This is what happens when you let individuals accumulate too much money. What could possibly go wrong? I want to see what insurance company steps up to cover this thing. The funniest part is that I remember these things from planet patrol back in the early 60s. This is an old sci-fi idea being turned into a dangerous reality by an eccentric billionaire.
Just being at a higher charge level doesn't imply a higher degradation level.
Except that's exactly what it does. There's plenty of references to it, and that's the exact reason why you should and why chargers offer a feature for charging (or discharging) batteries to 3.8V/cell when you don't intend to use them. The battery's life expectancy is dependent on the level of charge it holds as one of the factors.
The exact value varies, for instance Panasonic recommend their Lithium cells be stored with 40-50% charge. Moli recommend closer to 30%. Hell you want to really protect your cell, put your phone in the fridge overnight too but not the freezer.
The last time I ploughed through the data I didn't see a strong relationship between charge level and degradation per unit time while stored. Do you have reference to data that does show this? My knowledge may be out of date since it has been a few years since I was a board level engineer working on these charging circuits and playing with batteries (Li-Poly mostly).
The 20-80 hypothesis is a tradeoff. A few things affect battery life including depth of discharge, heat during charging (speed of charge), and the storage charge level. The higher the charge level (above 58%) the faster a buildup of solid electrolyte is on the anode. Over time this reduces the charge. There's also oxidation of the electrolyte that starts at around the 90% mark.
Most commercial chargers for lithium chemistry allow you to charge the battery for "storage". I.e. put a charge in for a battery that you don't intend to use anytime soon. They will drop the batteries to 3.8V/cell (nominal cell voltage) instead of 4.2V/cell which is their full charge point (these voltages vary slightly with chemistry).
I don't disagree with any of that, but the 'kept at' nomenclature of the TFS implies it is unhealthy to be at say 90% charge when it isn't. Charging from 90% to 91% does more harm than charging from 80% to 81%, due to a bigger part of the charge current going into doing other things than charging like heating and oxidizing and doing funky chemistry. Just being at a higher charge level doesn't imply a higher degradation level.
I expect UEFI lock down will soon prevent Linux from being installed.
Nope. Provided people punish manufacturers who lock down the secure boot by refusing to buy their products. Secure boot should be for the owner of the computer to secure it by only allowing the kernel of their choice.
This: >This is important, a battery that's usually kept at a charge between 20% and 80% of its capacity is much healthier - it's going to the extremes that wears it out at a faster rate.
Is contradicted by the story a few weeks ago regarding the results of research showing it was the act of charging that degraded batteries not the level of charge of the battery.
So which is it? Given I'm not completely naive here (I spent a time developing Li-poly, NiMH and Li-Ion chargers and did a ton of testing) I saw nothing to support the 20-80 hypothesis. If anything can be improved it's probably avoiding unnecessary trickle charge current and minimizing the idle current of the phone to minimize the area under the charging current curve as phones are plugged in overnight.
More like "we have (retroactively) changed the terms of the deal. Pray we do not change it further... buddy". Which is why this is political crap.
By all means, adjust the law such that Apple pays more going forward. But this is nothing but ex post facto laws, and those are utter bullshit.
This is the EU saying to Ireland "Your law violates European law - fix it". This is correct. What is sketchy is the retrospective nature of the "and grab a few billion from Apple while you're fixing it". Ireland did close the double-Irish-with-a-dutch-sandwich loophole, but allows existing users of the scheme to carry on until 2020. So that is certainly favouring some businesses over others with different laws for some. This is clearly a violation of European competition law.
Writing some macros that tie word and a spreadsheet together might work ok for the non developer that created it, but once multiple people start using it, the fact that the author didn't know anything about mutex or acid or race conditions will be a re-run of the mid to late 90s all over again.
No, English is imprecise. If the G80 is 80% good and the G90 is 90% good, than the G90 is 10% better than G80 even though G90 isn't 10% better than G80 is.
90% of something is 12.5% more than 80% of something.
So I keep hearing, yet I don't think I have ever seen a report of this actually happening.
The gun violence archive lists deaths by gunshot in 2016 at 37041 so far. We're 242 days in, so that's about 153 per day. So 9.4 minutes per gun death in the US.
I couldn't find the explosive drone violence archive to compare.
So does my wife. She shouldn't need to register to do so.
Non citizens have absolutely zero incentive to vote.
Really? "If I vote for someone who promises to give me free stuff, I might get free stuff." Or "if I vote against someone who wants to enforce the laws that would deport me, maybe I won't be deported." Doesn't sound like zero incentive to me.
As a non citizen (of the US) I've not noticed anyone offering me such a reward for voting illegally in a US election.
Why bother taking the risk?
With half the people in the country denying that it does or could take place, the risk is minimal. And when the person you helped elect takes charge. the risk goes away completely.
This is why the data shows it almost never happens.
