Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Anthropic urges... (Score 1) 66

Anthropic urges everybody else to pause so they can get their code bloat under control.

Engineers who suddenly produce 8x more code are almost certainly not doing it by writing clean, efficient code. That would mean that somehow it takes less than an eighth as long to explain to the AI what you want to do AND review that code. And for non-trivial code, adequate code review alone can take 5 to 10% of the time it would take to write the code from scratch. So that would have to mean that engineers are not spending any time telling AI what to do. That or AI is reducing the amount of time they waste in meetings. (That was a joke! Ha ha! Fat chance!)

And that doesn't even factor in the amount of time spent figuring out whether it's the right way to approach the problem in general, which often exceeds the amount of time spent on the code. So even if you could reduce the time spent working on the code to absolutely zero, including review time, it should not be physically possible to exceed a 2x increase in code generated.

And there aren't 32+ hours in the day, so we can also exclude the possibility that they are working 4x as long.

So from this, we can safely assume that either their code quality is an abomination or their architecture is, and possibly both. If that's not true, then it's nothing short of a miracle.

Comment Re:Acting like Broadcom (Score 1) 182

My 3 19.2kW EVSEs load balance together, so the total draw on the grid is never over 19.2kW. When 2 cars are charging, each is only allowed 9.6kW. When I need faster charging, I just unplug all but the EV that needs to charge faster (or make sure the other ones are not charging via a phone app). The grid doesn't care if I charge 2 EV's at 9.6kW each, or 1 EV at 19.2kW.

The grid does care. You're charging for two or three hours, and then not using that power for 21 or 22 hours. That means generating capacity has to be brought online to cover that load. And when everybody does this all at once when they get home from work, it creates a significant increase in generating capacity at a time when solar is unavailable, etc., and because that load is brief, you don't get to use clean base load power, and end up spinning up peaker plants (likely natural gas).

The argument on the weight is just silly. The on-board-charger is the exact same size and the weight is listed the same between the 2 parts, I suspect the sizing up of the MOSFET transistors, or maybe adding a couple, doesn't add any significant weight. I'd be willing to bet that you can't tell the difference between the 11kW and 22kW versions by just weighing them, especially if you just took it out of a live system so it may have some liquid coolant in it left.

I'm kind of surprised by that. Unless I'm misremembering, Tesla's high-current charger used multiple modules in parallel for efficiency reasons — I think two modules for the standard charger and three for the high-power charger. Their superchargers do the same thing for the same reason. I kind of assumed everybody did it that way.

Offering to replace my 3 AC EVSE's with set of load balancing HVDC chargers, installed, it not going to be $3K. $3K is a cheap Chinese hardware only. Higher quality 20kW HVDC run $10K+.

No, $3k is the off-the-shelf retail cost for a basic 22 kW HVDC charger. Cheap Chinese hardware for 22 kW HVDC from Alibaba starts at only about $1,000.

Also, I think you're massively overestimating the labor costs here. Swapping one 3-phase charger with another in place means turning off a breaker, removing several wire nuts, unbolting the old one from the wall, figuring out how to fasten the new one to the wall, and putting the wire nuts back on. It involves nearly zero actual wiring work. It should cost only slightly more than replacing a bad receptacle ($80 to $200). If installation is over $500, I'd be absolutely shocked.

So for a basic version, probably more like $1,500 installed. Getting one with better firmware that can do load balancing would cost more, but not an order of magnitude more.

Comment Re:D.o.g.e. (Score 1) 174

Did Congress authorize this spending?

Yes.

Let me be more precise in my wording. Did Congress explicitly authorize spending to pay for the dismantling of monitoring stations? What bill provided that authorization for this initiative that was just announced two days ago, with the House not even in session this week?

Government money is not the President's personal piggy bank. He doesn't have any right to arbitrarily redirect funding from one agency purpose to another, because each of those purposes is a line item in the federal budget, and redirecting funds without congressional approval is potentially misappropriation of public funds, which is a felony.

Comment Re:Yeah. Just like James Bond or Star Trek (Score 1) 86

The first season of BSG had to have all that in it. They were just attacked. They had no military to protect them. Their home planets were being nuked. Their government was non-existent. The survivors had to make a run for it without any preparations. They had to figure out how to survive without any backup.

