1. Will the Model S and Model X ever get a retrofit to the 2170 battery type? What are the economics of this? Is there a reason now not to do it?
I would guess they'll probably do it whenever they do a major refresh of those vehicles. Changing the supply chain and production system for such a major component would be expensive so it's unlikely they would have enough retrofit business to justify the cost. Right now Tesla needs to focus on getting to profitability with their Model 3 before they worry about stuff like retrofits.
2. Is Tesla planning on selling these batteries to other EV makers?
Hard to say but my guess would be eventually yes provided that they can establish some sort of sustainable advantage in battery production/cost as well as excess capacity. Right now I imagine they are using as many as they can produce internally and will be for some time to come if the company continues to grow.
3. How much of the production of the Gigafactory allocated to the Model 3 verses the power wall product?
I think the answer is obviously mostly for the cars at present. Can't give percentages but sales in their solar and storage division was about 10% of company revenue so presumably the answer is something close to 90/10.
Panasonic automotive executive Yoshio Ito told Bloomberg that "the bottleneck for Model 3 production has been our batteries."
Though I cannot rule it out since I don't work there, I very much doubt that battery production is the bottleneck. It's not as if their intended production volumes are some sort of secret so if they didn't ramp up battery production to match the expected production schedule then Tesla management is be far dumber than the evidence would suggest unless there was some sort of unexpected resource constraint. I know Tesla tends to operate fast and loose but not building enough production capacity for one of the key components of the product would be insane.
What could have possibly happened between August and now that would justify a recommendation?
An envelope filled with a large cash donation would be among my first guesses. There are some others but they seem less likely.
If 25% of people in August were reporting issues over the prior two years there is no way that could have come down significantly in one month.
Sure it could. You absolutely can reduce the incidence of quality issues very rapidly if you know what the problem is. The real question is whether this actually happened or whether CR screwed up their data collection.
the strongest magnetic field produced in history belongs to some Russian researchers
Of course it was... If it involves big explosions, danger, or a glorious disregard for human life then chances are the Russians hold the record in it. Gotta love em for it.
'Cmon when I was a teen (1965) I built an ecg and it didn't even take that many transistors. Had to borrow an oscilloscope to see the waveform but I first tested it with a VOM. At what point is it illegal? Sale, Manufacture, or Use? Why not sell it "as is" and "not medically calibrated"?
You don't sell it "as is" because people's lives could literally depend on it. Same as with drugs the point is to avoid people selling medical "treatments" that in reality are just fakes made to make a buck. How do I as a patient know that you are trustworthy and that your device actually functions how you describe unless it is subjected to rigorous and independent testing? Would you trust your life to a medical device made by some random dude in his garage which might or might not actually work? I sure as hell wouldn't and if you would then you are an idiot.
In the US whenever you hear the ads using the phrase "this product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease", that is a fancy legalese way of saying that this product does nothing except separate you from your money and at best is a placebo.
Apple is incorporating some cool technology into their watches but if they want to sell it as device that provides information used for medical treatments then they no longer are just selling a simple gadget. That is a very clear line that should not be crossed lightly. They have to prove that their device works, under what circumstances, used by whom, and with what reliability. Because if they say their watch is an ECG then there are going to be people who take them at their word and think that they shouldn't rely on the advice of a doctor because they (mistakenly) think their watch is a suitable replacement for years of medical training. Don't believe for a moment that wouldn't happen either.
I can't see many doctors accepting the results from a watch, even if it is approved. Doctors tend to be conservative about these sorts of things.
Oh I wouldn't be so sure of that. Doctor I know (and I'm married to one) would probably regard it as another piece of data - useful for what it tells you and probably very useful for some patients who need monitoring in some circumstances. Some problems are hard to diagnose especially if they only occur occasionally. That said, they probably have to double check anyway for liability reasons if nothing else. After all how do they know your watch is functioning properly, is appropriately calibrated and being used correctly, etc? Any lab or test equipment is supposed to be periodically calibrated (at minimum at time of manufacture) and you can be pretty certain your watch never has been calibrated or tested against international standards. In the event of a lawsuit one of the first things any lawyer worth his diploma would ask is for the calibration and training records for any device used for measurement. Imagine the hilarity that would follow if the answer came back "patient supplied uncalibrated and unverified data from their smartwatch".
