At the top of your link there is an interesting chart. It shows China being at the bottom for at least the last 500 years (as far back as the chart goes).
Of course China DID inent one thing a thousand years ago, fireworks. Well, maybe they invented it, maybe they got it from someone else, but they had it a thousand years ago. If GGP's point is that the Chinese invented one thing in a thousand years, I'll grant that's true.
If you want to be a true believer, that's fine with me. You think Telsa is going to make 50% more money than any car company ever has, and they are going to do that real soon now, go ahead and believe that.
But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept
Americans take on big challenges, because they are big challenges. For example, Americans were the first to fly around the world, the first to fly around the world non-stop, the first to fly around the world in a balloon, etc. Why? What's the urgent practical need to do these things?
There is no practical need. As Kennedy said, we do these things because they are hard. China doesn't. That's not part of Chinese culture. China is known for making a million copies of something that the US designed a decade before. Americans traditionally look at something that "can't be done" and try to figure out how to do it. Chinese study the company procedure to see exactly how a task is done, in detail.
The most important thing here is not that Chia succeeded in this attempt, but that they attempted it. There is no immediate need to do this, they did it simply because it is hard. That demonstrates a new attitude in China. It shows the "American spirit", the spirit of bold adventure, in China.
Americans drive to "to boldly go where no one has gone before" has been significant factor in their success over the last hundred years, a differentiator from from most nation's. (Though partly inherited from Europe, then grown and expanded in the US). To see that in China means things are changing. China is getting something that used to be one of the great advantages of the United States.
I'll leave your No True Scotsman alone since that could be considered a matter of opinion, I suppose. You love the company. That's cool. Maybe you love the former CEO. Okay, some people like the guy.
I wonder about your arithmetic on stock valuation, though.
> That's why Tesla's stock is so valuable. It isn't an indication that the company is going to rapidly grow to be bigger than Toyota.
You probably know shares of stock essentially represent a share of the company's profit. If you own X% of a company's stock, you get X% of the profits. For example, after I quit working at a certain company, I still owned 100% of the stock in the corporation, so I got 100% of the profit.
If you loan me $1000 today, how much do you need me to pay you per year in order to make it worth your while? If you give me $1,000 today and I give you $100 / year, that would be a typical stock.
Would you give me $1,000 today if I agree to give you $10 / year in exchange?
Tesla stock: if you spend $1,000 on Tesla stock, your share of profit is $0.15 / year.
If the company gets ten times as big, your $1,000 investment will get you $15 / year as your share of profit. That's of it grows ten times it's current size - still an absolutely horrible deal.
The value of the stock is based on the amount of profit you expect it will generate. Typically, a stock is worth about 15 years earnings, less for risky stocks, up-and-coming companies, more for less risky companies with a track record of 30 years or more of success. We'll just take 15 years of profit as a typical way to value the profits that the stock represents.
Operating margins in the automobile industry are 3%-4%, meaning $100 in revenue will generate $3-$4 in profit each year. If you value your share based on 15 years of profit, the value is $52.50 per hundred in revenue. Telsa has revenue of about $24 billion, so they should be making about $84 million profit. As I recall they actually lost money last year, but let's pretend they made the $84 million we'd expect a decent company to make on $24 billion revenue. Multiply that by 15 and the present value of their future profit is $1.26 billion. That's the value of a car company with $24 billion revenue. Their actual stock price is is $53 billion - forty two times their current fair valuation based on their current valuation. They have to get 42 times bigger just to justify their current stock price and have investors not LOSE money.
If Tesla grows to be 100 times the size it is, a $1,000 investment today will generate $150 / year in profit for the stockholder. That's a pretty decent return. That requires the company to grow 100 times larger, though. And do you want to wait 100 years to get your money? Cause it might well take more than 100 years for Tesla to grow 100X bigger.
Yeah I see they've been doing PR pieces on it for over a decade. Hopefully in another decade or two it'll be an option on one of their vehicles. That would be cool.
Actually the growth is decelerating, as they continue to fail to fulfill their promises. That's not the point, though.
What you have to remember is that the current stock price has Tesla larger and more profitable than Volkswagen, Toyota, or any other car company.
Volkswagen did $270 billion last year, and had a profit of $23 billion. Toyota did a bit more.
Tesla did about $15 billion sales and lost money.
In order to justify the current stock price, Tesla would need to be 20 times larger than they are and infinitely more profitable.
"I think Tesla will grow!", they say. Yeah it *might* grow to be the size of Toyota, in 50 years. Tesla growth for 2018 is up 93% and is accelerating... is that enough? already IS that big, and is that profitable. So to value the two companies the same is insane. Guess what - Toyota might grow even bigger and even more profitable too.
"But Tesla has ELECTRIC cars!" Toyota unveiled three new electric cars last year and has seven more scheduled for release within 24 months. Not "pay us $40,000 today and maybe in three or four years we'll figure out how to build a car". And that's a relatively small project for Toyota - they aren't betting the company on the next model.
> They're watching for the host's commentary and the social interaction with other viewers through chat.
Well that's almost as silly as this site I saw once where somebody would post poorly spelled, ridiculously biased commentary about some months-old news item. Then people would have "social interaction" discussing old news that didn't even matter to anyone other than total nerds even when it was fresh. So silly.
I thought the court would hold that the state may prohibit using the title "engineer" commercially, to solicit business, but could not prohibit calling oneself an engineer in other contexts. In fact, the court ruled much more broadly. The ruling is that title laws in general are questionable, and must be narrowly tailored. (Though "professional engineer" and 'registered professional engineer" are still regulated).
