If you've ever designed a power supply, you'd see that you must accept low/high voltages, but should expect the frequency to be fairly steady.
While I do expect it to be fairly steady, any experience I've had with power supplies doesn't have any major influence from frequency, especially within a few Hz.
Where it's critical is for things like induction motors and transformers
Grid level power management is utterly unlike your home UPS.
I think the article is overstating a bit given the scale, but the macro implications are impressive. Grid-scale generators are slow to ramp up and down - minutes to hours (or even days for startup of nuclear plants). Small, less efficient generators handle the small peaks (oddly enough, called peaking generator) that go beyond baseline generation and any under-utilization goes to waste so it's a careful balancing act. And even the peaking generators aren't instant response whereas the Tesla Battery IS essentially able to go from 0-100MW in moments (they should advertise this along with the Tesla speed records). This allows highly efficient supply of peak-demand (or, in this case, unexpected demand) which is pretty much unheard of.
Having 500MW go offline suddenly does Bad Things to the overall grid. Remember when one plant tripped offline... I think in upstate NY and blacked out most of the northeast in a cascade failure several years back? Having something able to take a near-instantaneous load, even for a few minutes, is a massive benefit.
It's technically possible that MS is trying to be less evil.
Or maybe they're just afraid of what could happen if they went about this the WRONG way and got caught up with it. Sometimes doing the right thing applies to business and people decisions.
So that wonderful video descrbing the operation of the BOSS scanner... also gives the default passcode for the settings menu. Want to take odds that virtually 100% of those chairs out there still have the same passcode as my luggage?
Change that sensitivity to 0 and go to town smuggling in whatever you want.
NASA's problem with...almost everything...isn't cost. Well not directly. It's bureaucracy - which leads to cost.
They're really GOOD at engineering. Amazing even. But like often happens, you can't just let the geeks play. Someone(s) have to oversee them and "manage" them. Not to mention, NASA is one of the larger chunks of the budget that is available to be spent whatever way the political wind blows.
My understanding was SpaceX avoided SRBs because they are not easily reusable. You can return them for full refurbishment and relaunch but ultimately the SpaceX concept/goal is launch, land, refuel, launch - more like a plane. You can't do that with a SRB.
Pollution is a very minor worry. The rounding error statement is accurate. The amount of CO2 contributed by space launches (not just SpaceX) as a whole is minuscule in a global sense.
While reducing pollution is good, focusing those reductions on the larger polluters is far more effective.
There are plenty of examples where amazon is significantly higher cost than local retail. It's typically on low $ consumable items (cleaning supplies, etc.). I've seen plenty of listings with 50-250% premium over typical suburban retail (i.e. local w-mart). But that's what you pay to get 'free' shipping for toilet bowl cleaner:)
Actually, if you came in due to organ failure they have to treat you...and if that means ongoing 24/7 ICU care until you get a transplant or die...well that's what you get.
This is why people come in complaining of everything under the sun in order to get treated for a simple ear infection...but the ER then needs to test for everything (and take the cost associated) because CYA.
I...seriously don't know if this is a troll or you're actually that stupid. Your entire premise is completely flawed. ERs are never empty unless the hospital is closed down.
An ER visit requires in-processing, triage, nurse visits, dr visit, a BED, etc. and ALL of that has costs. Some are capital, some are staffing, some are OT due to demand, some are excess capacity cost above planned because they're so damn overused.
Sure, an empty still has a pretty high cost...but THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN. Ever. Go tot he ER at 3AM and there's probably a multi-hour wait for non-emergent care (mind you, broken bones typically aren't emergencies). They staff more doctors, have more beds, more nurses, more everything because of how many people go there.
Not to mention people come in and complain of EVERYTHING so they get a whole battery of tests. And not the normal blood-draw, send to lab, get results next week tests but the dedicated-onsite-tech rush tests which have far, far greater costs.
Worse, the 'rest of us' pay thousands for a ER visit when an ear infection realistically needed 5 minutes with a P.A. and $5 worth of generic meds which, in theory, could simply be sold over the counter.
So yeah, we COULD do a single payer but lots of people making lots of money by contributing nothing would have to find a useful job. I mean, maybe they could fill in all the anticipated need for medical care professionals the doomsayers keep talking about needing if we did have universal healthcare in the US?
