It's not even log data. It's a handful of graphs and a bunch of statements, but not the data it is based upon. So it's actually easier to fake then log data. So far it's just the word of Musk against that of Broder. Without any real independent evidence you'll have to make up your own mind, do you trust the CEO or the journalist (or they might actually both be guilty).
It's pretty damning data: it says the reporter lied on significant points. The ball's in his court now: he can declare he told the truth, or he can call out Musk for lying.
If he goes all in, that's when the hard log data comes out.
Broder wants to keep his reputation intact, and is trying hard to avoid saying Musk is lying, because he has to have a bad feeling he will get hit with the raw log data. If Musk is lying, and he calls him on it, he gets a Pullitzer, but he isn't doing that.
The non-transfers I was talking about are not checks, just electronic transfers between accounts at different banks (but I guess they may be treated that way and pass through the ACH, I am not a banker so Ill trust you if you say it is the same). I really thought when I wired funds they were gone. The last time I closed on a mortgage my bank asked my like 10 times if I was sure the account was correct and if I really wanted to wire 22K to them because it couldn't be reversed.
It can still be reversed, but typically not by you on a whim:) So, they want you to be really sure you are sending the right amount of money to the right counterparty: it makes their job a lot easier.
Thousands of wire transfers are reversed every day: software problems, miskeyed data, obsolete routing info, various post facto triggers (fraud alerts, money-laundering alerts, terrorist alerts, etc.)
This is how it works in the US too. The poster just hasn't seen or noticed it (I would go with noticed it). But there is a difference between transferring funds and wiring funds. I can do as you describe and it will take a few days for the money to get from one account to the other. If you wire funds it is basically immediate and the money is gone.
Note the there is a difference between "making funds available to an account," and "actually having money in an account." Checks vs wire transfers have different speeds at which funds become available, but the actual "having the money for sure" can take an open ended amount of time (60 days or more, worse case.) So even if $100K is wired into your account, you can spend it, and next week find you owe the bank $100K because the wire transfer was later rejected.
The "funds on hold" time period for checks is the result of two banks needing to agree money is to be transferred between them (I present check from bank A to bank B, bank B needs to assert bank A will honor the check.) This ensures the amount of bank deposits in the system reflects reality rather than people kiting checks for ever larger amounts to each other.
This is orthogonal to your ability to withdraw money from your account because it has a positive balance. That's a convenience your retail bank affords you. You're on the hook if the funds you relied on don't materialize on time.
Either you misspelled "Music" or you forgot your clever "~" at the end of the password.
Does you parole officer require you to post to slashdot multiple times a day as evidence that you are integrating with society, or do you just do it because Jody Foster still doesn't return your calls?~
Hell, make it 13 characters long (just add '~' at the end to indicate snarky,) that way all the haxxors will be confused because they didn't guess you were being snarky.
It's not based on absurdities at all. Don't let your ego assume things you don''t understand are absurd.
Feel free to explain why prediction markets should be unbiased.
Or, just look at your vast history of posts that nobody upvotes or cares about. You would seem wiser if you typed less.
Even your sig is sad: do you get confused by others' snark, or do you wonder why others don't recognize your incoherent utterances as snarky? Did you ever have sex with a girl who didn't have panties emblazoned with "Insert here" on the front?
Short version: Bennett's talking out of his ass again. Just wait half an hour and someone will dismantle his argument for us.
What's the point? His argument is based on absurdities (why would you expect a prediction market to get the "true" answer unless nobody cares about the answer?)
Just reading recent news about the LIBOR fixing scandal should tell him his axioms are wrong.
Hardly any point in going into more depth. Or bothering to cite the tens of thousands of pages of research on markets (something people trading stuff for money care about a great deal.)
So, since I've been rated as a troll already - go figure.
The solution is to just punish the people making money by giving more benefits to those that won't work?
If you think paying taxes is "punishment," you have already placed yourself outside of society as commonly defined.
Do you hate your kids because they cost you money? Are you really being "punished" for being a parent? The USA wants you to succeed: it's not "punishing" you for making more money, it's taking some money to keep society running and ideally investing in the next generation.
You can whine about if it's fair or not. You can even whine about if we should care about making the world a better place for our children, but claiming "punishment" requires a lot more justification on your part.