The spheres can be prompted to self-assemble into solids that are stronger, harder, more elastic and more durable than ubiquitous Portland cement
Note that cost is not listed among the advantages here which is usually a sign that it is substantially more expensive. We use portland cement because it is CHEAP and generally works well. There are sometimes better performing materials available but seldom ones that have better price to performance ratios.
I woke up with pains in my stomach on a saturday, went to the doctor who sent me off for a CT scan and by midnight the appendix was removed, by lunch the next day I was leaving the hospital, and I was back in school on money.
For me I went into the hospital on Friday and had surgery Friday night. I had been symptomatic for about 24 hours prior to going to the hospital - mild fever and lots of vomiting. Was in the hospital until Sunday but wasn't back to school for another week since I could barely walk for 3-4 days afterwards and it took a full week more to be able to get around without substantial discomfort. I was back in school about 10 days after surgery. After that it wasn't too bad - just limited sports activity for 3-4 weeks (to prevent adhesions they told me) but nothing too limiting otherwise. Abdominal surgery is not super fun.
My Audi A8's stock Recaros have a lumbar support that moves up and down and which inflates to get bigger, so that's actually useful.
Every car I've driven with adjustable lumbar support I just reduce to the smallest possible setting which is what my back is happy with. I have a Bolt EV right now which in most ways is a great little car but the seats are seriously uncomfortable for me due to the (not adjustable) lumbar "support". I actually stuff a cushion below where the lumbar "support" is to make it bearable for more than a 30 minute drive. Obviously this is just what works for my particular shape/structure and isn't what will necessarily work for anyone else. I literally cannot sit bolt upright for long periods without substantial discomfort and/or numbness. My back is strong but something like paddling a canoe will render me deeply uncomfortable in short order. I have my car seat angled back further than most people would - not for style but just for comfort.
I've tried noise cancelling and on-ear headphones. On-ear is good for actually listening to stuff but not for sleeping, which is where you need the earbuds.
I can't sleep with in-ear buds plus I don't really see the point of any sort of speakers for sleeping. Plain foam plugs are more comfy (for me) and don't require any power if I need noise abatement. Usually I can sleep without them anyway if I'm tired enough and have some sort of neck support.
Food is the other thing that varies a lot. The best I've ever had was on ANA, followed by JAL.
I've had food in some first class trips on Delta which was pretty solid for the most part. Coach? Meh... It was fine - nothing special but fine. Had some pretty good meals in coach on Singapore Airlines once. Had some decent fair going to/from Mexico a few times. Haven't flown to Europe yet so can't speak to those airlines.
My gel type earphones (Bose noise cancelling) fit snuggly and you can hardly feel them once in place.
I've tried a lot of different ear phones and haven't found one yet that I don't notice. Some are certainly better fitting than others but even just foam plugs which are about as soft as it gets bother me after a while though they can help at times. Guess I have sensitive ears.
They also reduce the noise level to a point that I can actually snooze in economy as long as I'm not being bumped by some clown or rugrat.
Headphones actually don't help me sleep - actually the discomfort of them tends to keep me awake more than the noise abatement helps. It's not typically noise that bothers me in most cases unless it is really loud and intermittent. People talking at modest volumes near me won't keep me awake if I'm tired and I am capable of sleeping on a plane if I can find a reasonably comfy position. Head pillows help a lot for me. I don't really see the point of noise cancelling headphones over just plain foam plugs if comfort is equivalent for sleeping purpose.
It cannot meltdown. They proved it. The reactor was designed to have a negative thermal coefficient of reactivity making meltdowns impossible.
No they did not prove it for all conceivable circumstances. They proved it for SOME conditions and methods with a specific reactor design. Your argument assumes that there is no chance of that reactor design being incorrectly engineered, no chance of improper construction or maintenance, no chance of external damage (natural disasters, war, etc), and that in all other ways the reactor cannot be compromised to induce that failure mode. And even if a meltdown were indeed impossible that's not the only possible failure of concern.
They did two tests with EBRII which tested the passive fail safe systems. They tested shutting off the primary cooling pumps and then they tested shutting down the secondary cooling systems. They did not test failure modes like the sodium pool being compromised for example. They did not test under conditions where there might be a flaw in construction. They did not test for conditions where maintenance was neglected.
Comparing Chernobyl to the EBRII or any western reactor is disingenuous.
