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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Horrible summary (Score 1) 107

They have a "Resolution limit matrix" on their free calculator page ( https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/resea... ) and a 4k or higher resolution is indicated as noticeable by your eyes for more than half of the chart! The summary only works for the smallest of tvs 20 inches and at 30 inches it's 50/50 depending on your viewing distance. But 40 inches or above and you should really be considering something with more resolution depending on your viewing distance.

It also ignores that moving pictures are not the same as still pictures. When images are moving, you don't see each frame as clearly, so you can get away with lower resolution, and with a moving image, you can actually perceive far more resolution than the actual pixel resolution of each individual image, because things in the real world don't line up perfectly with grid lines on consecutive frames.

So with moving images, you would expect to perceive higher resolution above a certain point as a reduction in eyestrain and other physiological effects, rather than directly as conscious perception.

Comment Re:Wait until (Score 1) 72

The REAL headline and buried lede for the original post should be:

Trump guts nuclear safety regulations

“The president signed a pair of orders on Friday aimed at streamlining the licensing and construction of nuclear power plants — while panning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for its ‘myopic’ radiation safety standards.”

We now have industry capture of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Who here knows about Admiral Hyman RIckover? All of this is worth reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Safety_record

Comment Re:Wait until (Score 1) 72

Are You Scared Yet?

I would be.

The Department of Energy is selling off more than 40,000 pounds of weapons-grade plutonium from the Cold War arsenal to nuclear reactor startups. All of which I’m sure will be thoroughly vetted and monitored, because this is done under the direction of a former board member. Yikes!

Christopher Allen Wright (born January 15, 1965) "12) is an American government official, engineer, and businessman serving as the 17th United States secretary of energy since February 2025. Before leading the U.S. Department of Energy, Wright served as the CEO of Liberty Energy, North America's second largest hydraulic fracturing company, and served on the boards of Oklo, Inc., a nuclear technology company, and EMX Royalty Corp., a Canadian mineral rights and mining rights royalty payment company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Wright

Who IS Oklo, Inc. the "private nuclear reactor builder/operator"? Oklo is Sam Altman:

Trump Administration Providing Weapons Grade Plutonium to Sam Altman

"If there were adults in the room and I could trust the federal government to impose the right standards, it wouldn't be such a great concern, but it just doesn't seem feasible."

We're in territory where weapons-grade plutonium is being given at fire-sale prices to billionaires who's ethical boundaries include creating their own demand for otherwise unnecessary, high-risk energy projects. Guys like Altman, who get their ideas from Wikipedia articles about Ayn Rand — because they are one rung lower than people who actually READ that garbage.

But I'm sure no inventory of hot nuke metal will ever go missing.

Comment Re:that reasoning is so wrong (Score 1) 89

I'm more likely to believe a high priced lawyer working for Exxon than a rando on the internet. Maybe that is what the court will rule but for now there's apparently enough questions on what this law means to take this to court.

I'm less likely to believe a lawyer working for Exxon than a homeless person on the street with a sign saying "The End Is Nigh!" At least the homeless person doesn't know that the things he is saying have no basis in reality.

Lawyers have a responsibility to represent their clients' interests no matter how bats**t they are. Their opinion is nothing more than the opinion of their corporate bill payers. And their bill payers are one of the more sociopathic corporations out there.

Exxon is a company that actively denies climate change even though their internal documents show that their scientists have been aware of the problem for decades. It's basically the cigarette industry all over again. There are literally no companies in the world that I trust less than oil companies when it comes to climate change.

Comment Re:that reasoning is so wrong (Score 1) 89

This isn't just stating the reality, they are forced to frame their words in a way that favors government policy.

No, they aren't. They are required to provide the numbers that the government demands. They're free to precede it with a wall of text that explains why they don't feel that blaming them for people choosing to burn their gasoline, rather than, for example, using it as a beverage, produces CO2 emissions all they want to. That's their choice. What they don't have the right to do is not provide the data.

