update their knowledge base.
The US could turn off all electricity and cars and use zero energy and Indonesia, India, and China would solely continue to destroy the environment at just about the same rate. Just to put things in perspective.
Yes, this is why climate change is a wicked hard problem. It isn't anybody alone; it's the cumulative effect of everybody; and it can't be solved by any one country alone.
This is an example of tragedy of the commons , where in this case the "commons" is the entire atmosphere. Everybody can dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and nobody's individual dumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is critical, but everybody together dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere causes a problem.
What is hate speech?
You did notice that the article we're discussing talked about actual threats, right?
I don't believe that's "the problem",
What you believe or fail to believe is of little interest.
However: it's not the problem yet. It is the problem that they are testing to see whether the scenario is going to be a problem. The system failed the test, showing that it would be a problem, if they don't mitigate it.
Test before you implement. Good strategy.
I believe "the problem" is partisan.
I have no idea why you believe that something that's clearly an engineering problem is "partisan," but really, what I said before still holds: what you believe or fail to believe is of little interest.
...well, the first half hour of it or so.
My only question is will Moneypenny turn into a woman with style, class and character or will she forever remain a snotty little bitch in workout clothes?
[invariant-heavy and proof-heavy guidance to the AI] How do you do that?
My main AGENTS.md has ten lines about the most important coding principles:
- Prefer functional-style code, where variables are immutable "const", there's almost no "if/else" branching branching, and most functions are side-effect free.
- Code should have comments, and functions should have docstrings. The best comments are ones that introduce invariants, or prove that invariants are being upheld, or indicate which invariants the code relies upon.
I am adamant about clean engineering. What I look for:
- Invariants are the best way to document all aspects of code. These include code invariants (stating what assumptions a function makes about shared data, and how it upholds them), and architecture invariants (for instance the main index.js never touches state except through component accessors).
You must document *meaning* of every field, and also enums and disjoint type fields.
- "Meaning" says briefly what the field/enum represents. From a well-written meaning, a smart reader will be able to deduce all the invariants around this field/enum, and deduce how it will be used in the code.
- It is hard work to distill a good meaning! You must put considerable effort into it.
The instruction on "meaning" ended up carrying a lot of weight to the AI. It adopted the habit of putting a comment on every single field and function that starts with the word "// Meaning: " and they're honestly, genuinely good ones! Single-line sentences on fields that carry a lot of good weight.
Separately, I have a LEARNINGS.md file which I have the AI auto-update every time it gets course corrected by me. Over the first two weeks there were a lot of course corrections, but now there are only a few a day. The file ended up carrying my senior engineer wisdom, more or less, the kind of things I normally mentor to junior developers on the team over several years. Here's an extract: https://gist.github.com/ljw100...
The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.