Unless you're out there on the bell curve, it's CHEAPER to do without it. Mind you, that would mean paying into a savings plan significantly in years where you don't even see a doctor...which people generally will not do if they have the option not to.
Insurance is a game of adding up the overall cost, adding your overhead, then dividing that larger number out between your customers. Benefit is shared risk, downside is additional cost.
However, having coverage for routine wellness visits and the related tests generally results in far more people getting them. And THAT results in addressing far more conditions before they become serious and thus harder (and more expensive) to treat.
What "universal healthcare" did was just add another layer, more complexity, more options and features and nonsense instead of removing barriers and administration and focusing the spend in healthcare on...well...healthCARE.
Agreed, you used to be able to go do a Dr. and get care...and just pay for it. Now doctors need to 'charge' ridiculous rates so the percentage they actually get paid still comes out to something livable after you figure in all the support costs required.
How can we NOT know this? There are multiple examples of other countries with people and less wealth per-capita (so they get less economy of scale while having less to spend per person) who do this quite readily.
I love using canada as an example here. US spend for healthcare is $8233PP while Canada with universal healthcare is a mere 4445. Multiply THEIR rate by OUR population and you could cover the whole US for an additional $400BB. Not cheap, but not impractical by any means given we wast^^^^spend $600BB on the military a year.
But...think of the CEOs!!! Without all this ridiculous spending they might...omg they might not be able to keep the yacht docked at their mansion in Miami!
Seriously, the amount of money consolidated and mis-spent in military and healthcare spending would be enough to provide healthcare for the remainder of our country, fix our ailing infrastructure, and send some tourists to mars several times over.
You're so misled. If the US paid, per person, what most other countries with universal healthcare pay, we could fund the entire damn thing with what we pay today. Oh, didn't you know? The US Gov't already pays the majority of healthcare costs in the country.
Using our norther neighbor's insurance costs vs the governmental contributions to healthcare in the US alone, we could provide every person in the US with healthcare. Hell, we could probably cover canada too as a thank-you for fixing our shit.
Besides addblock and similar, I've got my own mental filter. I just don't see adds for the most part. FB is rather insidious with them and how they insert them but it's also a big part of the reason I don't use FB much anymore.
but but but...then who will know when autie mae bakes a cake for your birthday and the cat knocks it off the table before the icing is put on and everyone is sooooo relieved but also sad there was no cake?
Also, how will SJWs be able to educate you on how everyone is doing everything wrong, always?
The 0-60 time is a byproduct of EV design as much as it is an inherent feature of high power, high efficiency electric motors.
EVs get significant boots to efficiency by being able to reclaim energy while stopping. Car brakes are typically significantly more powerful than the engine...so if you want to rely on electric braking to the equivalence of physical brakes, you need a generator (motor) capable of that level of power. The cost is moderate to small while the benefit (range) is a fundamental, key selling point of your vehicle so of course you do it.
The incredible 0-60 times are a *byproduct*, but make a much more flashy and easy to understand selling point than '500kW peak engine braking power to maximize battery range'
Are there buyers for 5 million ~$40k EVs? Absolutely...and that's what Tesla is aiming for now.
FF seems to have missed the intermediary steps where you build a brand, a production line, a customer base...and grow them because that's how you fund more of the same.
Google fiber was a bust. They quickly realized there's no such thing as net neutrality when it comes to local utilities and obviously weren't interested in spending the many billions of dollars to try and take over.
TBH, if I'd taken out a mortgage and bought bitcoin even a month or two ago I'd be paying off the mortgage several times over today and still have more money invested than I started with.
Now, we can say 'people would be stupid to do that TODAY' but we'd have said the same thing two months ago.
Just like the stock market, it's more or less gambling.
Slashdot Mirror
If you've ever designed a power supply, you'd see that you must accept low/high voltages, but should expect the frequency to be fairly steady.
While I do expect it to be fairly steady, any experience I've had with power supplies doesn't have any major influence from frequency, especially within a few Hz.
Where it's critical is for things like induction motors and transformers
Grid level power management is utterly unlike your home UPS.