The USA celebrates success: Bezos, Gates, Buffet, etc are lauded in the press; TV shows and movies makes riches the ultimate happy outcome; being rich gives you a huge benefit when dealing with the legal system. You can be rich here and there is zero demand that you use your money for social good - you can just buy 200 foot boats or hookers or drugs and no one yells at you (try that in Europe!)
So quit whining that you live in a country where you don't need bodyguards when you go to a bar, get drunk on $20 vodkas, pick up a girl who earns $35K/year, get driven home, have sex, and complain to her that the 500,000th dollar per year you earn gets taxed at 50%.
I doubt they'll change anything. But Forbes seems to prefer you don't think about changing anything beyond having a better relationship with your boss.
Don't worry, you are Forbes' target audience: the under $50K/year crowd that needs to be taught how capitalism is good for you in the long run.
As always, they'll run an article next year about how you are on a great track and maybe one day will be earning $120K/year. So please don't join Occupy Wall Street, just concentrate on not getting drunk at your next Christmas party or something.
Oh, and last major item delivered to my home was a christmas tree. Bought it from the Serbian guy four blocks away (discount for dec 24th, after Christmas he has to rebrand the trees as "new year trees" and sell them to Russians.) Delivered free to my living room in ten minutes by a homeless guy working as a tree hauler ($20 tip, he said he delivers 12 trees a day average, more power to him.)
The bigger problem is that NYC, LDN, Paris, etc, don't need this at all: we already have last mile delivery infrastructure...
Right now, 150 restaurants will deliver food directly to me. Same for local liquor stores, supermarkets, pharmacies, etc. I'm told illegal drugs work the same way. For point-to-point one-offs, messenger services fill the need. Same for large items via van service. Hell, I can even ship my kids to playdates as needed via town car.
Sheesh, I've been in the middle of a public park and ordered 10 pizzas for a birthday party. 30 minutes later, a bike delivery guys shows up with them.
I don't know of very many similarities between scientology, a con game started by a science fiction writer, and the Church of Latter Day Saints, a significant religious denomination whose members perform millions of hours of community service and give generously to communities around the globe. That's like asking "what's the diference between the Red Cross and the mafia?"
Well, they both (like most religions) started as con games. Both are significant (in that governments pay attention to them - e.g. Scientology gets sued, Mormons get run out of states.) Both do tons of community service, although the communities involved tend to be annoyed: missionaries and touch-assist helpers are pretty annoying to normal people. Both offer you a living if you just accept the faith and power structure (scientologists prefer rich people, and Mormons prefer women, but that's minor.) Both have acted vigorously when threatened.
Can't see a lot of difference here. But then, neither seem that much worse than extreme established religions.
This does not prove the categories are a priori. There were only 5 subjects who all had similar history (upbringing in the modern western world). That is not empirical evidence, at best it is a suggestion.
The fact that "moving machines" is an important category pretty much dispels the notion of "a priori categories." Or maybe there are two or so a priori eigenvectors, the next two are significant for local culture, the next 7 or so describe each person's unique expertise/skills.
Given we already have cars/drivers/insurance companies/state regulation, it seems that a really easy solution might just emerge:
1. driverless cars with drivers allowed by some states 2. insurance companies see increased profits from driverless cars due to less accidents 3. driverless cars become cheaper 4. states actually pay "cash for clunkers" to get the remaining cars off the road 5. quaint laws about "drunk driving" are still on the books and people in 2100 laugh at them like we laugh at our "car law" statutes.
>1500 for a two bedroom unit is steep compared to other parts of the country, but hardly unaffordable on $80k/yr.
It is if you are saving properly for a downpayment and a 401k.
Lose your sense of entitlement. $80K/year, -20K taxes, -18K rent = $42K/year. You are doing way better than most people.
So you want to exclude $15K pretax for your retirement and maybe $15K so you can have a downpayment in a few years? You still have $1K/month for food, drink, and fun. You are doing pretty damn well for a young person.
Individual employees' pay should be going up steadily, but is it really shocking that the wages for the same job/experience should remain flat? Admittedly, there is probably some change in the underlying age/experience demographics, but it is probably not massive. Should someone hired today at entry level really expect more (inflation aside) than in 2000?
Not shocking, just common sense...
Replace: "Despite the fact that technology plays an increasingly important role in the economy, IT wages remain persistently flat.
With: "Despite the fact that fast food plays an increasingly important role in the economy, fast food wages remain persistently flat.