Except in Chicago where it is a running joke. And of course, few waste time collecting data on something that they actively deny ever happens.
That case is the corruption of the voting system by the administrators of the voting system, not the voters.
I've been to I think 6 or 7 planets so far. I've been in three star systems. The one new thing that was on one planet was water.
Otherwise, the buildings are the same. The resources are slightly distributed - gold on some planets, not on others. Otherwise most things are available anywhere. The grind needed to find new things is huge and I don't think I'm going to continue. It was a bad purchase.
You are ultimately limited by storage. With more storage you could monetize more stuff in one trip and buy a bigger ship with more storage. But I'm estimating about 50 trips up and down from a gold bearing planet to be able to buy a decent ship. That would take weeks of grind, just to reduce the grind a bit. It's not fun. You have little agency in the game. You don't even get an map so you can't go back to where you've been before except by chance. We have maps on phones today. Why not in the super techy future?
What's going on is you start the game, you fart around trying to get the stuff to get off planet. Then you fart around trying to get the stuff to go to other star systems.
Based on these two sentences this game sounds like a 3D version of Starbound.
I've not played Starbound. But I looked it up and it looks like it's more fun than NMS at a quarter of the price.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what happens when you let individuals accumulate too much money. What could possibly go wrong? I want to see what insurance company steps up to cover this thing. The funniest part is that I remember these things from planet patrol back in the early 60s. This is an old sci-fi idea being turned into a dangerous reality by an eccentric billionaire.
Also this..
https://www.amazon.com/Transat...
Just being at a higher charge level doesn't imply a higher degradation level.
Except that's exactly what it does. There's plenty of references to it, and that's the exact reason why you should and why chargers offer a feature for charging (or discharging) batteries to 3.8V/cell when you don't intend to use them. The battery's life expectancy is dependent on the level of charge it holds as one of the factors.
The exact value varies, for instance Panasonic recommend their Lithium cells be stored with 40-50% charge. Moli recommend closer to 30%. Hell you want to really protect your cell, put your phone in the fridge overnight too but not the freezer.
The last time I ploughed through the data I didn't see a strong relationship between charge level and degradation per unit time while stored. Do you have reference to data that does show this? My knowledge may be out of date since it has been a few years since I was a board level engineer working on these charging circuits and playing with batteries (Li-Poly mostly).
That was pretty much my point. My iPhone charges while I sleep, but it takes 30 minutes. It could take 6 hours and it would make no difference to me.
I saw nothing to support the 20-80 hypothesis.
The 20-80 hypothesis is a tradeoff. A few things affect battery life including depth of discharge, heat during charging (speed of charge), and the storage charge level. The higher the charge level (above 58%) the faster a buildup of solid electrolyte is on the anode. Over time this reduces the charge. There's also oxidation of the electrolyte that starts at around the 90% mark.
Most commercial chargers for lithium chemistry allow you to charge the battery for "storage". I.e. put a charge in for a battery that you don't intend to use anytime soon. They will drop the batteries to 3.8V/cell (nominal cell voltage) instead of 4.2V/cell which is their full charge point (these voltages vary slightly with chemistry).
I don't disagree with any of that, but the 'kept at' nomenclature of the TFS implies it is unhealthy to be at say 90% charge when it isn't. Charging from 90% to 91% does more harm than charging from 80% to 81%, due to a bigger part of the charge current going into doing other things than charging like heating and oxidizing and doing funky chemistry. Just being at a higher charge level doesn't imply a higher degradation level.
I expect UEFI lock down will soon prevent Linux from being installed.
Nope. Provided people punish manufacturers who lock down the secure boot by refusing to buy their products.
Secure boot should be for the owner of the computer to secure it by only allowing the kernel of their choice.
This:
>This is important, a battery that's usually kept at a charge between 20% and 80% of its capacity is much healthier - it's going to the extremes that wears it out at a faster rate.
Is contradicted by the story a few weeks ago regarding the results of research showing it was the act of charging that degraded batteries not the level of charge of the battery.
So which is it? Given I'm not completely naive here (I spent a time developing Li-poly, NiMH and Li-Ion chargers and did a ton of testing) I saw nothing to support the 20-80 hypothesis. If anything can be improved it's probably avoiding unnecessary trickle charge current and minimizing the idle current of the phone to minimize the area under the charging current curve as phones are plugged in overnight.
Law of the land, buddy.
More like "we have (retroactively) changed the terms of the deal. Pray we do not change it further... buddy". Which is why this is political crap.
By all means, adjust the law such that Apple pays more going forward. But this is nothing but ex post facto laws, and those are utter bullshit.
This is the EU saying to Ireland "Your law violates European law - fix it". This is correct. What is sketchy is the retrospective nature of the "and grab a few billion from Apple while you're fixing it". Ireland did close the double-Irish-with-a-dutch-sandwich loophole, but allows existing users of the scheme to carry on until 2020. So that is certainly favouring some businesses over others with different laws for some. This is clearly a violation of European competition law.
