You realize a lot of us just don't care about Bitcoin, right? It's just another commodity <yawn> There are millions of them in the market. What makes Bitcoin special? That it requires a energy expenditure that makes alt.pavers look like a model of efficiency?
There's little else interesting about Bitcoin.
There's certainly no envy: I put my money into the "traditional" stock and commodity market, and they have made more money for me than if I had used it for Bitcoin.
The Soviet reports clearly say otherwise: they had staff who knew at the console, but brow beat them into submission (threatening he gulag can do that).
Chernobyl failed because of a safety test that was compromise by pressure to minimize power delivery disruptions that eventually put a reactor that was outside its normal operating envelope in the hands of an operations shift that didn't have the expertise to handle it.
Chernobyl had nothing to do with technical expertise: it was classical ambitious PHB bullshit. The closest thing they had to 'not having the expertise to handle it' was an engineer who knew better, but was a recent graduate who was more worried about being sent to Siberia for insubordination. Dead is dead, and (massive) radiation is quicker than starvation.
The head of the plant had zero experience or knowledge about anything nuclear, and concocted an asinine scenario to "mitigate." It wasn't a safety test; it didn't have any vetting outside of the PHB's ambitious, but otherwise empty skull. He thought he was being clever and would get a promotion for concocting a new "emergency" procedure.
Grigoriy Medvedev, the guy who literally wrote the book on the Chernobyl disaster, was quite clear on that point: The Soviets had been putting people with absolutely no knowledge or training in Nuclear energy in charge of Nuclear plants. Had the plant manager did what he was required to do -- and send the "procedure" to their equivalent of the NRC, it would have been rejected outright. The PHB took it upon himself to ignore or bypass every safety rule he could find.
The PHB's even had security guards physically disable all of the reactor's failsafes, then lock & chain the doors so they couldn't be turned back on.
Then when the reactor exploded, the PHB's went about screaming that the reactor was fine, that nothing could have possibly gone wrong. They had eyewitnesses, instruments, alarms, firemen, and his own engineers telling them that the core had exploded, and they couldn't believe it, and that the test should continue, blaming his "incompetent" staff.
There were also the Rayovac "renewal" batteries. Rayovac even hired Michael Jordan as the spokesman. (I wonder how much he was paid to do those ads...) I even have a charger for he "renewal" batteries. I keep it around because it charges NiMH and NiCd cells.
I wouldn't call those renewable alkalines semi-decent.
It doesn't sound like you hold them in high regard either.
But if the Aussies have figured out a major improvement... that could change things.
For which Zinc has a good thing going: it's so cheap we use it for everything, and so easy to refine and reuse its been used since antiquity. . Zinc costs $0.20 for 100g; at a similar purity, 100g of lithium is nearly $10
Being ~50x less expensive, and being much easier to use are pretty big wins for Zinc.
Zinc batteries are nothing new - it's in the same alkaline batteries we've been abusing for generations.
So 2x the power density and 50x cheaper? That can be historic.
Another good question: was dailystormer a paying customer, or was it in Cloudflare's free tier? (I mention it as I've used the free tier before)
If they were in the free tier, it's not too different from dropping the free service they gave to Brian Krebs before someone tried to DDOS his site offline for weeks at a time. (I.e. It's hard to justify the cost of maintaining service for a customer that pays nothing)
There are fewer crazy pointless IPOs (Twitter and Snapchat are notable exceptions.)
IPO's are part of it, but there are companies who have sold stock for years that are insanely overvalued by admission of their own CEO (such as Tesla).
I personally feel we've reached the point where investors are starting to believe their own hype, a practice which hasn't ended well in the past.
He is the man behind LLVM. I'm more worried about that.
And Clang - Clang pushed the state of the art forward, and gave GCC a much-needed kick in the ass.
Not being an AI researcher, nor compiler developer, I wonder how much crossover there is between AI and optimizing compilers... part of me thinks there may be more similarities that would appear obvious at first.
It'll be interesting to see if Lattner's as successful with AI as he has been with compilers.
We bought a house and the seller paid for a year of a home warranty service.
The seller "paid" out of the money you gave them.
I also was "gifted" a "home warranty."
Every single problem I encountered was judged a pre-existing condition, and it was my fault for not noticing the problem during the home buying process. (This includes the garage door, microwave, HVAC system... all of which was functional during the home inspection)
Lists of blatantly corrupt and illegal activities don't mean jack shit unless you do something about it.
