The average USA house hold only uses 30KWH per day. Most of the marketed electric cars could completely run a house for 2-3 days. I use a lot less than the average. I could probably go a week. even 5%-10% of your battery would be enough to make a sizable dent in peak usage. Most of the warranties are for a full battery cycle every day for 10 years, and even then the battery will still be around 80% capacity. The cost to produce a li-ion battery has gone down 25% between 2016 and 2017. They're getting cheap.
I second DamnOregonian. I was testing a 1Gb DOS against my 150Mb connection, and I was getting 85% loss with 20-40ms pings to my ISP. Bufferbloat, fix it.
[Luminiferous] Aether theory has never been disproven
What? I'm Petty sure it was decapitated when the speed of light was shown to be the same in all direction as the Earth orbits the Sun. One of the predictions of Luminiferous Aether is a universal frame of reference for light, making it slower or faster depending on which direction you're moving, fundamentally incompatible with Relativity. Seems quantum vacuum is classified as a form of "Aether", but is definitely not Luminiferous Aether.
PPB of acrylamide
Brewed coffee: 5-10
Gerber Tender Harvest Organic Sweet Potatoes: 121
Arby's french fries: 252
Lamb Weston Inland Valley Fajita Fries (baked): 1325
Pepperidge Farm Dark Pump Pumpernickel (not toasted): 34
Pepperidge Farm Dark Pump Pumpernickel (toasted): 364 <-- better not use your toaster
General Mills Cheerios: 266
Blue Diamond Roasted Salted Almonds: 236
Hershey's Cocoa: 909
Nabisco Chocolate Teddy Grahams: 199
Starbucks Coffee Colombia (brewed): 7
Starbucks Coffee Lite Note (brewed): 11
Keebler Rumbly Grahams Cinnamon: 334
Holy crap, see how much toasting your bread adds?! California should place warning on toasters. Turns your food into a cancer causing poison. But really, Gerber baby food has 12-24x more.
It's the only promising. All of the other ideas thus far have been falsified. There are others in the works, but not many remaining as entire classes of hypothesis', like MOND, have been proven fundamentally incompatible with recent observations in the past 6 months. I am not sure about the idea of "emergence", but I know some claim this may have also been fundamentally proven false by similar observations against MOND.
A low mass or no mass explanation would make Dark Matter move too fast, near the speed of light. Instead of being in halos around galaxies, it would just fly away in all directions. This is another reason why they think its a form of matter. All known non-matter objects move at the speed of light and would violate this observation. And it would require a very low mass baryonic matter, less than a neutrino, making it much too fast.
"dark matter" is anything that doesn't emit much light because it is cool, like a brown dwarf, but "Dark Matter" is matter that does not interact with light and interacts less with matter than neutrinos, yet is more massive. One is a general idea and the other is a proper name.
Dark Matter is a collection of observational facts, where none of these facts are explainable with current theories, that we assume are caused by the same thing or collection of highly related things. The only theory is the assumptions.
He never said that. He just said that Dark Matter is very diffuse, not to mention known to primarily be in halos around the outside of galaxies. Space is very large. Even with densities of 0.01 solar masses per cubic parcasc, that would represent a fantastical amount of matter at the big scale.
You may think that the evidence difference between Dark Matter and Dark Energy makes Dark Matter a vastly more measured problem because we've used many different tools and methods to measure it, but Dark Energy has the whole "that galaxy is moving away from us several times faster than light" issue going for it. It's true that we know much less about it, but what little we do know about it is much crazier than Dark Matter.
Our current theory of gravity does not apply on the scales we are observing, i.e., the theory is incomplete.
Already tested. Gravity works perfectly as expected over large distance. Even the inverse has been shown true, that if any other value was being used, we should not see what we're seeing. So not just affirmation of what we know, but affirmation that what we don't know will not affect what we do know by any significant amount for what we care.
Physical laws are not constant. e are looking at very distant objects, and seeing them in the distant past. Perhaps universal constants are not, in fact, constant across large spans of space and/or time.
Already tested. Changes to gravity in the past would have affected at least the CMB, among many other things. And even our local region of space is affected, as in our part of the arm of the Milkyway. We're moving much too quickly to stay in orbit.