The world is automating low-level IT jobs just like it automated other low-skill manual labor. Ten years from now, 90% of IT jobs will be closer to minimum wage, and the other 10% will be more lucrative "professional" jobs.
It's not so clear cut. If you are willing to pay me $100K/year to design boats, it's pretty clear I am already an expert designer.
You want a copyright on a boat I designed for you: fine, you get it.
You want a patent that covers any ideas I had before I joined your firm? Let's talk - no matter what I signed with you when I joined your firm, that patent app is in my name and belongs to me. If you want me to sign it over to you, we talk. No court is going to hold you at fault for not signing some random X, then being forced to assign the rights to Y.
In other words, they're IOU's from the Congress to the SSA.
Let's be clear about this for the honesty disabled.
John has cash in his right pocket. With his left hand, he writes an IOU to his right hand and exchanges it for the cash. The right hand digs into the right pocket, takes the cash out, and gives it to the left hand. The left hand spends it. The right hand puts the IOU in his left pocket.
Is John's IOU a trust fund that he can rely on (i.e. trust) when he needs cash in the future?
Honest people say no. John is broke. He has no trust fund on which to live, and no trust fund to support anyone else.
So why do you think a dollar backed by the US Govt is somehow more real than an IOU for a dollar backed by the the US Govt? It's all the same.
If you want to claim US currency and derivative claims are all subjective and therefore worthless, you have a really easy out: take your USD and buy gold, copper, wheat, coffee, or whatever, and laugh as the fools trusting in dollars get ruined. No need for philosophy or drama.
Probably more like they fired him because he lied to them about the state of the project because if he hadn't lied about the state of the project they would have fired him. That's how a lot of these high speed companied opperate. Be a "yes man" or else you're not a "team player".
Only bad companies operate that way. And Apple wasn't bad when Steve Jobs ran it.
I've been in a ton of meetings where project X needs N subprojects to be work. If someone says "subproject A is a problem," we listen and expect her to be the subject matter expert: we propose workarounds, she explains why they won't work. If she added useful information, we replan and mark her as a candidate for promotion. If she was out of her depth, career over. Outright lying about the project state is career suicide for the same reason: your bosses and peers will call you on it, and fast.
Maybe, lacking Steve Jobs at the helm, Apple will tolerate bullshit, and two years from now, they'll be an average cover-your-ass, yes-man culture.
Since they have to condense the water back out to run it through the engine once again, presumably it shouldn't be that hard. At some point you'll get it all back into a reservoir of liquid water with oil mixed in. Skim the oil off the top and feed the engine with water pumped from the bottom.
dom
"Presumably?" Have you ever cooked in a kitchen or worked with machinery that has an oil/water interface?
seems stupid, though: we have good heat-exchangers that don't require mixing the two fluids. Just coiled metal pipes (add fins if needed) would do the trick.
The point of mixing the fluids is that you cannot otherwise impart enough heat to flash boil the water. Not to mention that it's really hard to do what you're suggesting inside the cylinder
That is just not true. Look at a steam catapult, or a pressure cooker, or even a classic rail locomotive. You just need a boiler under some pressure.
There is zero reason to mix the fluids and then add a separator (which is a real pain in the ass given the oil is in a closed cycle.)
The whole point of their technique is that they create steam inside the strongest part of an engine. As it turns out, oil and water will try to separate on their own, which makes this a less than complicated issue.
"Trying to separate" is a lot different from actually separating. Heat a pan of oil to 400 degrees in your kitchen, now dribble water drops onto the oil for a minute or two. Notice how greasy your kitchen tops are getting? Heat transfer == physical motion in liquids == oil in your steam.
How do you plan to separate the stream/oil droplet mixture? Do simple experiment: shake a pint of cooking oil and water together. How long did they take to separate back out? 1 hour to get to 95%? Now try it at high temperatures: you are talking days unless you have a serious refrigeration unit in your engine.
seems stupid, though: we have good heat-exchangers that don't require mixing the two fluids. Just coiled metal pipes (add fins if needed) would do the trick.
We've been building liquid sodium/water exchangers for nuke plants for years. There is zero reason to mix the fluids and then add a separator (which is a real pain in the ass given the oil is in a closed cycle.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's not even log data. It's a handful of graphs and a bunch of statements, but not the data it is based upon. So it's actually easier to fake then log data. So far it's just the word of Musk against that of Broder. Without any real independent evidence you'll have to make up your own mind, do you trust the CEO or the journalist (or they might actually both be guilty).