Aside from Apollo's "hack" to fool the cyclons, the first season was strong in what it had to be.

The first season of the BSG reboot was tedious, and reached the point of me saying that I don't care about these people, because the utter stupidity and short-sightedness of some major characters was just too much to handle. It got better after that. *And* it felt like it was just a long string of figuring out ways to survive the situation.

SG-1 and Atlantis did not fall into either trap. Almost without exception, the characters were smart, and the ones who behaved in stupid and/or power-hungry ways were inevitably shamed, and eventually learned from it or (in the case of enemies) died.

SG-1 had the most diverse pile of unrelated episodes in Season 1, and after their introduction in the first three episodes, they barely even touched the Goa'uld again for most of that season (key part of episode 14, plus minor bit parts in episodes 8, 16, 20, and finally becoming front and center again in 22). There was not really even an arc in that season.

Atlantis was similar. Most of the season was exploring their new part of the universe.

The out-of-control bit in Universe just turned every episode into a repeat of the same one: Go to a planet, something goes wrong, "Oh, no, they're not going to get back," somehow they figure out a way to get back. They didn't get control until somewhere around episode 30 (halfway through season 2), which was when the show started to not suck, but by that point, they had lost more than 53% of their initial audience.

Comment Re:Email guy... (Score 1) 51

The people who block ports pointlessly just because they've been abused in the ancient past are idiots too.

You'll want to amplify on this, because blocking a well-known port for an insecure protocol has no downsides. Nothing legitimate is going to be spun up on e.g. 110, why would you leave it open vs blocking it?

Comment Re:EU will not Deregulate To Accomplish This (Score 2) 160

"Billionaires in the US only invest there because they pay next to no income tax. The consequence of that is that the middle class gradually disappears"
Yes, billionaires pay little to no income tax (or more accurately: capital gains tax or tax on dividend). Yes, the middle class is gradually disappearing. But no, one is not a consequence of the other. Taxing billionaires on realized gains is not going to bring in enough revenue to save the middle class. The middle class is not being squeezed out by taxes, but by corporations / private equity increasing prices on basic necessities. It's an odd application of the old communist tenet "from each according to their ability". If you are in the income group that can afford to pay €2 for a €1 item, they'll try and charge you €2 if they can get away with it. And if they can corner the market on a scarce item (or create that scarcity), they'll charge you even more.

Comment Re:Acting like Broadcom (Score 1) 182

You are generalizing everyone to your personal usecase. Someone who lives in hot climate could argue heated seats and steering wheel are useless, so manufacturer should be entitled to just disable them at will to reduce their warranty costs?

I'm not generalizing at all. There are real grid stability reasons why you don't want someone drawing that much power to charge their car fully in four hours. If your use case requires fast charging, you need to have grid batteries to spread your impact out over time, or else you are causing significant problems. A few people doing that isn't a big deal, but if everybody did it, it would be apocalyptic. That's why the target for automakers should be fully charging the car overnight, or 10+ hours.

Additionally:

  • You're dragging around the extra weight of additional/larger charger hardware, which wastes energy.
  • Everyone who doesn't have the three-phase connection and high-amperage breaker setup will be using the charging hardware at a fraction of its rated capacity, which is likely to be less efficient.
  • Compared with a dedicated HVDC charger, you're drawing power at a higher amperage and lower voltage for a longer distance, which wastes even more energy.
  • It probably involves an entire additional charging board, which means one more set of components that can fail and require service.
  • Most of the the locations where you would charge likely do not support such fast AC charging speeds, so chances are you'll mostly benefit from it at home anyway.

And while the folks who take advantage of that extra charging speed might save a little money in the manufacturing cost compared with installing an external HVDC charger, it still adds up to far less than the amount of money wasted on bigger hardware by everyone who got that hardware but doesn't need it.

It's not even close to being a reasonable engineering tradeoff, IMO. You're far better off focusing on making HVDC chargers cheap. And for the amount of effort required to keep the unnecessarily complex hardware going long-term (manufacturing replacement parts, stocking them, etc.), the manufacturer would probably be better off just buying HVDC chargers wholesale and giving them to customers who complain. A HVDC charger with 22kW output costs only about $3k.

