Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Immigration Reform [Re: What about not eating.. (Score 1) 170

Lol, Politifact. You'd have to go to Tucker Carlson or Truthout to find a more dishonest source. The headline says the law would not have allowed that many illegal immigrants, but the text explains why it effectively would. The bill was primarily intended to give political cover for record-setting paces of 4000+ encounters a day for months from well-deserved criticism on lax border enforcement.

Comment Re:Immigration Reform [Re: What about not eating.. (Score 0, Troll) 170

Yes, that was the bill that would allow (some would say strongly recommend) the government to ignore up to 5,000 illegal border crossing every day -- 1.8 million each year. With proper enforcement of immigration laws, it's now typical to have about 8,000 encounters per month: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/s...

Comment Re:Makes sense. (Score 1) 40

ED: Last time I looked (when the tech was brand new) I couldn't find any studies on plants, but there apparently are now, and... yeah, it's what I expected. In fact, it's even worse than I expected: because all the energy is absorbed in such a short distance (the (living) epidermal layer), it does a lot more damage in that (critical) layer.

That said, apparently at lower doses you can still kill fungal pathogens without hurting the plants, and is much more effective at doing so, there is that.

I wonder if we should be exploring even shorter frequencies for plants. If you go shorter, bacteria are going to be able to escape harm, but you'll still be able to kill viruses and maybe still kill e.g. fungal condia.

Hmm. New thought (re: 222 / 233nm): as a pesticide.

Insect exoskeletons tend to be proportional to the insect's size. A big beetle's exoskeleton might be up to a couple hundred microns thick, while an aphid's only a several microns, and a spider mite's cuticle is just like 1-2 microns thick. And even with insects with exoskeletons too thick to kill, they typically moult, and after moulting, the new soft cuticle is initially far thinner. Also, with winged pets, the cuticle is often far thinner than on body regions (to keep them light and enable fast movement).

I bet far-UV would really do a number on small pests & winged pests. And... hmm... I guess that means we can go back away from the world of plants and back to the world of humans: surely it will kill skin mites, lice, etc... anything not hidden by clothes / hair / etc.

Comment Re:EVs are not a solution beacuse of (Score 1) 223

(And that's without fuel)

I went searching trying to figure out where you managed to find a 3241 lb Camry. Seems the 2020 ones were that light, but were non-hybrid, while the current ones are now all hybrid. Of course, it has an even more anemic performance of 7,6s 0-60, and is once again, still smaller than the 3.

To repeat, from the top: actual class competitors of the Model 3 are cars like: BMW 3-series (330i for the SR, 340i for the LR), Mercedes C-Class, Audi A4 & S4, Acura TLX, Infiniti Q50, Volvo S60, Jaguar XE, etc. And class competitors for the Model Y are cars like: BMW X3, Mercedes GLC, Audi Q5 & SQ5, Volkswagen Tiguan, Lexus NX, Acura RDX, Infiniti QX50.

Either compare apples to apples, or expect nobody to take you seriously. You might as well just say "BUT MY MOPED IS ONLY 200 POUNDS!!!".

Comment Re:EVs are not a solution beacuse of (Score 1) 223

Why on Earth are you comparing a SUV to a small sedan? Don't get me wrong, Model Y isn't exactly a GMC Yukon or anything, but it's much bigger than a Camry, with over double the cargo space (971L vs. 428L).The Camry has only 71% the cargo space of the Model 3. 7cm less front headroom / 5cm less rear headroom than the Y, and 4cm / 3cm less than the 3. And it's in an utterly different performance class. Are you, like, *trying* to be dishonest, or are you just this ignorant?

And even then, here's a stats table (US units for you). Tesla mass here and here and Camry here and here, for your disbelief.