Comment Re:They keep saying it (Score 1) 149

Shorter weeks boost productivity. That simple, no caveats, all of the work less advocates say that, as an absolute. The less hours you work, the more productive you are. If that is true, a 0 hour workweek will have productivity of infinite.

The fewer hours you work, the more productive you are during the hours you spend. There's a tipping point where it doesn't break even, though, and there's a point where you have so few hours that bulls**t like catching up on all the emails that people send about things you don't really need to know starts to dominate the time spent and productivity falls off a cliff again.

There are three factors that define productivity:

  • Toil (T) - The time spent doing random s**t that nobody wants to do, but you have to do, but that probably doesn't contribute much to productivity. This is a constant reduction in productivity at the bottom of the graph.
  • Energy level (e) - A curve that declines over time for each day and does not fully recover in subsequent days without days off.
  • Error rate (E) - A curve that is inversely proportional to energy level, and becomes exponential at high levels of fatigue.

Raw output in a given time period is proportional to energy level. Useful output is raw output minus the error rate, because erroneous output has to be redone and cancels out its benefit. And the time spent is then reduced by the time spent on toil.

So the equation looks something like f(t) = (t - T) * (e - E). That's why small reductions in bulls**t make a big difference, and the sweet spot for time spent ends up being hard bounded by when the error rate exceeds the useful output, at which point productivity goes negative.

Hope that helps.

Comment Re:Every success I've had, I worked like that... (Score 1) 149

The reality is that awesome things take gobs of time. 40 hours a week WON'T CUT IT. It just won't. I've made some awesome things that just took waking up at 6AM and working solid til 11PM, for weeks. That is how great things are achieved.

Same. But the difference between us is that I recognize that what made it worth spending that time was that it was something I chose to do because I wanted to do it, not because my boss told me to do it.

More to the point, every minute spent doing the things my bosses have ever told me to do was a minute I couldn't spend on those other things that are awesome and that I would gladly work crazy hours for.

So what happens when people's jobs try to take so many hours from them is that a tiny percentage of people for whom that's truly exactly what they want to do might love it, but the rest of the employees burn out and run away screaming, and you end up with not enough workers to get the product done.

And they burn out precisely because those bosses are putting their needs — getting what *they* think is an amazing and awesome project — over the workers' needs — having time to do all the stuff on the side that *the workers* think is amazing and awesome.

Corporate jobs can do 9-5 because they are like cruise ship and are just already slow. But rapid progress requires dedication.

Not at all. Rapid progress requires adequate labor. It is less efficient with more people spending fewer hours, but still more efficient than if you burn out all of those people and you end up with only a few people spending a lot of hours and everybody else leaving the project and taking their institutional knowledge with them.

As long as the profits are properly shared, I see no reason for poo-pooing this concept. I want to work with fellow rock stars.

See that's the thing, I *do* work with fellow rock stars. Every single person I work with is a rock star at something. Some of them are also rock stars in their jobs.

I don't want a 9-5'er on my team. Not if it's anything for real.

I don't want anyone to ever lead me who doesn't acknowledge that their priorities aren't my priorities. Not if it's for more than a few weeks.

I'm not a 9-to-5'er. I just spend 56 hours a week sleeping, 40+ hours a week at work writing software, sixteen hours a week working on random projects, ten hours a week exercising, eight hours a week rehearsing in music ensembles, eight hours a week eating, five hours a week driving, 1 hour a week in church, a couple of hours of time waiting in between those things, various numbers of hours trying to find a girlfriend to spend the rest of my life with, and most of the rest of my time recovering from all of the above. Oh, and laundry once a month or so, performances once a month, lots of hours (bursty) doing planning for the ensemble that I actually run...

Sometimes it feels like I never stop working. But I have much broader interests than the one little thing that I do as my job to pay the bills. And I really feel sorry for people who don't. Because those folks aren't the ones who create the things that are amazing. They're the cogs, not the ones turning the gears.

