Serious answers: 1. It sounds like they don't have numbers yet; and there's more to it than flow-rate. Massively more important than flow-rate is the theoretical watts per Liter needed to force the water through under pressure. ("Theoretical" because you don't worry about pump-efficiency when comparing filter performance.)
2. "Clearing" the filter isn't exactly a thing because the salt never crystallizes. It remains in the water that's on the intake side of the filter. You "clear" the filter by not allowing all of the water from the sea-water to pass through the filter. a portion of it is channeled off. That portion has a higher salinity than seawater, ideally, about as close to saturated as possible. This pressurized salt-solution, known as concentrate, is first used to drive a turbine to recover the potential energy of being pressurized. The turbine drives a pump that helps raise the pressure of the incoming seawater (Externally powered pumps pressurize the incoming water the rest of the way). The concentrate, now at low pressure is either returned to the sea, or it's sent to evaporation pools to make sea-salt. In most cases, no, it's not a problem to return the concentrate to the sea. When done with a properly designed marine-outfall, oceans are really really huge and constantly churned by tides and currents, so the effect it has on ocean saline levels is nothing compared to the effect of solar evaporation.
Larger particulate is filtered earlier in the process. These filters can become clogged or "fouled". This can be solved using a process similar to what's described above, or by automated processes that constantly cycle the filters in use, and pressure-washing the fouled filters. There are also mechanical scrubber mechanisms and potentially sedimentation-pools that use flocculants to cause particulates to fall to the bottom where it can be scraped away as sludge; but these are all standard water-treatment processes that we've had solved for ages now.
The important bit here is the swelling thing. They indicate that graphene-oxide wasn't particularly good at filtering sodium-chloride and allowing water to pass, and they resolved the issue by making what sounds like a graphene-oxide/epoxy composite. Good for them. It's a pretty obvious solution to the problem, and this is just materials-science chugging along at the speed of research, but still, good for them. Naturally, mainstream news has to spice up the story to make readers care, but honestly, BBC didn't do that horrible of a job this time. They aren't claiming this is revolutionary. They aren't claiming a single benefit over existing polymer filters because the data isn't in yet. But it's true that there's not much point in talking up how cool graphene is, and should've stuck to explaining how graphene-oxide is an older different animal that just happens to have been given a new name that designates when graphite-oxide is in its one-layer thick form.
From what I've read, in two-party consent cases, including California, you cannot record without consent in a private setting as part of investigative journalism. In those states, you are restricted to merely observing and reporting those observations. If you watch enough investigative news programs like 60 Minutes, you'll sometimes hear the reporter explain how they were unable to record an experience, while other times, they break out the technology; this is why. You may be able to argue that this should not be the case due to the first amendment. And in one case, the supreme court ruled that Illinois' two-party consent law was unconstitutional and struck down, though this ruling was not strong enough to end other states' consent laws. I'm curious about times where the Supreme Court explicitly upheld these laws, unfortunately, I don't have the time to go down that rabbit hole.
Instead of a loop, we should make the runway a Möbius strip! That way, planes can taxi along both sides of the tarmac, allowing it to last twice as long!!
AHA! I figured it out! In this context, there's a difference between "ships" and canal transports that just go along a canal (barges). This is the first tunnel intended to convey seagoing vessels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Perhaps in Norwegian, this designation is a little less confusing.
...A bunch of stuff that is NO DIFFERENT. This article is horrible. It adds zero to a discussion I was sick of back when it began. Until you get a collection of economists to team up with a collection of technology-focused historians to come up with some new arguments, this remains nothing but redundant fear-mongering speculative clickbait. And btw, author, acknowledging that other articles do that within your article does not absolve you of committing that same sin. Slashdot, I don't care how many people submit an article; if it sucks, don't post it.
I best someone just looked up "Software engineer interview questions". I'm surprised they didn't ask him the old Microsoft chestnut about why manhole covers are round.
