I believe it started with SGI's IRIX desktop back in the 90s.
I used it on an Octane 2(?) for a few years. It was certainly ahead of its time.
The analyst said that Twitter's data quality is "horrible". Chowdhry said that many pollsters used Twitter data to predict a Hillary Clinton win in the U.S. election but the fact that Donald Trump won shows that data quality is poor. One reason for this is too many fake users on the platform, Chowdhry claims.
Twitter has had issues with monetization, but the idea that the platform is somehow flawed because some idiot used it as a source polling is nuts. You can't determine an election from reading tweets.
Twitter differentiated itself from other social sites by embracing simplicity and mobile. The simplicity of twitter has also hurt it, because it keeps failing at expanding the platform beyond tweets making it a poor growth stock since its user growth has stagnated.
Asthma is as American as Apple Pie.
No, actually pretty similar on average; the solar may even edge it. The nuclear reactor obviously has higher power at night, but much lower power during the day than the solar. The average capacity factor of solar is about 10-20% depending on location, so 9GW of solar will produce somewhere between 0.9GW and 1.8GW on average, whereas this is a 1.2GW reactor; and the solar was installed much, much more quickly, and probably cost roughly the same or even less than the nuclear.
Yeah, nobody dies from radiation.
But there's been an estimated 1600 deaths from the practical problems due to the evacuation, things like the hospital having to be shutdown.
> So for filling in the gaps we NEED something else, no way around it. Between 'cheap' coal, oil, natural gas, or covering land masses with biofuel crops, a modern design nuclear plant isn't a bad option.
Yeah, but the thing is, it is a bad option.
Forget fallout, meltdowns etc. Nuclear is expensive per kW.
Because of that nuclear plants are pretty much run flat out, as baseload, to get the kWh cost down to something that is remotely competitive. I mean, you can run them at half power, but when you do that, those kWh that are made are made at twice the price; and they weren't all that cheap to start with. So, using a nuclear plant to fill in for the 20% of time; isn't going to happen.
No, for filling in when both the wind and sun aren't producing, you need a cheap source of power; a gas turbine, or a hydroelectric plant or a diesel plant or similar, something ideally using a biofuel.
"Be there. Aloha." -- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_