Toyota Camry 2025 LE (FWD): 3,594 lbs, 6.9s 0-60
Toyota Camry 2025 XSE (AWD): 3,774 lbs, 6.8s 0-60

Tesla Model 3 2025 SR (RWD): 3,880 lbs, 4.6s 0-60
Tesla Model 3 2025 LR (AWD): 4,019 lbs, 4.2s 0-60
Tesla Model 3 2025 Performance (AWD): 4,080 lbs, 2.8s 0-60

Tesla Model Y 2025 LR (RWD): 4,235 lbs, 5.6s 0-60
Tesla Model Y 2025 LR (AWD): 4,392 lbs, 4.6s 0-60
Tesla Model Y 2025 Performance (AWD): 4,392 lbs, 3.5s 0-60

Explain to me how you think these numbers are somehow out of line with each other, given that even the 3 is larger than the Camry, and both are in an entirely different performance class?

Comment Re:EVs are not a solution beacuse of (Score 3, Informative) 223

You are talking nonsense. A Tesla Model Y battery is 1700 pounds, whereas a full gastank of a typical sedan is less than 150 pounds

SIGH.

First off, none of the battery packs in the 3/Y are 1700 pounds. The SR pack is 350kg / 772 lbs, while the LR pack is 480kg / 1058 lbs. This includes the charge cabling.

Secondly, unless you drive around in a vehicle that is nothing more than a gas tank or a battery pack, you're kind of forgetting a few things. Let's help you out.

ICE engines typically weigh 150-300kg (~330–660 lbs), and high-performance engines can exceed this. On top of this, the transmission usually adds another 70-115kg (150-250lbs). EV powertrains are light. An entire Model 3 drive unit, including gearbox, oil pump, filter, etc is ~80kg / ~175lbs. And actually this plays it down, because except in the performance Model 3 - which matches up against quite powerful / heavy ICE powertrains - they're software locked, so they're actually well oversized relative to what they're allowed to deliver.

ICE exhaust systems add ~25-45kg / ~50-100 lbs. Obviously absent in EVs.

ICE fuel systems (pumps, lines, etc) add another ~15-20 kg or so (maybe 30-50 lbs)

ICE vehicles, due to their inefficiency, require much larger radiators, coolant reservoirs, hoses, etc (again, another ~15-20kg extra over EVs).

The battery pack in an EV makes up the floor pan. Again, that cuts mass by a couple dozen kg.

The battery pack is a stiffening element, and eliminates the need for many dozens of kg of extra stiffening mass.

The needs of an engine block impose a lot more difficult design constraints on an ICE car, including a larger front end, a higher centre of gravity, a less compressible front end in an accident, etc. The need to compensate for these things also adds significant mass.

ICE vehicles have all accessories driven by the engine, and all electrics on low voltage (heavy wiring). EVs do it either with a DC-DC converter or direct HV, saving many kg again here. New EVs are also ditching the low-voltage battery altogether.

I could go on and on. The simple fact is, while EVs add (significant mass) in the form of one part, ICEs nickle and dime the car for mass all over the place. ICEs still win out mass-wise, but on a class-and-performance comparison, like-to-like, the mass differences just aren't that much (again, unless the designer is just bad at their job or doesn't care - *grumbles again in Hummer*).

(Also, re: serviscope_minor above: You don't compare vehicles by length; it's not a very useful metric. For size, you can compare by interior space specs - trunk / frunk volume, driver/front passenger head/leg/shoulder/hip room, rear passenger head/leg/shoulder/hip room. Length isn't a good proxy because it ignores packaging; a 1960 Chevy Corvette might be "long", but has very little interior space. Interior space and overall profile are often included as part of the category of "class" (for example, the Model 3 and BMW 3-series both have very similar interior space metrics and profiles). Also part of "class" is perceived / marketed luxury, though people differ over what counts as luxury, so it's not a very clear-cut metric. Performance is another axis, as higher performance cars tend to be heavier and/or have less interior space relative to their footprint (though EVs suffer a lot less on this than ICEs).

Submission + - UK Scientists Achieve First Commercial Tritium Production (interestingengineering.com)

fahrbot-bot writes: Interesting Engineering is reporting that Astral Systems, a UK-based private commercial fusion company, in collaboration with the University of Bristol, has claimed to have become the first firm to successfully breed tritium, a vital fusion fuel, using its own operational fusion reactor.