Now, when people do this to you, are you walking down the street and minding your own business? Or do you find it happens when you are saying hateful racist, sexist, transphobic, Islamophobic things on the Internet? If it's the latter, then as requested, I may be able to provide an explanation of why that's happening.
Is that like neglecting how many of these "hate crimes" are reported false and the person lied??
No one has ever claimed that _all_ accusations are true. So long as the number of hate-crimes increased in a statistically significant manner, and the proportion of well-grounded claims is greater than the proportion of groundless/fabricated/falsified claims, then the concern about rising hate-crime is reasonable. I worry that attempting to dismiss the concern by way of anecdotally picking out a handful of questionable incidents may be an instance of cherry-picking data to serve as a red-herring. Now, it might be possible to prove that the proportion of questionable reports has increased. And if that's the case, that may be a separate problem worth addressing in our society. But that hypothetical increased proportion of questionable reports is not going to be remotely enough to account for the rise in reported incidents.
We've got plenty of stats on malicious false-criminal-accusation frequencies in the US, and they are extremely low. It's easy to think they are higher than they are because when they happen, they frequently get increased attention from the media, and the concept of false-accusations is an extremely common trope in fictional drama. In reality, the benefits are so low, the work needed to make a legitimate legal accusation is so high, the possibility of getting caught is so high, the punishments for getting caught, both legally and socially are so high; it's just rarely worthwhile.
This paper comes from the Alan Turing institute, which is nationally funded, not university-funded. The actual paper does indeed deal with data-science, and data-science is a pretty important thing. Here, Wikipedia is being treated as a microcosm of inter-cultural/inter-domain bot-script interactions.
This article summary is sensationalized misinterpretation of the actual paper. Yes, bots have maintainers, and yes, maintainers are alerted when bots get reverted. The actual study is mostly about changes that get promulgated across different language Wikipedias. Because that's a loose-coupling, those are a little more difficult to detect. That's all.
Honestly, no one is fighting. This article is sensationalized. The bots in question are doing dinky maintenance stuff. Some of them are written in such a way that as an unintended side-effect, comes into conflict with the way another one is written. And in particular, this addresses when that happens across different Wikipedias (different language versions), where the relationship is loosely coupled. Wikipedia doesn't allow you to write a bot for the sake of enforcing your personal agenda. Those get shut down.
I've participated in literally hundreds of notability discussions used to decide whether or not an article should be deleted. I've got 5000+ edits to my name on the site. Bots don't do either of those things. Those are actual users.
No informed person is making the argument that WP is reliable. It's a starting point, that's all.
But by the way, the initial article is about bot-conflicts by bots doing things like fixing redirect-links and broken references; meta-stuff. These conflicts have nothing to do with the factual content of the articles.
This is vastly better. Slashdot's summary is one of the most sensationalized non-issues I've seen on/. in a few months now. It didn't take very long at all for bot conflicts to become obvious to bot-authors, at which point and they quickly put in code to notice edit conflicts. When the bots spot back & forth editing, they back off, and alert the bot's maintainer. It took a little longer to notice loops that spanned across the different language editions of articles, but that's because the relationship among them is usually pretty weak. This Summary acts like a bot-conflict spanning 3629 articles is something impressive. In that time period, that represents around 0.01% of the article namespace when you span all language variants of WP, and the bots in question do seriously boring things related to cleaning up redirect-links or fixing named references if they become broken as an unintended side effect of a user's edit.
As far as this better summary, and looking at a longer summary from the Alan Turing Institute website, it looks like it's also inflating the implications of the study. It's certainly true that simple rules can result in complex unintended conflicts, but that's already a well-known idea. Specific novel lessons learned from this study have pretty weak implications to AI. And the cultural conclusions it draws are borderline silly. "the same technology leads to different outcomes depending on the cultural environment. An automated vehicle will drive differently on a German autobahn to how it will through the Tuscan hills of Italy." I'm gonna guess that this guy isn't a software developer. Upon checking, yup, he's a physicist turned social-scientist.