I think the article is overstating a bit given the scale, but the macro implications are impressive. Grid-scale generators are slow to ramp up and down - minutes to hours (or even days for startup of nuclear plants). Small, less efficient generators handle the small peaks (oddly enough, called peaking generator) that go beyond baseline generation and any under-utilization goes to waste so it's a careful balancing act. And even the peaking generators aren't instant response whereas the Tesla Battery IS essentially able to go from 0-100MW in moments (they should advertise this along with the Tesla speed records). This allows highly efficient supply of peak-demand (or, in this case, unexpected demand) which is pretty much unheard of.
Having 500MW go offline suddenly does Bad Things to the overall grid. Remember when one plant tripped offline ... I think in upstate NY and blacked out most of the northeast in a cascade failure several years back? Having something able to take a near-instantaneous load, even for a few minutes, is a massive benefit.
It's technically possible that MS is trying to be less evil.
Or maybe they're just afraid of what could happen if they went about this the WRONG way and got caught up with it. Sometimes doing the right thing applies to business and people decisions.
So that wonderful video descrbing the operation of the BOSS scanner ... also gives the default passcode for the settings menu. Want to take odds that virtually 100% of those chairs out there still have the same passcode as my luggage?
Change that sensitivity to 0 and go to town smuggling in whatever you want.
No no no...don't you read the propaganda? It's because criminals can still "conduct criminal enterprise" while in jail if they have a cell phone.
Calling your babymama, kids, parents, or whoever else doesn't matter because someone might do something bad.
The astronomical costs of collect calls from jails is justified by...uhm...erm...well i'm sure there's something.
NASA's problem with...almost everything...isn't cost. Well not directly. It's bureaucracy - which leads to cost.
They're really GOOD at engineering. Amazing even. But like often happens, you can't just let the geeks play. Someone(s) have to oversee them and "manage" them. Not to mention, NASA is one of the larger chunks of the budget that is available to be spent whatever way the political wind blows.
My understanding was SpaceX avoided SRBs because they are not easily reusable. You can return them for full refurbishment and relaunch but ultimately the SpaceX concept/goal is launch, land, refuel, launch - more like a plane. You can't do that with a SRB.
Pollution is a very minor worry. The rounding error statement is accurate. The amount of CO2 contributed by space launches (not just SpaceX) as a whole is minuscule in a global sense.
While reducing pollution is good, focusing those reductions on the larger polluters is far more effective.
There are plenty of examples where amazon is significantly higher cost than local retail. It's typically on low $ consumable items (cleaning supplies, etc.). I've seen plenty of listings with 50-250% premium over typical suburban retail (i.e. local w-mart). But that's what you pay to get 'free' shipping for toilet bowl cleaner :)
Actually, if you came in due to organ failure they have to treat you...and if that means ongoing 24/7 ICU care until you get a transplant or die...well that's what you get.
This is why people come in complaining of everything under the sun in order to get treated for a simple ear infection...but the ER then needs to test for everything (and take the cost associated) because CYA.
Oh, you assume the person gave a legit name and social. Silly rabbit, trix are for kids!
I...seriously don't know if this is a troll or you're actually that stupid. Your entire premise is completely flawed. ERs are never empty unless the hospital is closed down.
An ER visit requires in-processing, triage, nurse visits, dr visit, a BED, etc. and ALL of that has costs. Some are capital, some are staffing, some are OT due to demand, some are excess capacity cost above planned because they're so damn overused.
Sure, an empty still has a pretty high cost...but THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN. Ever. Go tot he ER at 3AM and there's probably a multi-hour wait for non-emergent care (mind you, broken bones typically aren't emergencies). They staff more doctors, have more beds, more nurses, more everything because of how many people go there.
Not to mention people come in and complain of EVERYTHING so they get a whole battery of tests. And not the normal blood-draw, send to lab, get results next week tests but the dedicated-onsite-tech rush tests which have far, far greater costs.
Worse, the 'rest of us' pay thousands for a ER visit when an ear infection realistically needed 5 minutes with a P.A. and $5 worth of generic meds which, in theory, could simply be sold over the counter.
So yeah, we COULD do a single payer but lots of people making lots of money by contributing nothing would have to find a useful job. I mean, maybe they could fill in all the anticipated need for medical care professionals the doomsayers keep talking about needing if we did have universal healthcare in the US?