Taking your business elsewhere is often futile.
When I got a mortgage, I went out of my way to avoid Wells Fargo. The dirty secret in getting any loan is that the guys offering the loan (ie. the bastards at the credit union, etc.) can sell the debt to another institution before the ink dries.
Which is how I became another "satisfied" customer of the institution I tried to avoid.
Hydrogen maser clocks are even more stable timekeepers, but again, not based on a radioactive isotope.
Don't forget rubidium! - much cheaper than cesium or hydrogen, but also not as accurate. (Also not radioactive)
Hydrogen masers become unstable and drift ('aging effect') while Cesium is consistent. Applications where very accurate time over both the short and long term are required (such as Galileo GNSS) use a combination of Hydrogen and Cesium standards, using each to overcome the weakness of the other.
Cesium also benefits from the fact its oscillation is literally the definition of a second.
Granted, it really was useful for the power drivers used in factories back in the day. We have torque limiters on the cheapest electric drivers these days.
Stripped screws are still a great way to tamper-proof while looking shoddy at the same time.
Most Americans still don't know how horrible a Philips head screw is
Every American has had a few choice words with stripping and jumping Phillips screws. Everybody hates them -- just not enough to bother replacing it.
and that they have Ford to thank for that
No. There was a better screw of the day - the Robertson, but he wasn't willing to license his patent to the auto industry.
The Phillips Screw Company was an "IP" company that licensed their patent. The Phillips head was first tested in production on the 1936 Cadillac, and spread like wildfire across the American automotive industry, and from there, into everything else.
I hope you don't have an XBox One or a Switch because they both support VP9 out of the box.
And I don't. Game consoles are more than powerful enough to handle decoding in software, so it's not much of an issue for them.
A Raspberry PI, or Blu-ray Player though... not so easy.
Sure sounds simple to me. I can play VP9 video on my iPhone 7 with VLC for iOS [videolan.org]. What's the complication?
Battery life, of course. Software decoders use a lot more power than specialized hardware.
You really should try to adopt a more pragmatic approach to these things. Your pointless pontificating wastes a lot of your time. You'll be happier without it.
You've done more than your share of pointless pontificating. You've done nothing to refute my basic premise: that AVC is good enough to use until AV1 is adopted. Instead, you've been attempting to put words into my mouth and making ad homenim attacks.
Just follow the breadcrumbs to the first post in this thread. I made no such claim in my original post.
I do state:
... h.264 is good enough. There's clearly time left in h.264's life to wait for AV-1 -- and skipping VP9 entirely.
I did not say AVC is better. How does the saying go? "Good enough is the enemy of better?" VP9 is more efficient than AVC. Is it enough to justify migration? It depends.
If you're implementing in software, as is done with Chrome, Firefox, and Windows... yes. It's free to add the reference implementation.
For hardware manufacturers... it's not so simple. It's a lot more expensive to implement hardware than software. A chip that costs a few pennies more can be a deal breaker, even if it does support VP9. Does the benefit justify the cost to the manufacturer? Supporting every codec that comes along is prohibitively expensive.
As i originally stated - there is a good business case that VP9 isn't worth adopting, as h.264 is a common denominator that is "good enough" for 1080p video, and every streaming provider supports it fully. A company can design a product to use AVC and AV1, and its customers won't complain or make a buying decision because it doesn't have VP9.
Slashdot Mirror
Demanding that every contributor to a project pass the litmus test du jour is childish... eventually, every one of us will fail.
If nothing else, it's a mark of immaturity to be unable to work with somebody who has a viewpoint you disagree with.
You change somebody's opinion by showing them you're a friendly human being, not by being an enemy they dismiss outright.
You realize a lot of us just don't care about Bitcoin, right? It's just another commodity <yawn> There are millions of them in the market. What makes Bitcoin special? That it requires a energy expenditure that makes alt.pavers look like a model of efficiency?
There's little else interesting about Bitcoin.
There's certainly no envy: I put my money into the "traditional" stock and commodity market, and they have made more money for me than if I had used it for Bitcoin.
The Soviet reports clearly say otherwise: they had staff who knew at the console, but brow beat them into submission (threatening he gulag can do that).