No it is not. Chernobyl happened fundamentally because of human error (bad engineering + bad operation) which is a problem for EVERY nuclear plant design we have - even the theoretical ones. While the exact circumstance that resulted in that particular catastrophe are unlikely to be replicated closely, human stupidity and human failures have not been eliminated as risks. Claiming that EBRII was perfectly safe under all conditions is just an absurd claim without supporting evidence. Yes it appears to have been a solid design in many ways that mitigated serious failure modes under important conditions. There has been follow on designs based on what was learned from that reactor. That's a good thing and I'm glad such work is being done. But please stop it with the claims that people couldn't find a way (intentionally or unintentionally) to induce a serious catastrophic failure.
If you listen to the scientists at that lab they said the EBRII could not meltdown under any circumstances.
Find me a quote of any scientist claiming that meltdowns were impossible under "any circumstances". That's just obviously bullshit unless you are talking about specific conditions. It assumes no engineering flaws, no manufacturing flaws, proper maintenance, no external disasters or attacks, etc. They did some tests which the reactor passed but that isn't remotely the same thing as being safe in all conditions. Furthermore a meltdown is NOT the only failure mode of concern. There are a lot of still very serious but much more likely failure modes to worry about. Even if you eliminate meltdowns as a failure mode entirely that doesn't mean nuclear is 100% safe.
They intentionally tried to cause a meltdown and failed.
No they did not do that. They did some tests under conditions they were fairly confident the reactor would perform safely. There isn't a way in hell they would have gotten approval to actually try to create a meltdown if there was a reasonable chance of them actually achieving a meltdown.
You are overstating the risks of nuclear energy
Doesn't matter if I am or not. The insurance companies are all the evidence you need as they are the ones who have to put real money on the line. The fact that nuclear plants basically cannot get built without government guarantees and heavy safety regulation should tell you everything you need to know about how risky they are. When the people whose job it is to evaluate risk and profit from it aren't enthusiastic without government backing then that's a pretty reliable sign of something with serious safety concerns. That's not to say nuclear power isn't worth the risk but pretending there aren't very serious and real risks to it is dumb.
First class passengers don't get to partake in those particular experiences.
You would think but really in most flights first class gets you a bigger more comfy seat with no fight for elbow space and depending on the flight maybe some better food. The "free" booze isn't a bad deal either if you like a bit of that. The amenities don't really pile on until you start flying long haul where you might get a plane with fold flat seats so you can actually sleep a bit but you are going to pay a huge price tag for that bit of extra comfort.
I've flown Detroit to Tokyo in coach (twice) and about 3/4 of the way through that 13-14 hour flight you start thinking "maybe $10,000 for a first class seat isn't such a terrible idea after all". I've flown first class domestically on occasion (free upgrades) and for shorter flights with no meal service it's not so special. Nicer seat but that's about it. I got to fly to hawaii once first class and that was a nice upgrade for a trip that long though I'm not sure it would be worth the several thousand extra dollars. On longer flights if you can swallow the huge price tag though I kind of get the appeal of first class if you don't want to be a complete zombie after a 10+ hour flight.
I've noticed that economy class seats have got a lot better in the last few years.
Maybe on certain planes for your specific anatomy. I haven't noticed any widespread improvement though I have noticed decreasing leg room.
Used to be that sleeping was next to impossible, there was just no support for your head and lower back.
I've always been puzzled by "lumbar support" because I find such features in chairs to be terribly uncomfortable at least for my particular anatomy. They usually are just a big lump pushing my lower back forward which makes my lower back simultaneously painful and numb. I feel like they are trying to put me in a twerking position at full twerk which doesn't seem ideal.
For noise foam earplugs can't be beaten for comfort. The only down side is that there is nowhere to store them when you need to take them out temporarily.
For modest duration flights of a few hours I would tend to agree. Longer than 3-5 hours though and I start to find them somewhat irritating just like any other thing you stick in your ear canal. (I never understood how people can keep ear buds in their ears for endless hours either - I have to use over ear headphones for long duration listening and even those become a bother after a while even with good ones) They do sell foam earplugs with strings attached so you can take them out without losing them. I've used them and they work fairly well.
"Wearing the headset is comparable to having a personal movie screen in front of you," the airline said. "When paired with noise-cancelling headphones, it's easy to feel like you're at the movie theater instead of flying."
While I'm sure some people would deal with it fine, this sounds like an amazingly efficient way to induce motion sickness in a sizeable percent of people using it.