You hear that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and then in the next sentence say the universe is expanding which means more space, but we know space has vacuum energy, so which is it
Both. The total energy in the Universe is ~0. We assume perfectly zero, but we only know to some decimal place of precision. Everything we see is both something and nothing at the same time. Energy in an of itself is nothing. It's the potential of the energy that allows something to exist or work to be done. Vacuum energy cannot be tapped as an energy source because there is no gradient.
The expansion of space is removing net energy. It's creating more total energy, but that energy is useless. At some point objects are moving away so far and fast that we can no longer interact with them, which means the potential to interact has been removed and now potential energy is reduced. There's also energy being lost in the sense of the CMB redshifting.
A vast increase in gross energy with a loss of net energy. It all averages out to nothing.
People who are good at what they do are typically monitoring or communicating with other people who are good at the same thing.
Or they're at least all watching the same thing and great minds think alike and all that. Kind of like telescopes. No one had even thought of a telescope, yet when optics became good enough, the telescope was independently invented by several different people within a year of each other, but all far enough apart that communication among them would have taken longer than a year, so it was impossible for them to have known what was up with the others. Most ideas that seem novel are really obvious to masters of the domain as long as they're presented with the same problem. This has been a sore point of our patent system for a long time. Just because something has never been done before doesn't mean the person who made it is special or put a lot of effort into it. They were just lucky with timing. Yay, lottery!
My guess is a combination of masters being masters and all saw the tipping point around the same time, and keeping their ears to the ground.
She sometimes goes overboard and kills the patient with the remedy (too high a fever)
I asked a few doctors about that and did some searching. While it does happen, it only happens when the brain is already damaged and not working correctly or a very young child and their body still isn't developed enough to manage temperature properly. I asked the ER and my regular doctor because I went into the ER one night when I spiked to 104.5f (40.3c) and my finger nails started to turn purple. By the time I got to the ER, everything was going back to normal. I described the situation to the ER doctor and they said that's normal and unless I have had brain damage or have some sort of family history of death by fever, not to worry. Said healthy adults dying or brain damaged from fevers is a Hollywood thing, or a rare drug reaction.
I'm not sure at what point a person's body is mature enough, but by adulthood(18), your body should never cause a deadly fever. *My understanding. If you don't feel well, go to the doctor
So.. you want to take an unmeasurable abstract concept and attempt to nickle and dime the assumed value in an attempt to make it much more expensive than it needs to be? Sounds like spending $100 to save $1. I should rephrase. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't directly pass on the costs, but it is very dangerous to mess around with the costs of necessities because the costs do not always reflect their value. What I am saying is your approach is grossly simplistic and has complete disregard for the reality of things in an attempt to force an ideal.
"true cost"? What's that? I know, lets have everyone pay out of pocket for the cost of the military, and if someone doesn't want to pay, then we let the aggressor attack them. Think of all of the money we'll save by not having to protect people who aren't willing/capable of paying for protection.
We don't live in a vacuum. In the real world, the value of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Nickle and diming the parts can have a detrimental affect on the whole. A simple example is fiber to the farm in some states. They found that in some cases, the farmer will never in their life time pay back the cost of the install, the benefit to the state as a whole pays itself off in less than a year.
If you believe this just to be a tweak of the algorithms of 20, 30 or 40 years ago, you are simply wrong.
That's the thing about problem solving. Implemented solutions may look completely different, even if they're fundamentally the same. There's a near limitless number of ways to implement a solution, but still be the same solution. Do not conflate new implementations for new solutions.
I don't know enough on the topic, but my brother is going into AI and he has taken a similar position that all of these "new" AIs is just 60s/70s computer science used in ways that only recently becoming feasible. They could not exercise these "new" ways only because they didn't have access to enough computation power, but the theory was there.
I see this same pattern in other parts of tech. People saying "omg, something new!" when it's really just computer science from the 60s/70s and they're not thinking abstractly enough to understand. But who cares about abstract reasoning? Who needs to fundamentally understand a problem when they could just memorize all of the answers?
Between highly respecting my brother's opinions and my general observations in other parts of tech, I have to side with prefec2.
Anecdote: OMG! new tech! Have you seen async programming? Me: Yeah, co-routines and state machines from the 60s. But otherwise obvious answers to the simple problem of context switching. I think it was around the age of 10 that I read about the costs of context switching, which lead me to independently abstractly create co-routines and an event notification system to signal when a logical thread was ready again. I figured if it's expensive to context switch in the hardware, which has a lot of responsibilities like virtual memory isolation, then I'd just do context switching in user mode. 20 years later async was all the rage and it was easy to understand since I already thoroughly thought about the problem when I was a child. It wasn't until I started to read about async that I found out about co-routines and state machines. I'm always happy when I come to the same conclusions as others.