Chernobyl failed because of a safety test that was compromise by pressure to minimize power delivery disruptions that eventually put a reactor that was outside its normal operating envelope in the hands of an operations shift that didn't have the expertise to handle it.
Chernobyl had nothing to do with technical expertise: it was classical ambitious PHB bullshit. The closest thing they had to 'not having the expertise to handle it' was an engineer who knew better, but was a recent graduate who was more worried about being sent to Siberia for insubordination. Dead is dead, and (massive) radiation is quicker than starvation.
The head of the plant had zero experience or knowledge about anything nuclear, and concocted an asinine scenario to "mitigate." It wasn't a safety test; it didn't have any vetting outside of the PHB's ambitious, but otherwise empty skull. He thought he was being clever and would get a promotion for concocting a new "emergency" procedure.
Grigoriy Medvedev, the guy who literally wrote the book on the Chernobyl disaster, was quite clear on that point: The Soviets had been putting people with absolutely no knowledge or training in Nuclear energy in charge of Nuclear plants. Had the plant manager did what he was required to do -- and send the "procedure" to their equivalent of the NRC, it would have been rejected outright. The PHB took it upon himself to ignore or bypass every safety rule he could find.
The PHB's even had security guards physically disable all of the reactor's failsafes, then lock & chain the doors so they couldn't be turned back on.
Then when the reactor exploded, the PHB's went about screaming that the reactor was fine, that nothing could have possibly gone wrong. They had eyewitnesses, instruments, alarms, firemen, and his own engineers telling them that the core had exploded, and they couldn't believe it, and that the test should continue, blaming his "incompetent" staff.
What can man do against such madness?
There were also the Rayovac "renewal" batteries. Rayovac even hired Michael Jordan as the spokesman. (I wonder how much he was paid to do those ads...) I even have a charger for he "renewal" batteries. I keep it around because it charges NiMH and NiCd cells.
I wouldn't call those renewable alkalines semi-decent.
It doesn't sound like you hold them in high regard either.
But if the Aussies have figured out a major improvement... that could change things.
And if we can make even semi-decent rechargible zinc cells, it's a major win.
At the end of the day, every battery needs to be replaced; lithium isn't a magic bullet.
I'm not sure I care if I have to replace five zinc batteries after a hundred cycles each, or one lithium battery that lasts 500.
If it costs less overall, and you get twice the energy density, why not use zinc?
For which Zinc has a good thing going: it's so cheap we use it for everything, and so easy to refine and reuse its been used since antiquity.
.
Zinc costs $0.20 for 100g; at a similar purity, 100g of lithium is nearly $10
Being ~50x less expensive, and being much easier to use are pretty big wins for Zinc.
Zinc batteries are nothing new - it's in the same alkaline batteries we've been abusing for generations.
So 2x the power density and 50x cheaper? That can be historic.
Good question
Another good question: was dailystormer a paying customer, or was it in Cloudflare's free tier? (I mention it as I've used the free tier before)
If they were in the free tier, it's not too different from dropping the free service they gave to Brian Krebs before someone tried to DDOS his site offline for weeks at a time. (I.e. It's hard to justify the cost of maintaining service for a customer that pays nothing)
There are fewer crazy pointless IPOs (Twitter and Snapchat are notable exceptions.)
IPO's are part of it, but there are companies who have sold stock for years that are insanely overvalued by admission of their own CEO (such as Tesla).
I personally feel we've reached the point where investors are starting to believe their own hype, a practice which hasn't ended well in the past.
The question is which will come first: AI or Fusion power?
Because you'll be FIRED or CENSORED
And that's just from the Google fanboi's. Speak ill of a Google product and the next thing you know you've been doxxed.
He is the man behind LLVM. I'm more worried about that.
And Clang - Clang pushed the state of the art forward, and gave GCC a much-needed kick in the ass.
Not being an AI researcher, nor compiler developer, I wonder how much crossover there is between AI and optimizing compilers... part of me thinks there may be more similarities that would appear obvious at first.
It'll be interesting to see if Lattner's as successful with AI as he has been with compilers.
Ad copy. Slashvertizing is a thing now.
We bought a house and the seller paid for a year of a home warranty service.
The seller "paid" out of the money you gave them.
I also was "gifted" a "home warranty."