Yet we have had provable meltdown proof reactors since the 1980's. See Experimental Breeder Reactor II
You should read your link. They did tests to see if the reactor would not melt down under specific circumstances. This is a far different thing than proving it is "meltdown proof" under all circumstances. Passive fail-safe cooling systems are a good thing but they only solve some of the dangers presented by fission power plants. Furthermore just because they are in place does not mean they still cannot fail due to flaws in engineering, construction, maintenance, natural disasters, or physical damage.
You seem obsessed with meltdowns. That is just one failure mode among thousands for a nuclear power plant and not the most likely even for reactor designs without fail-safe designs. Even with a reactor that theoretically or provably cannot melt down, there remain plenty of ways for them to contaminate the surrounding areas. Nuclear power is a useful thing but pretending it doesn't carry some substantial risks is irresponsible.
There are around 50 nuclear startups designing 4th generation reactors. Some were always going to fail. In fact most will probably fail.
No there are lots of them CLAIMING to be developing new reactor designs. Some of them might actually be working on the problem even. Curiously we've seen zero of these actually make it to market.
Some will succeed though.
There is no guarantee of that.
NuScale is the closest to market.
Maybe. Best info I can find says they hope to have an operational reactor in 2024 and that was their projection in 2013. That means optimistically they might have something to show 6+ years from now. Not exactly cause for excitement.
Their design has already passed NRC phase 1 review, and it has been certified as meltdown proof.
It's amazing how everything that doesn't agree with conservative political opinions somehow equals liberal bias. Never mind the fact that most people in the country are demonstrably not conservatives and should reasonably be expected to see things a different way. Not to mention that being conservative (or liberal) has no inherent relationship to objective reality or factual accuracy. $diety forbid that search results accurately provide results that reflect this fact.
I see some snowflake conservatives are busy downmodding anything that seems negative about conservatives.
Didn't claim they were. I just said the majority aren't conservative which is absolutely true. The remainder are crudely speaking a mix of liberals and moderates. The electorate seems to be approximately about 1/3 of each with moderates being the swing voters tipping the balance in any given election. That's overly simplifying things greatly of course but it's a reasonable mental picture. The exact proportions might be 40/40/20 or some other breakdown but the point is that conservatives are a minority viewpoint and it should not be surprising that our search engines and media reflect this fact. But despite controlling the executive and legislative branches of government, somehow the conservatives like to imagine themselves as some sort of oppressed minority. They've got the minority bit right but not the oppressed bit.
It's amazing how everything that doesn't agree with conservative political opinions somehow equals liberal bias. Never mind the fact that most people in the country are demonstrably not conservatives and should reasonably be expected to see things a different way. Not to mention that being conservative (or liberal) has no inherent relationship to objective reality or factual accuracy. $diety forbid that search results accurately provide results that reflect this fact.
No, I mean the lyrics are in English and I'm a native English speaker. I just can't always understand what the hell they are saying.
You're not the only one. There are countless songs where I have no idea what the hell they are saying without a transcript. A lot of singers don't enunciate very clearly and since the words are basically poetry they don't tend to have an easy to follow thread or context to figure out what is being said. Now I can still enjoy a piece of music even if I don't understand the lyrics but it is frustrating all the same sometimes. I'm always impressed by people who can follow the lyrics to songs that I find to be incomprehensible gibberish.
Maybe YOU should learn what it means. You aren't "convicted" of having a monopoly.
Thank you Captian Pedantic. You saved the day again!
Here's a little clue for you. For a company to be convicted of abusing a monopoly (which Microsoft was) it has to first be established in a court of law that they actually ARE a monopoly. You are correct that it is not illegal to be a monopoly and that convict is technically the wrong word. The purpose of my statementi s that Microsoft's monopoly status was established beyond any doubt in a court room for anyone who foolishly doubted it prior to that. The point is that there isn't much in the way of other options for PC operating systems because Microsoft has a de-facto monopoly on PC operating systems. Monopoly status = minimal alternative options. Got it?
Slashdot Mirror
1. Will the Model S and Model X ever get a retrofit to the 2170 battery type? What are the economics of this? Is there a reason now not to do it?
I would guess they'll probably do it whenever they do a major refresh of those vehicles. Changing the supply chain and production system for such a major component would be expensive so it's unlikely they would have enough retrofit business to justify the cost. Right now Tesla needs to focus on getting to profitability with their Model 3 before they worry about stuff like retrofits.