A single time zone has nothing to do with sleeping during the day. It just means the "time of day" that day time is different in different parts of the world. "Noon" would be about 6am for me and Sun rise would be about 12am. Basing time on where the Sun is in the sky is stupid for a global time system and completely idiotic for a universal time system. Changing the definition of time is ludicrous. Ignoring relativity, time should be linearly monotonic moving forward.
There's been a ton of studies on violence in the media and children. Every study has the same conclusion. Normal people are calmed and have reduced aggression. This is a good thing. People with mental disorders are made more aggressive. This is a bad thing. Normal people play violent video games to have fun and release tension. Messed up people play violent video games to feed their lust.
fast food workers because they are stupid enough to think they deserve $15.00 for flipping burgers
It doesn't matter how much you think you should get paid for doing something, if I'm doing anything, I need to get paid a certain amount just to live. The burger joint could just not pay $15/hour and instead just pay $5/hour and see what happens. Ohh, no burgers to sell, now you're out of business. Well then, flipping burgers must be worth $15/hour.
The idea of "worth" is extremely abstract and not intrinsic.
You just described a horribly simplistic representation and solution of the problem. Not all bytes are equal. A low bandwidth usage probably use more expensive bytes than a high bandwidth usage. It's more than likely cheaper to burst an 8Mb stream at 1Gb/s than to trickle a 3Mb stream steadily. And that's but one example.
"mbps" is very imprecise. Assuming a 1Gb link, 3Mb/s is 0.3% of the utilization, which means the link is at 0% utilization 99.7% of the time. You could claim that you're getting 0Mb/s 99.7% of the time and that is statistically true. You just need to play with the window over which you measure bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
The average USA house hold only uses 30KWH per day. Most of the marketed electric cars could completely run a house for 2-3 days. I use a lot less than the average. I could probably go a week. even 5%-10% of your battery would be enough to make a sizable dent in peak usage. Most of the warranties are for a full battery cycle every day for 10 years, and even then the battery will still be around 80% capacity. The cost to produce a li-ion battery has gone down 25% between 2016 and 2017. They're getting cheap.
I second DamnOregonian. I was testing a 1Gb DOS against my 150Mb connection, and I was getting 85% loss with 20-40ms pings to my ISP. Bufferbloat, fix it.
[Luminiferous] Aether theory has never been disproven
What? I'm Petty sure it was decapitated when the speed of light was shown to be the same in all direction as the Earth orbits the Sun. One of the predictions of Luminiferous Aether is a universal frame of reference for light, making it slower or faster depending on which direction you're moving, fundamentally incompatible with Relativity. Seems quantum vacuum is classified as a form of "Aether", but is definitely not Luminiferous Aether.
https://www.healwithfood.org/a...
https://www.fda.gov/Food/Foodb...
PPB of acrylamide
Brewed coffee: 5-10
Gerber Tender Harvest Organic Sweet Potatoes: 121
Arby's french fries: 252
Lamb Weston Inland Valley Fajita Fries (baked): 1325
Pepperidge Farm Dark Pump Pumpernickel (not toasted): 34
Pepperidge Farm Dark Pump Pumpernickel (toasted): 364 <-- better not use your toaster
General Mills Cheerios: 266
Blue Diamond Roasted Salted Almonds: 236
Hershey's Cocoa: 909
Nabisco Chocolate Teddy Grahams: 199
Starbucks Coffee Colombia (brewed): 7
Starbucks Coffee Lite Note (brewed): 11
Keebler Rumbly Grahams Cinnamon: 334
Holy crap, see how much toasting your bread adds?! California should place warning on toasters. Turns your food into a cancer causing poison. But really, Gerber baby food has 12-24x more.
It's the only promising. All of the other ideas thus far have been falsified. There are others in the works, but not many remaining as entire classes of hypothesis', like MOND, have been proven fundamentally incompatible with recent observations in the past 6 months. I am not sure about the idea of "emergence", but I know some claim this may have also been fundamentally proven false by similar observations against MOND.