It's pretty damning data: it says the reporter lied on significant points. The ball's in his court now: he can declare he told the truth, or he can call out Musk for lying.
If he goes all in, that's when the hard log data comes out.
Broder wants to keep his reputation intact, and is trying hard to avoid saying Musk is lying, because he has to have a bad feeling he will get hit with the raw log data. If Musk is lying, and he calls him on it, he gets a Pullitzer, but he isn't doing that.
The non-transfers I was talking about are not checks, just electronic transfers between accounts at different banks (but I guess they may be treated that way and pass through the ACH, I am not a banker so Ill trust you if you say it is the same). I really thought when I wired funds they were gone. The last time I closed on a mortgage my bank asked my like 10 times if I was sure the account was correct and if I really wanted to wire 22K to them because it couldn't be reversed.
It can still be reversed, but typically not by you on a whim :) So, they want you to be really sure you are sending the right amount of money to the right counterparty: it makes their job a lot easier.
Thousands of wire transfers are reversed every day: software problems, miskeyed data, obsolete routing info, various post facto triggers (fraud alerts, money-laundering alerts, terrorist alerts, etc.)
This is how it works in the US too. The poster just hasn't seen or noticed it (I would go with noticed it). But there is a difference between transferring funds and wiring funds. I can do as you describe and it will take a few days for the money to get from one account to the other. If you wire funds it is basically immediate and the money is gone.
Note the there is a difference between "making funds available to an account," and "actually having money in an account." Checks vs wire transfers have different speeds at which funds become available, but the actual "having the money for sure" can take an open ended amount of time (60 days or more, worse case.) So even if $100K is wired into your account, you can spend it, and next week find you owe the bank $100K because the wire transfer was later rejected.
The "funds on hold" time period for checks is the result of two banks needing to agree money is to be transferred between them (I present check from bank A to bank B, bank B needs to assert bank A will honor the check.) This ensures the amount of bank deposits in the system reflects reality rather than people kiting checks for ever larger amounts to each other.
This is orthogonal to your ability to withdraw money from your account because it has a positive balance. That's a convenience your retail bank affords you. You're on the hook if the funds you relied on don't materialize on time.
Either you misspelled "Music" or you forgot your clever "~" at the end of the password.
Does you parole officer require you to post to slashdot multiple times a day as evidence that you are integrating with society, or do you just do it because Jody Foster still doesn't return your calls?~
Hell, make it 13 characters long (just add '~' at the end to indicate snarky,) that way all the haxxors will be confused because they didn't guess you were being snarky.
It's not based on absurdities at all. Don't let your ego assume things you don''t understand are absurd.
Feel free to explain why prediction markets should be unbiased.
Or, just look at your vast history of posts that nobody upvotes or cares about. You would seem wiser if you typed less.
Even your sig is sad: do you get confused by others' snark, or do you wonder why others don't recognize your incoherent utterances as snarky? Did you ever have sex with a girl who didn't have panties emblazoned with "Insert here" on the front?
Short version: Bennett's talking out of his ass again. Just wait half an hour and someone will dismantle his argument for us.
What's the point? His argument is based on absurdities (why would you expect a prediction market to get the "true" answer unless nobody cares about the answer?)
Just reading recent news about the LIBOR fixing scandal should tell him his axioms are wrong.
Hardly any point in going into more depth. Or bothering to cite the tens of thousands of pages of research on markets (something people trading stuff for money care about a great deal.)
So, since I've been rated as a troll already - go figure.
The solution is to just punish the people making money by giving more benefits to those that won't work?
If you think paying taxes is "punishment," you have already placed yourself outside of society as commonly defined.
Do you hate your kids because they cost you money? Are you really being "punished" for being a parent? The USA wants you to succeed: it's not "punishing" you for making more money, it's taking some money to keep society running and ideally investing in the next generation.
You can whine about if it's fair or not. You can even whine about if we should care about making the world a better place for our children, but claiming "punishment" requires a lot more justification on your part.
The USA celebrates success: Bezos, Gates, Buffet, etc are lauded in the press; TV shows and movies makes riches the ultimate happy outcome; being rich gives you a huge benefit when dealing with the legal system. You can be rich here and there is zero demand that you use your money for social good - you can just buy 200 foot boats or hookers or drugs and no one yells at you (try that in Europe!)