2. Is Tesla planning on selling these batteries to other EV makers?
Hard to say but my guess would be eventually yes provided that they can establish some sort of sustainable advantage in battery production/cost as well as excess capacity. Right now I imagine they are using as many as they can produce internally and will be for some time to come if the company continues to grow.
3. How much of the production of the Gigafactory allocated to the Model 3 verses the power wall product?
I think the answer is obviously mostly for the cars at present. Can't give percentages but sales in their solar and storage division was about 10% of company revenue so presumably the answer is something close to 90/10.
Panasonic automotive executive Yoshio Ito told Bloomberg that "the bottleneck for Model 3 production has been our batteries."
Though I cannot rule it out since I don't work there, I very much doubt that battery production is the bottleneck. It's not as if their intended production volumes are some sort of secret so if they didn't ramp up battery production to match the expected production schedule then Tesla management is be far dumber than the evidence would suggest unless there was some sort of unexpected resource constraint. I know Tesla tends to operate fast and loose but not building enough production capacity for one of the key components of the product would be insane.
What could have possibly happened between August and now that would justify a recommendation?
An envelope filled with a large cash donation would be among my first guesses. There are some others but they seem less likely.
If 25% of people in August were reporting issues over the prior two years there is no way that could have come down significantly in one month.
Sure it could. You absolutely can reduce the incidence of quality issues very rapidly if you know what the problem is. The real question is whether this actually happened or whether CR screwed up their data collection.
the strongest magnetic field produced in history belongs to some Russian researchers
Of course it was... If it involves big explosions, danger, or a glorious disregard for human life then chances are the Russians hold the record in it. Gotta love em for it.
'Cmon when I was a teen (1965) I built an ecg and it didn't even take that many transistors. Had to borrow an oscilloscope to see the waveform but I first tested it with a VOM. At what point is it illegal? Sale, Manufacture, or Use? Why not sell it "as is" and "not medically calibrated"?
You don't sell it "as is" because people's lives could literally depend on it. Same as with drugs the point is to avoid people selling medical "treatments" that in reality are just fakes made to make a buck. How do I as a patient know that you are trustworthy and that your device actually functions how you describe unless it is subjected to rigorous and independent testing? Would you trust your life to a medical device made by some random dude in his garage which might or might not actually work? I sure as hell wouldn't and if you would then you are an idiot.
In the US whenever you hear the ads using the phrase "this product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease", that is a fancy legalese way of saying that this product does nothing except separate you from your money and at best is a placebo.
Apple is incorporating some cool technology into their watches but if they want to sell it as device that provides information used for medical treatments then they no longer are just selling a simple gadget. That is a very clear line that should not be crossed lightly. They have to prove that their device works, under what circumstances, used by whom, and with what reliability. Because if they say their watch is an ECG then there are going to be people who take them at their word and think that they shouldn't rely on the advice of a doctor because they (mistakenly) think their watch is a suitable replacement for years of medical training. Don't believe for a moment that wouldn't happen either.
I can't see many doctors accepting the results from a watch, even if it is approved. Doctors tend to be conservative about these sorts of things.
Oh I wouldn't be so sure of that. Doctor I know (and I'm married to one) would probably regard it as another piece of data - useful for what it tells you and probably very useful for some patients who need monitoring in some circumstances. Some problems are hard to diagnose especially if they only occur occasionally. That said, they probably have to double check anyway for liability reasons if nothing else. After all how do they know your watch is functioning properly, is appropriately calibrated and being used correctly, etc? Any lab or test equipment is supposed to be periodically calibrated (at minimum at time of manufacture) and you can be pretty certain your watch never has been calibrated or tested against international standards. In the event of a lawsuit one of the first things any lawyer worth his diploma would ask is for the calibration and training records for any device used for measurement. Imagine the hilarity that would follow if the answer came back "patient supplied uncalibrated and unverified data from their smartwatch".
The spheres can be prompted to self-assemble into solids that are stronger, harder, more elastic and more durable than ubiquitous Portland cement
Note that cost is not listed among the advantages here which is usually a sign that it is substantially more expensive. We use portland cement because it is CHEAP and generally works well. There are sometimes better performing materials available but seldom ones that have better price to performance ratios.