787000/330000000 = less than a 1:500 chance. This just in: Site that wants to sell you peace of mind is trying to frighten you into thinking you need peace of mind.
Slashdot Mirror
2. "Clearing" the filter isn't exactly a thing because the salt never crystallizes. It remains in the water that's on the intake side of the filter. You "clear" the filter by not allowing all of the water from the sea-water to pass through the filter. a portion of it is channeled off. That portion has a higher salinity than seawater, ideally, about as close to saturated as possible. This pressurized salt-solution, known as concentrate, is first used to drive a turbine to recover the potential energy of being pressurized. The turbine drives a pump that helps raise the pressure of the incoming seawater (Externally powered pumps pressurize the incoming water the rest of the way). The concentrate, now at low pressure is either returned to the sea, or it's sent to evaporation pools to make sea-salt. In most cases, no, it's not a problem to return the concentrate to the sea. When done with a properly designed marine-outfall, oceans are really really huge and constantly churned by tides and currents, so the effect it has on ocean saline levels is nothing compared to the effect of solar evaporation.
Larger particulate is filtered earlier in the process. These filters can become clogged or "fouled". This can be solved using a process similar to what's described above, or by automated processes that constantly cycle the filters in use, and pressure-washing the fouled filters. There are also mechanical scrubber mechanisms and potentially sedimentation-pools that use flocculants to cause particulates to fall to the bottom where it can be scraped away as sludge; but these are all standard water-treatment processes that we've had solved for ages now.
The important bit here is the swelling thing. They indicate that graphene-oxide wasn't particularly good at filtering sodium-chloride and allowing water to pass, and they resolved the issue by making what sounds like a graphene-oxide/epoxy composite. Good for them. It's a pretty obvious solution to the problem, and this is just materials-science chugging along at the speed of research, but still, good for them. Naturally, mainstream news has to spice up the story to make readers care, but honestly, BBC didn't do that horrible of a job this time. They aren't claiming this is revolutionary. They aren't claiming a single benefit over existing polymer filters because the data isn't in yet. But it's true that there's not much point in talking up how cool graphene is, and should've stuck to explaining how graphene-oxide is an older different animal that just happens to have been given a new name that designates when graphite-oxide is in its one-layer thick form.
From what I've read, in two-party consent cases, including California, you cannot record without consent in a private setting as part of investigative journalism. In those states, you are restricted to merely observing and reporting those observations. If you watch enough investigative news programs like 60 Minutes, you'll sometimes hear the reporter explain how they were unable to record an experience, while other times, they break out the technology; this is why. You may be able to argue that this should not be the case due to the first amendment. And in one case, the supreme court ruled that Illinois' two-party consent law was unconstitutional and struck down, though this ruling was not strong enough to end other states' consent laws. I'm curious about times where the Supreme Court explicitly upheld these laws, unfortunately, I don't have the time to go down that rabbit hole.
Right. That was preliminary. This study appears to be a followup.
Thank you. So this expands on a 2009 study including one of the same authors (Holmes) that preliminarily concluded the same thing back in 2009 (ref).
There really wasn't much to this particular article...Are you a troll?
Instead of a loop, we should make the runway a Möbius strip! That way, planes can taxi along both sides of the tarmac, allowing it to last twice as long!!
Korben Dallas getting into a crazy flying car chase, getting him one more point on his license, thus getting him fired, thus getting him free lunch!
Much appreciated, thank you for writing this up.
But yeah, this confused me to the point of bothering to look this up.
Perhaps in Norwegian, this designation is a little less confusing.
Wine might be a little shaky; I haven't tried, but otherwise, yes, my 2011 phone ran GCC, Python, vi & emacs perfectly fine.