Comment Re:I would love this, if... (Score 1) 149

I could see myself doing it for longer periods in a promising but understaffed start-up... but if you expect me to work and be motivated like a founder, you better pay me like a founder too, with an equity stake, or options that I can take with me if you fire me (looking at you, Facebook...)

No, not even then. Options in a startup that has a 2% chance of making it to IPO are worthless, as is your equity stake. Working yourself to death for a lottery ticket is stupidity.

Startup or not, hire enough people to do the job. If you're pushing people to work crazy hours, you're a moron, and your company is all but guaranteed to be in that 98%.

Comment Re:Once again (Score 1) 11

Apple had a culture of authenticity. Culture dies pretty hard in most cases. I think we will see the last of that culture dissipate, as it eroded so greatly under Cook and Ive. Then the extractive, enshittifying corruption will spread from Apple, too.

There really was something, that began with Jobs and Woz. It wasn't perfect, and Jobs had a way of twisting ethical stances in ends-justifying-means sophistry. But Steve Jobs would never have prostrated before Trump, proffering a solid gold token.

Submission + - Am I The Last Surviving 3-Digit User ID on Slashdot? 4

Jeremiah Cornelius writes: Some distinctions mean very little to anyone other than the singular individual holding them. Are there others remaining? Does Rob Malda ever bother checking in here? Who remembers the promising ascent and rapid zenith of VA Linux Systems? How about the decade-old sighting of the Slashdot PT Cruiser?

If you're out there we want to hear from you. Or just tell us why we don't.

Comment Re:Once again (Score 2) 11

Oh, you want profit? This is a surveillance spyware wrapper around the entire MacOS user experience - so if you thought Microsoft's Copilot Recall was invasive monitoring, you haven't seen anything yet.

If Apple won't monetize a user panopticon and partner with governments to do it, OpenAI will be right there, to take the cash.

Comment Re:I use Win11 (Score 1) 24

...the desktop apps are better than just about anything you will find on Linux or the BSDs.

I will argue against strict adherence to this statement. Gnome applications written to the project guidelines have become very fine, since the introduction of GTK-4 and libadwaita. I prefer many of these to their equivalents on MacOS.

It's true that most of these fall into a general category of "utilities", and that Windows enjoys a broader ecosystem driven by commercial incentive. But Windows programs are hardly "better' for this, and the widely varied usability is generally sub-par compared to level that's become norm for Gnome/Adwaita software.

Comment Re:sure thing uberbah, everyone believes you. (Score 1) 161

The reality is that if Russia launched nuclear missiles at the U.S., the U.S. would wipe them off the map.

What appear ignorant of is that during the cold war the US/NATO defense of Western Europe depended on immediately using nuclear weapons against a conventional invasion by the Warsaw Pact. Despite the fact that the Soviet Union could wipe the US off the map. That is why when Gorbachev and Reagan agreed that "a nuclear war cannot be won and much never be fought", they also acknowledged that a conventional war involving the Soviet Union and NATO was equally unacceptable. Reagan was not agreeing we wouldn't use nuclear weapons to defend Europe against a conventional attack.

Lets be clear, Russia using nuclear weapons in Europe is not "suicidal". As De Gaulle allegedly pointed out when the US complained about France developing their own nuclear capacity, "Are you going to sacrifice Washington to punish an attack on Paris? If De Gaulle was uncertain of the answer then, Russia is likely willing to take the risk that the answer is "No" if the stakes are high enough. But if US unsuccessfully responded by attempting to "wipe Russia off the map" before it could launch its missiles, that would be all but suicidal.

I was explicitly talking about what would happen if Russia launched nuclear weapons specifically at the United States, not an arbitrary non-nuclear NATO country.

NATO would still be obligated to retaliate in an attack on other NATO countries, whether nuclear or otherwise, and Russia's military would still almost certainly lose very badly and very quickly, given their current levels of force depletion, but I do agree that it would probably not involve a nuclear response. It wouldn't need to.

Slashdot Top Deals

The Wright Bothers weren't the first to fly. They were just the first not to crash.

Working...