I woke up with pains in my stomach on a saturday, went to the doctor who sent me off for a CT scan and by midnight the appendix was removed, by lunch the next day I was leaving the hospital, and I was back in school on money.
For me I went into the hospital on Friday and had surgery Friday night. I had been symptomatic for about 24 hours prior to going to the hospital - mild fever and lots of vomiting. Was in the hospital until Sunday but wasn't back to school for another week since I could barely walk for 3-4 days afterwards and it took a full week more to be able to get around without substantial discomfort. I was back in school about 10 days after surgery. After that it wasn't too bad - just limited sports activity for 3-4 weeks (to prevent adhesions they told me) but nothing too limiting otherwise. Abdominal surgery is not super fun.
My Audi A8's stock Recaros have a lumbar support that moves up and down and which inflates to get bigger, so that's actually useful.
Every car I've driven with adjustable lumbar support I just reduce to the smallest possible setting which is what my back is happy with. I have a Bolt EV right now which in most ways is a great little car but the seats are seriously uncomfortable for me due to the (not adjustable) lumbar "support". I actually stuff a cushion below where the lumbar "support" is to make it bearable for more than a 30 minute drive. Obviously this is just what works for my particular shape/structure and isn't what will necessarily work for anyone else. I literally cannot sit bolt upright for long periods without substantial discomfort and/or numbness. My back is strong but something like paddling a canoe will render me deeply uncomfortable in short order. I have my car seat angled back further than most people would - not for style but just for comfort.
I've tried noise cancelling and on-ear headphones. On-ear is good for actually listening to stuff but not for sleeping, which is where you need the earbuds.
I can't sleep with in-ear buds plus I don't really see the point of any sort of speakers for sleeping. Plain foam plugs are more comfy (for me) and don't require any power if I need noise abatement. Usually I can sleep without them anyway if I'm tired enough and have some sort of neck support.
Food is the other thing that varies a lot. The best I've ever had was on ANA, followed by JAL.
I've had food in some first class trips on Delta which was pretty solid for the most part. Coach? Meh... It was fine - nothing special but fine. Had some pretty good meals in coach on Singapore Airlines once. Had some decent fair going to/from Mexico a few times. Haven't flown to Europe yet so can't speak to those airlines.
My gel type earphones (Bose noise cancelling) fit snuggly and you can hardly feel them once in place.
I've tried a lot of different ear phones and haven't found one yet that I don't notice. Some are certainly better fitting than others but even just foam plugs which are about as soft as it gets bother me after a while though they can help at times. Guess I have sensitive ears.
They also reduce the noise level to a point that I can actually snooze in economy as long as I'm not being bumped by some clown or rugrat.
Headphones actually don't help me sleep - actually the discomfort of them tends to keep me awake more than the noise abatement helps. It's not typically noise that bothers me in most cases unless it is really loud and intermittent. People talking at modest volumes near me won't keep me awake if I'm tired and I am capable of sleeping on a plane if I can find a reasonably comfy position. Head pillows help a lot for me. I don't really see the point of noise cancelling headphones over just plain foam plugs if comfort is equivalent for sleeping purpose.
It cannot meltdown. They proved it. The reactor was designed to have a negative thermal coefficient of reactivity making meltdowns impossible.
No they did not prove it for all conceivable circumstances. They proved it for SOME conditions and methods with a specific reactor design. Your argument assumes that there is no chance of that reactor design being incorrectly engineered, no chance of improper construction or maintenance, no chance of external damage (natural disasters, war, etc), and that in all other ways the reactor cannot be compromised to induce that failure mode. And even if a meltdown were indeed impossible that's not the only possible failure of concern.
They did two tests with EBRII which tested the passive fail safe systems. They tested shutting off the primary cooling pumps and then they tested shutting down the secondary cooling systems. They did not test failure modes like the sodium pool being compromised for example. They did not test under conditions where there might be a flaw in construction. They did not test for conditions where maintenance was neglected.
Comparing Chernobyl to the EBRII or any western reactor is disingenuous.