...A bunch of stuff that is NO DIFFERENT. This article is horrible. It adds zero to a discussion I was sick of back when it began. Until you get a collection of economists to team up with a collection of technology-focused historians to come up with some new arguments, this remains nothing but redundant fear-mongering speculative clickbait. And btw, author, acknowledging that other articles do that within your article does not absolve you of committing that same sin. Slashdot, I don't care how many people submit an article; if it sucks, don't post it.
I best someone just looked up "Software engineer interview questions". I'm surprised they didn't ask him the old Microsoft chestnut about why manhole covers are round.
Now, when people do this to you, are you walking down the street and minding your own business? Or do you find it happens when you are saying hateful racist, sexist, transphobic, Islamophobic things on the Internet? If it's the latter, then as requested, I may be able to provide an explanation of why that's happening.
Is that like neglecting how many of these "hate crimes" are reported false and the person lied??
No one has ever claimed that _all_ accusations are true. So long as the number of hate-crimes increased in a statistically significant manner, and the proportion of well-grounded claims is greater than the proportion of groundless/fabricated/falsified claims, then the concern about rising hate-crime is reasonable. I worry that attempting to dismiss the concern by way of anecdotally picking out a handful of questionable incidents may be an instance of cherry-picking data to serve as a red-herring. Now, it might be possible to prove that the proportion of questionable reports has increased. And if that's the case, that may be a separate problem worth addressing in our society. But that hypothetical increased proportion of questionable reports is not going to be remotely enough to account for the rise in reported incidents.
We've got plenty of stats on malicious false-criminal-accusation frequencies in the US, and they are extremely low. It's easy to think they are higher than they are because when they happen, they frequently get increased attention from the media, and the concept of false-accusations is an extremely common trope in fictional drama. In reality, the benefits are so low, the work needed to make a legitimate legal accusation is so high, the possibility of getting caught is so high, the punishments for getting caught, both legally and socially are so high; it's just rarely worthwhile.
This paper comes from the Alan Turing institute, which is nationally funded, not university-funded. The actual paper does indeed deal with data-science, and data-science is a pretty important thing. Here, Wikipedia is being treated as a microcosm of inter-cultural/inter-domain bot-script interactions.
DAY TURK YER JERB!!!!!!!!
This article summary is sensationalized misinterpretation of the actual paper. Yes, bots have maintainers, and yes, maintainers are alerted when bots get reverted. The actual study is mostly about changes that get promulgated across different language Wikipedias. Because that's a loose-coupling, those are a little more difficult to detect. That's all.
Honestly, no one is fighting. This article is sensationalized. The bots in question are doing dinky maintenance stuff. Some of them are written in such a way that as an unintended side-effect, comes into conflict with the way another one is written. And in particular, this addresses when that happens across different Wikipedias (different language versions), where the relationship is loosely coupled. Wikipedia doesn't allow you to write a bot for the sake of enforcing your personal agenda. Those get shut down.
I've participated in literally hundreds of notability discussions used to decide whether or not an article should be deleted. I've got 5000+ edits to my name on the site. Bots don't do either of those things. Those are actual users.
But by the way, the initial article is about bot-conflicts by bots doing things like fixing redirect-links and broken references; meta-stuff. These conflicts have nothing to do with the factual content of the articles.
As far as this better summary, and looking at a longer summary from the Alan Turing Institute website, it looks like it's also inflating the implications of the study. It's certainly true that simple rules can result in complex unintended conflicts, but that's already a well-known idea. Specific novel lessons learned from this study have pretty weak implications to AI. And the cultural conclusions it draws are borderline silly. "the same technology leads to different outcomes depending on the cultural environment. An automated vehicle will drive differently on a German autobahn to how it will through the Tuscan hills of Italy." I'm gonna guess that this guy isn't a software developer. Upon checking, yup, he's a physicist turned social-scientist.
Fair enough.
787000/330000000 = less than a 1:500 chance. This just in: Site that wants to sell you peace of mind is trying to frighten you into thinking you need peace of mind.