Every single problem I encountered was judged a pre-existing condition, and it was my fault for not noticing the problem during the home buying process. (This includes the garage door, microwave, HVAC system... all of which was functional during the home inspection)
Lists of blatantly corrupt and illegal activities don't mean jack shit unless you do something about it.
Taking your business elsewhere is often futile.
When I got a mortgage, I went out of my way to avoid Wells Fargo. The dirty secret in getting any loan is that the guys offering the loan (ie. the bastards at the credit union, etc.) can sell the debt to another institution before the ink dries.
Which is how I became another "satisfied" customer of the institution I tried to avoid.
So which financial institution makes mistakes on your accounts now?
I hear good things about The First National Bank of Serta.
There are also less established institutions offering innovative solutions to the financial industry.
Hydrogen maser clocks are even more stable timekeepers, but again, not based on a radioactive isotope.
Don't forget rubidium! - much cheaper than cesium or hydrogen, but also not as accurate. (Also not radioactive)
Hydrogen masers become unstable and drift ('aging effect') while Cesium is consistent. Applications where very accurate time over both the short and long term are required (such as Galileo GNSS) use a combination of Hydrogen and Cesium standards, using each to overcome the weakness of the other.
Cesium also benefits from the fact its oscillation is literally the definition of a second.
Yeah. "Customer issue"
Granted, it really was useful for the power drivers used in factories back in the day. We have torque limiters on the cheapest electric drivers these days.
Stripped screws are still a great way to tamper-proof while looking shoddy at the same time.
Most Americans still don't know how horrible a Philips head screw is
Every American has had a few choice words with stripping and jumping Phillips screws. Everybody hates them -- just not enough to bother replacing it.
and that they have Ford to thank for that
No. There was a better screw of the day - the Robertson, but he wasn't willing to license his patent to the auto industry.
The Phillips Screw Company was an "IP" company that licensed their patent. The Phillips head was first tested in production on the 1936 Cadillac, and spread like wildfire across the American automotive industry, and from there, into everything else.
I hope you don't have an XBox One or a Switch because they both support VP9 out of the box.
And I don't. Game consoles are more than powerful enough to handle decoding in software, so it's not much of an issue for them.
A Raspberry PI, or Blu-ray Player though... not so easy.
Sure sounds simple to me. I can play VP9 video on my iPhone 7 with VLC for iOS [videolan.org]. What's the complication?
Battery life, of course. Software decoders use a lot more power than specialized hardware.
You really should try to adopt a more pragmatic approach to these things. Your pointless pontificating wastes a lot of your time. You'll be happier without it.
You've done more than your share of pointless pontificating. You've done nothing to refute my basic premise: that AVC is good enough to use until AV1 is adopted. Instead, you've been attempting to put words into my mouth and making ad homenim attacks.
Just follow the breadcrumbs to the first post in this thread. I made no such claim in my original post.
I do state:
... h.264 is good enough. There's clearly time left in h.264's life to wait for AV-1 -- and skipping VP9 entirely.
I did not say AVC is better. How does the saying go? "Good enough is the enemy of better?" VP9 is more efficient than AVC. Is it enough to justify migration? It depends.
If you're implementing in software, as is done with Chrome, Firefox, and Windows... yes. It's free to add the reference implementation.
For hardware manufacturers... it's not so simple. It's a lot more expensive to implement hardware than software. A chip that costs a few pennies more can be a deal breaker, even if it does support VP9. Does the benefit justify the cost to the manufacturer? Supporting every codec that comes along is prohibitively expensive.
As i originally stated - there is a good business case that VP9 isn't worth adopting, as h.264 is a common denominator that is "good enough" for 1080p video, and every streaming provider supports it fully. A company can design a product to use AVC and AV1, and its customers won't complain or make a buying decision because it doesn't have VP9.
Desperate? No. Your insistence that VP9 is somehow relevant to my life, however, is funny.
Stats for Nerds: video/mp4; codecs="avc1.4d401e"
Yup, VP9 for sure.
Chrome is one of my primary browsers. It's nice that we both recognize that there is a market for streaming video on computers.
However, that's not the entire market by a long shot. Roughly half of all Netflix usage is via Game consoles. About 42% use a computer, and 6% use a smartphone. The statistics are from March 2017.
Neither of our usage is at all unusual. Claiming I'm somehow "out of touch" because I'm in the 50th percentile is disingenuous.