No it is not. Chernobyl happened fundamentally because of human error (bad engineering + bad operation) which is a problem for EVERY nuclear plant design we have - even the theoretical ones. While the exact circumstance that resulted in that particular catastrophe are unlikely to be replicated closely, human stupidity and human failures have not been eliminated as risks. Claiming that EBRII was perfectly safe under all conditions is just an absurd claim without supporting evidence. Yes it appears to have been a solid design in many ways that mitigated serious failure modes under important conditions. There has been follow on designs based on what was learned from that reactor. That's a good thing and I'm glad such work is being done. But please stop it with the claims that people couldn't find a way (intentionally or unintentionally) to induce a serious catastrophic failure.
If you listen to the scientists at that lab they said the EBRII could not meltdown under any circumstances.
Find me a quote of any scientist claiming that meltdowns were impossible under "any circumstances". That's just obviously bullshit unless you are talking about specific conditions. It assumes no engineering flaws, no manufacturing flaws, proper maintenance, no external disasters or attacks, etc. They did some tests which the reactor passed but that isn't remotely the same thing as being safe in all conditions. Furthermore a meltdown is NOT the only failure mode of concern. There are a lot of still very serious but much more likely failure modes to worry about. Even if you eliminate meltdowns as a failure mode entirely that doesn't mean nuclear is 100% safe.
They intentionally tried to cause a meltdown and failed.
No they did not do that. They did some tests under conditions they were fairly confident the reactor would perform safely. There isn't a way in hell they would have gotten approval to actually try to create a meltdown if there was a reasonable chance of them actually achieving a meltdown.
You are overstating the risks of nuclear energy
Doesn't matter if I am or not. The insurance companies are all the evidence you need as they are the ones who have to put real money on the line. The fact that nuclear plants basically cannot get built without government guarantees and heavy safety regulation should tell you everything you need to know about how risky they are. When the people whose job it is to evaluate risk and profit from it aren't enthusiastic without government backing then that's a pretty reliable sign of something with serious safety concerns. That's not to say nuclear power isn't worth the risk but pretending there aren't very serious and real risks to it is dumb.
First class passengers don't get to partake in those particular experiences.
You would think but really in most flights first class gets you a bigger more comfy seat with no fight for elbow space and depending on the flight maybe some better food. The "free" booze isn't a bad deal either if you like a bit of that. The amenities don't really pile on until you start flying long haul where you might get a plane with fold flat seats so you can actually sleep a bit but you are going to pay a huge price tag for that bit of extra comfort.
I've flown Detroit to Tokyo in coach (twice) and about 3/4 of the way through that 13-14 hour flight you start thinking "maybe $10,000 for a first class seat isn't such a terrible idea after all". I've flown first class domestically on occasion (free upgrades) and for shorter flights with no meal service it's not so special. Nicer seat but that's about it. I got to fly to hawaii once first class and that was a nice upgrade for a trip that long though I'm not sure it would be worth the several thousand extra dollars. On longer flights if you can swallow the huge price tag though I kind of get the appeal of first class if you don't want to be a complete zombie after a 10+ hour flight.
That said, they should only offer roller coaster VR experiences. Over and over.
I think the combination of screaming and barfing might be a little disruptive...
I've noticed that economy class seats have got a lot better in the last few years.
Maybe on certain planes for your specific anatomy. I haven't noticed any widespread improvement though I have noticed decreasing leg room.
Used to be that sleeping was next to impossible, there was just no support for your head and lower back.
I've always been puzzled by "lumbar support" because I find such features in chairs to be terribly uncomfortable at least for my particular anatomy. They usually are just a big lump pushing my lower back forward which makes my lower back simultaneously painful and numb. I feel like they are trying to put me in a twerking position at full twerk which doesn't seem ideal.
For noise foam earplugs can't be beaten for comfort. The only down side is that there is nowhere to store them when you need to take them out temporarily.
For modest duration flights of a few hours I would tend to agree. Longer than 3-5 hours though and I start to find them somewhat irritating just like any other thing you stick in your ear canal. (I never understood how people can keep ear buds in their ears for endless hours either - I have to use over ear headphones for long duration listening and even those become a bother after a while even with good ones) They do sell foam earplugs with strings attached so you can take them out without losing them. I've used them and they work fairly well.
"Wearing the headset is comparable to having a personal movie screen in front of you," the airline said. "When paired with noise-cancelling headphones, it's easy to feel like you're at the movie theater instead of flying."
While I'm sure some people would deal with it fine, this sounds like an amazingly efficient way to induce motion sickness in a sizeable percent of people using it.