Someone has a MD5 search to see if your password shows up:
https://lastpass.com/lastfm/
When I try it, it throws an error ... anyways ...
I should put one of those up. It's a great way to harvest passwords.
Multi user too.
Writing some macros that tie word and a spreadsheet together might work ok for the non developer that created it, but once multiple people start using it, the fact that the author didn't know anything about mutex or acid or race conditions will be a re-run of the mid to late 90s all over again.
I agree, 80 to 90 doesn't tell you NEARLY as much information about the different cars as Genesis and Equus. What a well thought out criticism.
Genesis: The original humans were naked.
Equus: They learned to ride horses before they learned to put on clothes.
Then, of course, the maker might get perverted into adding subversions. So we can go to G90.3.5
And maybe even take a hint from Apple's phones: G80.7+
If Infiniti add subversions, BMW will add gits.
Is the AMD FX8350 twice anything of the FX4175?
What's your point?
i7, i5, i3.. Intel went to complex numbers.
No, English is imprecise. If the G80 is 80% good and the G90 is 90% good, than the G90 is 10% better than G80 even though G90 isn't 10% better than G80 is.
90% of something is 12.5% more than 80% of something.
It does not look like much at all. The 10-19% seems to come from the clock bump.
500/3000 = 19%
Just like the old days. We rode the wave from 1 MHz to 4GHz.
It works fine elsewhere. Have a big list of citizens. If you're a citizen, you can go in to vote. If you try to vote an are not, you get prosecuted.
Non citizens have absolutely zero incentive to vote. Why bother taking the risk? This is why the data shows it almost never happens.
Mmhmm. If you're going to dial back standards to that level, just have a fucking online poll. It'll be about as secure.
Because online voting is horribly insecure.
Paper voting is effective and reasonably secure as long as you take measures to make it so.
So I keep hearing, yet I don't think I have ever seen a report of this actually happening.
The gun violence archive lists deaths by gunshot in 2016 at 37041 so far.
We're 242 days in, so that's about 153 per day. So 9.4 minutes per gun death in the US.
I couldn't find the explosive drone violence archive to compare.
If you're a citizen, you can go in to vote.
Go in where? I get my ballots by mail.
So does my wife. She shouldn't need to register to do so.
Non citizens have absolutely zero incentive to vote.
Really? "If I vote for someone who promises to give me free stuff, I might get free stuff." Or "if I vote against someone who wants to enforce the laws that would deport me, maybe I won't be deported." Doesn't sound like zero incentive to me.
As a non citizen (of the US) I've not noticed anyone offering me such a reward for voting illegally in a US election.
Why bother taking the risk?
With half the people in the country denying that it does or could take place, the risk is minimal. And when the person you helped elect takes charge. the risk goes away completely.
This is why the data shows it almost never happens.
Except in Chicago where it is a running joke. And of course, few waste time collecting data on something that they actively deny ever happens.
That case is the corruption of the voting system by the administrators of the voting system, not the voters.
I wasn't aware they were NRA members. But I didn't suggest they were.
It works fine elsewhere. Have a big list of citizens. If you're a citizen, you can go in to vote. If you try to vote an are not, you get prosecuted.
Non citizens have absolutely zero incentive to vote. Why bother taking the risk? This is why the data shows it almost never happens.
Give it a few more years, maybe a person or two killed or maimed by an out of control drone at a sporting/large event,
Give it a few more minutes and a person or two will be killed or maimed by an out of control gun toting idiot.
Attack:
1) Break into registration system
2) Deregister 5% of voters registered to the party you want to lose in close contest states.
Defense:
1) Get rid of registration and let everyone vote.
I've been to I think 6 or 7 planets so far. I've been in three star systems. The one new thing that was on one planet was water.
Otherwise, the buildings are the same. The resources are slightly distributed - gold on some planets, not on others. Otherwise most things are available anywhere. The grind needed to find new things is huge and I don't think I'm going to continue. It was a bad purchase.
You are ultimately limited by storage. With more storage you could monetize more stuff in one trip and buy a bigger ship with more storage. But I'm estimating about 50 trips up and down from a gold bearing planet to be able to buy a decent ship. That would take weeks of grind, just to reduce the grind a bit. It's not fun.
You have little agency in the game. You don't even get an map so you can't go back to where you've been before except by chance. We have maps on phones today. Why not in the super techy future?
Hmm. So NMS is a charity? No wonder they charge so much.
What's going on is you start the game, you fart around trying to get the stuff to get off planet. Then you fart around trying to get the stuff to go to other star systems.
Based on these two sentences this game sounds like a 3D version of Starbound.
I've not played Starbound. But I looked it up and it looks like it's more fun than NMS at a quarter of the price.
Did those 100 arrested people crash their cars at a statistically significantly higher rate than the population of 'normally' licensed people?
If not, what was the benefit?