The milestone came during a 55-hour Deuterium-Deuterium (DD) fusion irradiation campaign conducted in March. Scientists from Astral Systems and the University of Bristol produced and detected tritium in real-time from an experimental lithium breeder blanket within Astral’s multi-state fusion reactors.

“There’s a global race to find new ways to develop more tritium than what exists in today’s world [currently about 20kg] – a huge barrier is bringing fusion energy to reality,” said Talmon Firestone, CEO and co-founder of Astral Systems.

Astral Systems’ approach uses its Multi-State Fusion (MSF) technology. The company states this will commercialize fusion power with better performance, efficiency, and lower costs than traditional reactors.

A core innovation is lattice confinement fusion (LCF), a concept first discovered by NASA in 2020. This allows Astral’s reactor to achieve solid-state fuel densities 400 million times higher than those in plasma.

The company’s reactors are designed to induce two distinct fusion reactions simultaneously from a single power input, with fusion occurring in both plasma and a solid-state lattice.

The reactor core also features an electron-screened environment. This design reduces the energy needed to overcome the Coulomb barrier between particles, which lowers required fusion temperatures by several million degrees and allows for higher performance in a compact size.

Comment Re:Makes sense. (Score 1) 40

You can't get sunburned from far-UV like you can with normal UVC. It doesn't penetrate deep enough to reach living skin cells (e.g. the (dead) stratum corneum is 10-40 microns on most skin, up to hundreds on e.g. palms and soles) - in human tissue, 222nm penetrates only a few microns, with most of the energy deposited in the first micron; the deepest any degradation was seen in one study was 4,6 microns (for 233nm, it's 16,8 microns). As mentioned earlier, the only cells it can kill are the outermost layer of cells in the eye (corneal epithelium), but they're constantly being shed regardless (the entire corneal epithelium is 5-7 cells thick and has a ~1 week turnover, so on average just over 1 day per cell on the surface).

The comments about material degradation probably are also not true with far-UV. It's certainly ionizing, but again it doesn't penetrate deeply into surfaces . Paint is generally many dozens of microns thick (a typical two coats of interior paint is ~100 microns), while epoxy is typically millimeters or more, so you're only going to be affecting the extreme outermost surface. I doubt you could even tell.

Also, contrary to popular myth (and indeed, our pre-COVID medical understanding), most common communicable diseases (influenza, COVID, most cold viruses, etc) spread by direct airborne transmission, not fomites (surface transmission). So how well surfaces are cleaned has no bearing on this primary means of transmission. That's not that surfaces don't matter - said diseases still *can* be transmitted from fomites, and some other diseases (esp. fecal-oral route ones like norovirus) are still believed to be primarily transmitted via fomites.

Again, honestly, the only thing I would have concerns about are plants. Most plant cuticles are only like 0,1-1 micron thick. Xeriphytes (desert plants) can be thicker, though, like 1-20 microns, and are in general adapted to more UV exposure, so might be able to deal with it. But I'd think a plant with only a 0,1 micron thick cuticle and a 0,1-0,3 micron thick cell wall will get its leaves pretty badly burned by far-UV. I'd expect any epidermis and stomata exposed to the light to be almost entirely killed. But if you had a cactus or plant with really waxy leaves, it might be fine.

Comment Re:That is a hell of a lot of words to say (Score 1) 163

That we should be cool with them blowing through billions of our taxpayer dollars so that they can throw shit at a wall and see what sticks.

SpaceX has saved the US government an immense amount of money. What are you even talking about? Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy is by far the cheapest launch system out there, and is also, FYI, the most reliable launch system out there. And it go that way by exactly the process above. And that process cost far less than NASA spends to develop its super-expensive launch systems.