So quit whining that you live in a country where you don't need bodyguards when you go to a bar, get drunk on $20 vodkas, pick up a girl who earns $35K/year, get driven home, have sex, and complain to her that the 500,000th dollar per year you earn gets taxed at 50%.
So please don't join Occupy Wall Street,
Because OWS is going to change anything?
I doubt they'll change anything. But Forbes seems to prefer you don't think about changing anything beyond having a better relationship with your boss.
Hey, what about us drones, man?
Don't worry, you are Forbes' target audience: the under $50K/year crowd that needs to be taught how capitalism is good for you in the long run.
As always, they'll run an article next year about how you are on a great track and maybe one day will be earning $120K/year. So please don't join Occupy Wall Street, just concentrate on not getting drunk at your next Christmas party or something.
Oh, and last major item delivered to my home was a christmas tree. Bought it from the Serbian guy four blocks away (discount for dec 24th, after Christmas he has to rebrand the trees as "new year trees" and sell them to Russians.) Delivered free to my living room in ten minutes by a homeless guy working as a tree hauler ($20 tip, he said he delivers 12 trees a day average, more power to him.)
The bigger problem is that NYC, LDN, Paris, etc, don't need this at all: we already have last mile delivery infrastructure...
Right now, 150 restaurants will deliver food directly to me. Same for local liquor stores, supermarkets, pharmacies, etc. I'm told illegal drugs work the same way. For point-to-point one-offs, messenger services fill the need. Same for large items via van service. Hell, I can even ship my kids to playdates as needed via town car.
Sheesh, I've been in the middle of a public park and ordered 10 pizzas for a birthday party. 30 minutes later, a bike delivery guys shows up with them.
If you ever get bored at Google, I've love to hire you. New York weather isn't as nice, though.
I don't know of very many similarities between scientology, a con game started by a science fiction writer, and the Church of Latter Day Saints, a significant religious denomination whose members perform millions of hours of community service and give generously to communities around the globe. That's like asking "what's the diference between the Red Cross and the mafia?"
Well, they both (like most religions) started as con games. Both are significant (in that governments pay attention to them - e.g. Scientology gets sued, Mormons get run out of states.) Both do tons of community service, although the communities involved tend to be annoyed: missionaries and touch-assist helpers are pretty annoying to normal people. Both offer you a living if you just accept the faith and power structure (scientologists prefer rich people, and Mormons prefer women, but that's minor.) Both have acted vigorously when threatened.
Can't see a lot of difference here. But then, neither seem that much worse than extreme established religions.
This does not prove the categories are a priori. There were only 5 subjects who all had similar history (upbringing in the modern western world). That is not empirical evidence, at best it is a suggestion.
The fact that "moving machines" is an important category pretty much dispels the notion of "a priori categories." Or maybe there are two or so a priori eigenvectors, the next two are significant for local culture, the next 7 or so describe each person's unique expertise/skills.
Given we already have cars/drivers/insurance companies/state regulation, it seems that a really easy solution might just emerge:
1. driverless cars with drivers allowed by some states
2. insurance companies see increased profits from driverless cars due to less accidents
3. driverless cars become cheaper
4. states actually pay "cash for clunkers" to get the remaining cars off the road
5. quaint laws about "drunk driving" are still on the books and people in 2100 laugh at them like we laugh at our "car law" statutes.
2. Calling a language construct, that captures... nothing, a *closure* is an insult to computer science.
def f(a):
return lambda x: x+a
g = f(10)
print g(4)
>>> 14
That captured something. Maybe not what you want, but it did capture something.
>1500 for a two bedroom unit is steep compared to other parts of the country, but hardly unaffordable on $80k/yr.
It is if you are saving properly for a downpayment and a 401k.
Lose your sense of entitlement. $80K/year, -20K taxes, -18K rent = $42K/year. You are doing way better than most people.
So you want to exclude $15K pretax for your retirement and maybe $15K so you can have a downpayment in a few years? You still have $1K/month for food, drink, and fun. You are doing pretty damn well for a young person.
Individual employees' pay should be going up steadily, but is it really shocking that the wages for the same job/experience should remain flat? Admittedly, there is probably some change in the underlying age/experience demographics, but it is probably not massive. Should someone hired today at entry level really expect more (inflation aside) than in 2000?
Not shocking, just common sense...