A low mass or no mass explanation would make Dark Matter move too fast, near the speed of light. Instead of being in halos around galaxies, it would just fly away in all directions. This is another reason why they think its a form of matter. All known non-matter objects move at the speed of light and would violate this observation. And it would require a very low mass baryonic matter, less than a neutrino, making it much too fast.
"dark matter" is anything that doesn't emit much light because it is cool, like a brown dwarf, but "Dark Matter" is matter that does not interact with light and interacts less with matter than neutrinos, yet is more massive. One is a general idea and the other is a proper name.
Dark Matter is a collection of observational facts, where none of these facts are explainable with current theories, that we assume are caused by the same thing or collection of highly related things. The only theory is the assumptions.
He never said that. He just said that Dark Matter is very diffuse, not to mention known to primarily be in halos around the outside of galaxies. Space is very large. Even with densities of 0.01 solar masses per cubic parcasc, that would represent a fantastical amount of matter at the big scale.
You may think that the evidence difference between Dark Matter and Dark Energy makes Dark Matter a vastly more measured problem because we've used many different tools and methods to measure it, but Dark Energy has the whole "that galaxy is moving away from us several times faster than light" issue going for it. It's true that we know much less about it, but what little we do know about it is much crazier than Dark Matter.
Our current theory of gravity does not apply on the scales we are observing, i.e., the theory is incomplete.
Already tested. Gravity works perfectly as expected over large distance. Even the inverse has been shown true, that if any other value was being used, we should not see what we're seeing. So not just affirmation of what we know, but affirmation that what we don't know will not affect what we do know by any significant amount for what we care.
Physical laws are not constant. e are looking at very distant objects, and seeing them in the distant past. Perhaps universal constants are not, in fact, constant across large spans of space and/or time.
Already tested. Changes to gravity in the past would have affected at least the CMB, among many other things. And even our local region of space is affected, as in our part of the arm of the Milkyway. We're moving much too quickly to stay in orbit.
You hear that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and then in the next sentence say the universe is expanding which means more space, but we know space has vacuum energy, so which is it
Both. The total energy in the Universe is ~0. We assume perfectly zero, but we only know to some decimal place of precision. Everything we see is both something and nothing at the same time. Energy in an of itself is nothing. It's the potential of the energy that allows something to exist or work to be done. Vacuum energy cannot be tapped as an energy source because there is no gradient.
The expansion of space is removing net energy. It's creating more total energy, but that energy is useless. At some point objects are moving away so far and fast that we can no longer interact with them, which means the potential to interact has been removed and now potential energy is reduced. There's also energy being lost in the sense of the CMB redshifting.
A vast increase in gross energy with a loss of net energy. It all averages out to nothing.
People who are good at what they do are typically monitoring or communicating with other people who are good at the same thing.
Or they're at least all watching the same thing and great minds think alike and all that. Kind of like telescopes. No one had even thought of a telescope, yet when optics became good enough, the telescope was independently invented by several different people within a year of each other, but all far enough apart that communication among them would have taken longer than a year, so it was impossible for them to have known what was up with the others. Most ideas that seem novel are really obvious to masters of the domain as long as they're presented with the same problem. This has been a sore point of our patent system for a long time. Just because something has never been done before doesn't mean the person who made it is special or put a lot of effort into it. They were just lucky with timing. Yay, lottery!
My guess is a combination of masters being masters and all saw the tipping point around the same time, and keeping their ears to the ground.
She sometimes goes overboard and kills the patient with the remedy (too high a fever)
I asked a few doctors about that and did some searching. While it does happen, it only happens when the brain is already damaged and not working correctly or a very young child and their body still isn't developed enough to manage temperature properly. I asked the ER and my regular doctor because I went into the ER one night when I spiked to 104.5f (40.3c) and my finger nails started to turn purple. By the time I got to the ER, everything was going back to normal. I described the situation to the ER doctor and they said that's normal and unless I have had brain damage or have some sort of family history of death by fever, not to worry. Said healthy adults dying or brain damaged from fevers is a Hollywood thing, or a rare drug reaction.
I'm not sure at what point a person's body is mature enough, but by adulthood(18), your body should never cause a deadly fever. *My understanding. If you don't feel well, go to the doctor
So.. you want to take an unmeasurable abstract concept and attempt to nickle and dime the assumed value in an attempt to make it much more expensive than it needs to be? Sounds like spending $100 to save $1. I should rephrase. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't directly pass on the costs, but it is very dangerous to mess around with the costs of necessities because the costs do not always reflect their value. What I am saying is your approach is grossly simplistic and has complete disregard for the reality of things in an attempt to force an ideal.