Comment Re:EVs are not a solution beacuse of (Score 4, Insightful) 223

Tesla has been at approximately mass parity with its closest class/performance competitors from BMW (with a full tank of petrol) since 2017 (the 330i vs. the SR, the 340i vs. the LR, etc). This "EVs are super-heavy thing" is a myth. I mean, sure, if you're terrible at your job you can design a really heavy EV (*grumbles in Hummer*). But usually, if the designers did their job right, the weight difference is small when matched up on class/performance competitors.

And beyond what others pointed out - that PM emissions are only a fraction of pollutants, and that they come from both brakes and tyres, and EVs have far lower brake emissions - it should also be pointed out that tyre PM tends to be mainly *coarse PM*, not fine PM. Both are harmful, but fine PM is significantly more harmful per amount produced. Brakes have a higher ratio of fine to coarse than tyres do, exhaust is higher still.

Cars also have air filters which capture PM. Generally well less than is produced, but I've seen a proof of concept where they amped up the air filtration so that the car was net negative. If you really wanted to, nothing is stopping you from mandating that. Still, economically your best bet is surely on taxing tyres (esp. studded ones) to incentivize people to choose durable ones and ones that don't wear down the roads, to limit hard accel / braking, etc.

Submission + - Wells Fargo scandal pushed customers toward fintech says UC Davis study (nerds.xyz)

BrianFagioli writes: A new academic study has found that the 2016 Wells Fargo scandal pushed many consumers toward fintech lenders instead of traditional banks. The research, published in the Journal of Financial Economics, suggests that it was a lack of trust rather than interest rates or fees that drove this behavioral shift. For someone like me, who spent over a decade working at an online bank, the results are both fascinating and familiar.

Conducted by Keer Yang, an assistant professor at the UC Davis Graduate School of Management, the study looked closely at what happened after the Wells Fargo fraud erupted into national headlines. Bank employees were caught creating millions of unauthorized accounts to meet unrealistic sales goals. The company faced $3 billion in penalties and a massive public backlash.

Yang analyzed Google Trends data, Gallup polls, media coverage, and financial transaction datasets to draw a clear conclusion. In geographic areas with a strong Wells Fargo presence, consumers became measurably more likely to take out mortgages through fintech lenders. This change occurred even though loan costs were nearly identical between traditional banks and digital lenders.

In other words, it was not about money. It was about trust.

That simple fact hits hard. When big institutions lose public confidence, people do not just complain. They start moving their money elsewhere. According to the study, fintech mortgage use increased from just 2 percent of the market in 2010 to 8 percent in 2016. In regions more heavily exposed to the Wells Fargo brand, fintech adoption rose an additional 4 percent compared to areas with less exposure.

Yang writes, âoeTherefore it is trust, not the interest rate, that affects the borrowerâ(TM)s probability of choosing a fintech lender.â

This is not just an interesting financial tidbit. It is a real example of how misconduct from a large corporation can help drive the adoption of new technology. And in this case, that technology was already waiting in the wings. Digital lending platforms offered a smoother experience, often with fewer gatekeepers.

Notably, while customers may have been more willing to switch mortgage providers, they were less likely to move their deposits. Yang attributes that to FDIC insurance, which gives consumers a sense of security regardless of the bankâ(TM)s reputation.

This study also gives weight to something many of us already suspected. People are not necessarily drawn to fintech because it is cheaper. They are drawn to it because they feel burned by the traditional system and want a fresh start with something that seems more modern and less manipulative.

The lesson is clear. Trust is not just a soft concept. It is a measurable force that shapes where people put their money and how they interact with financial technology.

With the fintech space now more crowded than ever, this research is a reminder that reputation matters. So does transparency. As consumers grow more educated and more cynical, the winners will be the platforms that make trust a top priority.

The Wells Fargo mess may have helped kickstart a digital migration. But if those new platforms repeat the same mistakes, users will move again.

No, folks, this is not just about mortgages. It is about every service that asks for your private data or financial info. And yes, that includes AI tools, cloud storage providers, and social networks too.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing succeeds like success. -- Alexandre Dumas

Working...