Comment I read this part before, I think (Score 4, Insightful) 65

As O'Brien passed the telescreen a thought seemed to strike him. He stopped, turned aside and pressed a switch on the wall. There was a sharp snap. The voice had stopped.

Julia uttered a tiny sound, a sort of squeak of surprise. Even in the midst of his panic, Winston was too much taken aback to be able to hold his tongue.

'You can turn it off!' he said.

'Yes,' said O'Brien, 'we can turn it off. We have that privilege.'

Comment Re: shit world (Score 1) 174

Trump is the one who tore up the deal that put inspectors into Iran to ensure that they didn't get nukes. If Iran gets nukes, it is because Trump gave them nukes on a silver platter in a misguided effort to "own the libs" who put that agreement in place.

And the things he has done regarding oil — disrupting Venezuela, creating a situation where Iran can mine the Strait of Hormuz, massively inflating the cost of oil, eliminating world sanctions on buying oil from Iran, etc. — are also effectively giving massive aid to a state sponsor of terrorism.

It's hard not to see the direct consequences of many of his actions as commander in chief as anything less than supporting terrorism. The only question is whether it was done intentionally or merely because of utter incompetence.

Comment Re:D.o.g.e. (Score 2) 174

Wasting money is the point. The more expensive we can make things and the further into debt we can get, the happier Trump's boss is.

What I don't understand is this: Did Congress authorize this spending? No? Where's the budget for this coming from, and why has no one already filed a permanent restraining order to prevent the illegal misappropriation of federal funds?

I ask because to do this, they have to steal — yes, steal — money away from something Congress DID authorize. And this isn't a tiny amount of money we're talking about here. There are probably some other major efforts that Congress authorized that won't happen because our idiot-in-chief is stealing the funds to do something else.

Comment Re:Insert Neocon war propaganda (Score 3, Interesting) 289

Western media hardly report on any individual strike. What we can find about the strike on May 22nd: Russia claims the dormitory was used as a dormitory. Ukraine claims the place was used as an HQ for Rubicon (the Russian elite drone unit). No one has been able to confirm or debunk either claim.

So: 1) Russia is lying about what went on in that building, 2) Ukraine acted on incorrect intel, 3) Ukraine accidentally hit the wrong building, or 4) Ukraine deliberately targeted a student dorm.
1 and 2 are plausible. 3 not so much: their strikes are generally precise, and Russia allegedly had no jammers or air defense assets in the area that could have caused drones to go off-course (as does sometimes happen in other strikes elsewhere). 4 is implausible; Ukraine has not much of a history of deliberately targeting civilian homes.

Comment Re:Acting like Broadcom (Score 1) 182

You only think EU is better. I'll give you an example of an EU product - Porsche Taycan. Porsche recently decided they will no longer honor the warranty on the 22kW on-board-charger. They are replacing them with 11kW chargers (half the performance or speed) and telling customers "nobody needs it that fast" (which is hypocritical too, as they offer this speed upgrade as an option on the new Cayenne EV). There are pissed-off customers who bought the car specifically for the faster charging usecase, even paid more for this option, but Porsche doesn't care, nor is EU going "diabolical" (as you call it) on one of its own companies forcing them to buy back the cars unfit for the purpose they were sold for. Heck, in North America Porsche further downgraded even the 11kW chargers to 9.6kW via an OTA update, to reduce their own warranty costs (use it slower, will break less) - again, no government doing anything about it.

Customers who care should just sue. This is pretty strictly a civil issue, and the government isn't going to bother to intervene. It's up to the customers to force them to reverse that.

That said, 22 kW AC charging is absurd. It requires 32A of three-phase power or 90A of a single phase 240V, which means a three-phase 40A circuit or a single-phase 120A circuit. That's larger than the total capacity of my entire breaker box at my house. In a sane universe, the demand charges alone would be enough to discourage anyone from charging at more than about a third of that rate, because unless you just happen to be producing solar power locally at the time, it's horrible on the electric grid.

Even Tesla never went much above about 17 kW for home charging, and they stopped doing that years ago because there was approximately zero demand or real-world use of higher charge rates.

So while technically speaking, they are absolutely doing something wrong, they're still right that the number of people who legitimately care is likely to be within the margin of error of being zero.

Slashdot Top Deals

They are relatively good but absolutely terrible. -- Alan Kay, commenting on Apollos

Working...