Yet we have had provable meltdown proof reactors since the 1980's. See Experimental Breeder Reactor II
You should read your link. They did tests to see if the reactor would not melt down under specific circumstances. This is a far different thing than proving it is "meltdown proof" under all circumstances. Passive fail-safe cooling systems are a good thing but they only solve some of the dangers presented by fission power plants. Furthermore just because they are in place does not mean they still cannot fail due to flaws in engineering, construction, maintenance, natural disasters, or physical damage.
You seem obsessed with meltdowns. That is just one failure mode among thousands for a nuclear power plant and not the most likely even for reactor designs without fail-safe designs. Even with a reactor that theoretically or provably cannot melt down, there remain plenty of ways for them to contaminate the surrounding areas. Nuclear power is a useful thing but pretending it doesn't carry some substantial risks is irresponsible.
There are around 50 nuclear startups designing 4th generation reactors. Some were always going to fail. In fact most will probably fail.
No there are lots of them CLAIMING to be developing new reactor designs. Some of them might actually be working on the problem even. Curiously we've seen zero of these actually make it to market.
Some will succeed though.
There is no guarantee of that.
NuScale is the closest to market.
Maybe. Best info I can find says they hope to have an operational reactor in 2024 and that was their projection in 2013. That means optimistically they might have something to show 6+ years from now. Not exactly cause for excitement.
Their design has already passed NRC phase 1 review, and it has been certified as meltdown proof.
NRC phase 1 review is a "Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and Requests for Additional Information". It does not mean it has been certified as anything.
They will be constructing their first 12 reactors in Idaho for Utah municipalities.
If that were true you would think they would post it somewhere on their website. Perhaps you are talking about this project?
Hopefully in a decade they will be mass producing them like airplanes.
While I wish them well I think this is a good approximation of impossible.
It's amazing how everything that doesn't agree with conservative political opinions somehow equals liberal bias. Never mind the fact that most people in the country are demonstrably not conservatives and should reasonably be expected to see things a different way. Not to mention that being conservative (or liberal) has no inherent relationship to objective reality or factual accuracy. $diety forbid that search results accurately provide results that reflect this fact.
I see some snowflake conservatives are busy downmodding anything that seems negative about conservatives.
They're demonstrably not liberal either
Didn't claim they were. I just said the majority aren't conservative which is absolutely true. The remainder are crudely speaking a mix of liberals and moderates. The electorate seems to be approximately about 1/3 of each with moderates being the swing voters tipping the balance in any given election. That's overly simplifying things greatly of course but it's a reasonable mental picture. The exact proportions might be 40/40/20 or some other breakdown but the point is that conservatives are a minority viewpoint and it should not be surprising that our search engines and media reflect this fact. But despite controlling the executive and legislative branches of government, somehow the conservatives like to imagine themselves as some sort of oppressed minority. They've got the minority bit right but not the oppressed bit.
It's amazing how everything that doesn't agree with conservative political opinions somehow equals liberal bias. Never mind the fact that most people in the country are demonstrably not conservatives and should reasonably be expected to see things a different way. Not to mention that being conservative (or liberal) has no inherent relationship to objective reality or factual accuracy. $diety forbid that search results accurately provide results that reflect this fact.
What about this new study that found there is no need for replication?
Has it been replicated?
No, I mean the lyrics are in English and I'm a native English speaker. I just can't always understand what the hell they are saying.
You're not the only one. There are countless songs where I have no idea what the hell they are saying without a transcript. A lot of singers don't enunciate very clearly and since the words are basically poetry they don't tend to have an easy to follow thread or context to figure out what is being said. Now I can still enjoy a piece of music even if I don't understand the lyrics but it is frustrating all the same sometimes. I'm always impressed by people who can follow the lyrics to songs that I find to be incomprehensible gibberish.
Maybe YOU should learn what it means. You aren't "convicted" of having a monopoly.
Thank you Captian Pedantic. You saved the day again!
Here's a little clue for you. For a company to be convicted of abusing a monopoly (which Microsoft was) it has to first be established in a court of law that they actually ARE a monopoly. You are correct that it is not illegal to be a monopoly and that convict is technically the wrong word. The purpose of my statementi s that Microsoft's monopoly status was established beyond any doubt in a court room for anyone who foolishly doubted it prior to that. The point is that there isn't much in the way of other options for PC operating systems because Microsoft has a de-facto monopoly on PC operating systems. Monopoly status = minimal alternative options. Got it?