Replace: "Despite the fact that technology plays an increasingly important role in the economy, IT wages remain persistently flat.
With: "Despite the fact that fast food plays an increasingly important role in the economy, fast food wages remain persistently flat.
The world is automating low-level IT jobs just like it automated other low-skill manual labor. Ten years from now, 90% of IT jobs will be closer to minimum wage, and the other 10% will be more lucrative "professional" jobs.
It's not so clear cut. If you are willing to pay me $100K/year to design boats, it's pretty clear I am already an expert designer.
You want a copyright on a boat I designed for you: fine, you get it.
You want a patent that covers any ideas I had before I joined your firm? Let's talk - no matter what I signed with you when I joined your firm, that patent app is in my name and belongs to me. If you want me to sign it over to you, we talk. No court is going to hold you at fault for not signing some random X, then being forced to assign the rights to Y.
In other words, they're IOU's from the Congress to the SSA.
Let's be clear about this for the honesty disabled.
John has cash in his right pocket. With his left hand, he writes an IOU to his right hand and exchanges it for the cash. The right hand digs into the right pocket, takes the cash out, and gives it to the left hand. The left hand spends it. The right hand puts the IOU in his left pocket.
Is John's IOU a trust fund that he can rely on (i.e. trust) when he needs cash in the future?
Honest people say no. John is broke. He has no trust fund on which to live, and no trust fund to support anyone else.
So why do you think a dollar backed by the US Govt is somehow more real than an IOU for a dollar backed by the the US Govt? It's all the same.
If you want to claim US currency and derivative claims are all subjective and therefore worthless, you have a really easy out: take your USD and buy gold, copper, wheat, coffee, or whatever, and laugh as the fools trusting in dollars get ruined. No need for philosophy or drama.
Probably more like they fired him because he lied to them about the state of the project because if he hadn't lied about the state of the project they would have fired him. That's how a lot of these high speed companied opperate. Be a "yes man" or else you're not a "team player".
Only bad companies operate that way. And Apple wasn't bad when Steve Jobs ran it.
I've been in a ton of meetings where project X needs N subprojects to be work. If someone says "subproject A is a problem," we listen and expect her to be the subject matter expert: we propose workarounds, she explains why they won't work. If she added useful information, we replan and mark her as a candidate for promotion. If she was out of her depth, career over. Outright lying about the project state is career suicide for the same reason: your bosses and peers will call you on it, and fast.
Maybe, lacking Steve Jobs at the helm, Apple will tolerate bullshit, and two years from now, they'll be an average cover-your-ass, yes-man culture.
Since they have to condense the water back out to run it through the engine once again, presumably it shouldn't be that hard. At some point you'll get it all back into a reservoir of liquid water with oil mixed in. Skim the oil off the top and feed the engine with water pumped from the bottom.
dom
"Presumably?" Have you ever cooked in a kitchen or worked with machinery that has an oil/water interface?
seems stupid, though: we have good heat-exchangers that don't require mixing the two fluids. Just coiled metal pipes (add fins if needed) would do the trick.
The point of mixing the fluids is that you cannot otherwise impart enough heat to flash boil the water.
Not to mention that it's really hard to do what you're suggesting inside the cylinder
That is just not true. Look at a steam catapult, or a pressure cooker, or even a classic rail locomotive. You just need a boiler under some pressure.
There is zero reason to mix the fluids and then add a separator (which is a real pain in the ass given the oil is in a closed cycle.)
The whole point of their technique is that they create steam inside the strongest part of an engine.
As it turns out, oil and water will try to separate on their own, which makes this a less than complicated issue.
"Trying to separate" is a lot different from actually separating. Heat a pan of oil to 400 degrees in your kitchen, now dribble water drops onto the oil for a minute or two. Notice how greasy your kitchen tops are getting? Heat transfer == physical motion in liquids == oil in your steam.
How do you plan to separate the stream/oil droplet mixture? Do simple experiment: shake a pint of cooking oil and water together. How long did they take to separate back out? 1 hour to get to 95%? Now try it at high temperatures: you are talking days unless you have a serious refrigeration unit in your engine.
seems stupid, though: we have good heat-exchangers that don't require mixing the two fluids. Just coiled metal pipes (add fins if needed) would do the trick.
We've been building liquid sodium/water exchangers for nuke plants for years. There is zero reason to mix the fluids and then add a separator (which is a real pain in the ass given the oil is in a closed cycle.)