That's the scam of insurance.
Unless you're out there on the bell curve, it's CHEAPER to do without it. Mind you, that would mean paying into a savings plan significantly in years where you don't even see a doctor...which people generally will not do if they have the option not to.
Insurance is a game of adding up the overall cost, adding your overhead, then dividing that larger number out between your customers. Benefit is shared risk, downside is additional cost.
I mostly agree.
However, having coverage for routine wellness visits and the related tests generally results in far more people getting them. And THAT results in addressing far more conditions before they become serious and thus harder (and more expensive) to treat.
What "universal healthcare" did was just add another layer, more complexity, more options and features and nonsense instead of removing barriers and administration and focusing the spend in healthcare on...well...healthCARE.
Agreed, you used to be able to go do a Dr. and get care...and just pay for it. Now doctors need to 'charge' ridiculous rates so the percentage they actually get paid still comes out to something livable after you figure in all the support costs required.
How can we NOT know this? There are multiple examples of other countries with people and less wealth per-capita (so they get less economy of scale while having less to spend per person) who do this quite readily.
I love using canada as an example here. US spend for healthcare is $8233PP while Canada with universal healthcare is a mere 4445. Multiply THEIR rate by OUR population and you could cover the whole US for an additional $400BB. Not cheap, but not impractical by any means given we wast^^^^spend $600BB on the military a year.
But...think of the CEOs!!! Without all this ridiculous spending they might...omg they might not be able to keep the yacht docked at their mansion in Miami!
Seriously, the amount of money consolidated and mis-spent in military and healthcare spending would be enough to provide healthcare for the remainder of our country, fix our ailing infrastructure, and send some tourists to mars several times over.
But...the CEOs!!!
Bankrupt the country? ROFL.
You're so misled. If the US paid, per person, what most other countries with universal healthcare pay, we could fund the entire damn thing with what we pay today. Oh, didn't you know? The US Gov't already pays the majority of healthcare costs in the country.
Using our norther neighbor's insurance costs vs the governmental contributions to healthcare in the US alone, we could provide every person in the US with healthcare. Hell, we could probably cover canada too as a thank-you for fixing our shit.
Good thing corporations are legally people these days.
Same.
Besides addblock and similar, I've got my own mental filter. I just don't see adds for the most part. FB is rather insidious with them and how they insert them but it's also a big part of the reason I don't use FB much anymore.
but but but...then who will know when autie mae bakes a cake for your birthday and the cat knocks it off the table before the icing is put on and everyone is sooooo relieved but also sad there was no cake?
Also, how will SJWs be able to educate you on how everyone is doing everything wrong, always?
The 0-60 time is a byproduct of EV design as much as it is an inherent feature of high power, high efficiency electric motors.
EVs get significant boots to efficiency by being able to reclaim energy while stopping. Car brakes are typically significantly more powerful than the engine...so if you want to rely on electric braking to the equivalence of physical brakes, you need a generator (motor) capable of that level of power. The cost is moderate to small while the benefit (range) is a fundamental, key selling point of your vehicle so of course you do it.
The incredible 0-60 times are a *byproduct*, but make a much more flashy and easy to understand selling point than '500kW peak engine braking power to maximize battery range'
Not at $180,000 per car at least.
Are there buyers for 5 million ~$40k EVs? Absolutely...and that's what Tesla is aiming for now.
FF seems to have missed the intermediary steps where you build a brand, a production line, a customer base...and grow them because that's how you fund more of the same.
Google fiber was a bust. They quickly realized there's no such thing as net neutrality when it comes to local utilities and obviously weren't interested in spending the many billions of dollars to try and take over.
LTC and ETH are far, FAR more sustainable and higher levels of trading though.
BTC ... it might not burst but it will have to fork (again) if it's going to live a happy and long life.
I expect people will eventually move $ out of BTC and over to ETH/LTC on possibly some up-and-comer if that doesn't happen.
TBH, if I'd taken out a mortgage and bought bitcoin even a month or two ago I'd be paying off the mortgage several times over today and still have more money invested than I started with.
Now, we can say 'people would be stupid to do that TODAY' but we'd have said the same thing two months ago.
Just like the stock market, it's more or less gambling.