"true cost"? What's that? I know, lets have everyone pay out of pocket for the cost of the military, and if someone doesn't want to pay, then we let the aggressor attack them. Think of all of the money we'll save by not having to protect people who aren't willing/capable of paying for protection.
We don't live in a vacuum. In the real world, the value of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Nickle and diming the parts can have a detrimental affect on the whole. A simple example is fiber to the farm in some states. They found that in some cases, the farmer will never in their life time pay back the cost of the install, the benefit to the state as a whole pays itself off in less than a year.
If you believe this just to be a tweak of the algorithms of 20, 30 or 40 years ago, you are simply wrong.
That's the thing about problem solving. Implemented solutions may look completely different, even if they're fundamentally the same. There's a near limitless number of ways to implement a solution, but still be the same solution. Do not conflate new implementations for new solutions.
I don't know enough on the topic, but my brother is going into AI and he has taken a similar position that all of these "new" AIs is just 60s/70s computer science used in ways that only recently becoming feasible. They could not exercise these "new" ways only because they didn't have access to enough computation power, but the theory was there.
I see this same pattern in other parts of tech. People saying "omg, something new!" when it's really just computer science from the 60s/70s and they're not thinking abstractly enough to understand. But who cares about abstract reasoning? Who needs to fundamentally understand a problem when they could just memorize all of the answers?
Between highly respecting my brother's opinions and my general observations in other parts of tech, I have to side with prefec2.
Anecdote: OMG! new tech! Have you seen async programming? Me: Yeah, co-routines and state machines from the 60s. But otherwise obvious answers to the simple problem of context switching. I think it was around the age of 10 that I read about the costs of context switching, which lead me to independently abstractly create co-routines and an event notification system to signal when a logical thread was ready again. I figured if it's expensive to context switch in the hardware, which has a lot of responsibilities like virtual memory isolation, then I'd just do context switching in user mode. 20 years later async was all the rage and it was easy to understand since I already thoroughly thought about the problem when I was a child. It wasn't until I started to read about async that I found out about co-routines and state machines. I'm always happy when I come to the same conclusions as others.
A single time zone has nothing to do with sleeping during the day. It just means the "time of day" that day time is different in different parts of the world. "Noon" would be about 6am for me and Sun rise would be about 12am. Basing time on where the Sun is in the sky is stupid for a global time system and completely idiotic for a universal time system. Changing the definition of time is ludicrous. Ignoring relativity, time should be linearly monotonic moving forward.
There's been a ton of studies on violence in the media and children. Every study has the same conclusion. Normal people are calmed and have reduced aggression. This is a good thing. People with mental disorders are made more aggressive. This is a bad thing. Normal people play violent video games to have fun and release tension. Messed up people play violent video games to feed their lust.
fast food workers because they are stupid enough to think they deserve $15.00 for flipping burgers
It doesn't matter how much you think you should get paid for doing something, if I'm doing anything, I need to get paid a certain amount just to live. The burger joint could just not pay $15/hour and instead just pay $5/hour and see what happens. Ohh, no burgers to sell, now you're out of business. Well then, flipping burgers must be worth $15/hour.
The idea of "worth" is extremely abstract and not intrinsic.
USR shotgun teck. 112kbit/s! Modem bonding. The ISP needed to support it and it used two lines.
Back when I had dialup, I got a flat ~200ms ping. When I had cable, I had anywhere from 30ms to 2000ms. Dialup was 10x faster than cable.
You just described a horribly simplistic representation and solution of the problem. Not all bytes are equal. A low bandwidth usage probably use more expensive bytes than a high bandwidth usage. It's more than likely cheaper to burst an 8Mb stream at 1Gb/s than to trickle a 3Mb stream steadily. And that's but one example.
"mbps" is very imprecise. Assuming a 1Gb link, 3Mb/s is 0.3% of the utilization, which means the link is at 0% utilization 99.7% of the time. You could claim that you're getting 0Mb/s 99.7% of the time and that is statistically true. You just need to play with the window over which you measure bandwidth.
The real question is will the table try to kill you, as do most things in Australia.