Quoting here the part of the ruling that I found most interesting and surprising: --- The Title laws restrict constitutionally protected speech. While the Court need not reach the question of whether the Title laws are invalid in every application, the Title laws prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech. The record demonstrates that the threat to free expression is not merely hypothetical. Therefore, "from the text of [the law] and from actual fact," the Court holds that the Title laws are substantially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 122 (2003) --- https://ij.org/wp-content/uplo...
When I was a kid, we played outside. We invented a pretty sophisticated game of battling kingdoms that involved running around acting like it was Game of Thrones or whatever.
A few years later, video games came out. We sometimes sat on the couch pressing buttons.
Now the "fun" is to watch someone else sit on the couch pressing buttons.
I thought it was sad that my four year old daughter got into watching Ryan's Toy Reviews - watching another kid play with toys. This is another level, sitting in the couch watching someone else sit in the couch. If people enjoy that, I suppose that's cool. To each their own. Sure is different, though.
You didn't mention the catalytic converter, which gets very hot. You did mention several places that get hot - where heat is dissipated. Unless you put the entire car in a bubble of transducer material, you're not going to capture most of that heat.
You're right you'd probably get the most electricity by wrapping the radiator in this material. Of course then the radiator would stop working and the engine would overheat. You'd need to make the radiator about 50 times larger to offset that.
Where this technology might be useful, according to the people who invented the technology, would be sensors and such would require only a tiny amount of power. In an automotive context, consider for example tire pressure sensors. You can't very well run a power wire to them. Perhapss more useful, sensors in the exhaust stack of a factory, where it's rather inconvenient to put plastic wiring inside a hot chimney. Easier to let the wireless sensor be powered by the heat.
> A lot of alternators on a car can draw 1-2 hp. So that is now either top end power or additional MPG.
You're correct there. The alternator needs to be able to produce about 1 HP of electricity. At 1.8% conversion efficiency, a TEG would need 56 horsepower (42,000 watts) of heat in order to generate enough electricity, in the lab. Do you think your engine wastes 56 HP as tailpipe heat while cruising around? Even at full throttle?
The car uses about 20 HP to maintain cruising speed. Is it wasting three times that amount as heat? Probably not. Let's say it's wasting 5 HP as tailpipe heat.
Obviously blowing the exhaust through "radiator" (heat exchanger) isn't going to make the exhaust cold. It'll be out almost as hot as it went in. Perhaps we can recover 1HP, on a brand new vehicle in the lab. We need 56HP, we only got 1HP. Oops.
Now go look in your tailpipe. See the soot? Notice all the rust and everything on the bottom of the car after a few years of driving? That'll probably cut efficiency in had again, so we end up getting about 1% of the power we need.
I find it interesting that you would cite the 9th circuit's reasoning in Spokeo, and fail to note that the ruling you cite was overruled by Supreme Court.
As the Supreme Court held in Spokeo: -- a plaintiff does not automatically satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a right and purports to authorize a suit to vindicate it. Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation. --
Are you going to cite Dred Scott next and pretend it's current and correct law?
More from the Supreme Court in Spokeo, the exact case you tried to cite: -- (1) The Ninth Circuit's injury-in-fact analysis elided the independent "concreteness" requirement. Both observations it made concerned only "particularization," i.e., the requirement that an injury "affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way," Lujan, supra, at 560, n. 1, but an injury in fact must be both concrete and particularized, see, e.g., Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. Concreteness is quite different from particularization and requires an injury to be "de facto," that is, to actually exist....
We have made it clear time and time again that an injury in fact must be both concrete and particularized. --
The Illinois statute says the plaintiffs are entitled to the greater of: A) $1,000 B) Their actual injury / loss
The (stupid?) plaintiffs' attorney filed a federal action under title 3 which requires injuries addressed to be "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."
There is no concrete injury here, so it looks like the plaintiff's attorney screwed up. Should have filed in Illinois and taken $1,000 / person. It's possible that they did first file in Illinois and screwed up the jurisdiction argument.
You're entitled to your opinions. A mathematically proven fact is that only Perl can parse Perl. If you want fully correct syntax highlighting for Perl, you have to implement the entire Perl language. In other words, only/usr/bin/perl can do it. Because of optional semi-colons, t-sql (Microsoft SQL) is just as difficult. You can think correct syntax highlighting "should be" easy, but the fact is you have to implement a complete programming language in order to do it correctly.
> It's almost certainly slower, it is definitely clumsier, and it is indirect.
You that,/usr.bin/python, for example, is really slow at parsing Python? You think you can write a faster Python parser this weekend? I'll give you $2,000 if you can pull that off.
> It requires a level of knowledge far beyond that of "a person who edits text", and frankly, it's simply unnecessary if some basic tools are available.
I think you mean to claim the State of New York is lying when they say that they are sending out welfare checks to illegal aliens. And Politifact is lying when they confirmed it, in your imagination. And the State of California was lying in 2016 when they passed a bill allowing illegal aliens to receive state benefits. And the census bureau is lying in their Survey of Income and Program Participation, according to your wish. Again, from the State of New York web site nicely explains the situation in most states (California being the exception since they've passed laws actually allowing some and or preventing workers from checking immigration status in other cases):
----- Whether illegal aliens can obtain state benefits is not clear-cut. The short answer appears to be that they are not legally entitled to most benefits, but do in fact receive them... A fair interpretation of the federal statute and state regulation must result in the conclusion that illegal aliens should not receive any form of state public assistance. However, illegal aliens do, in fact, receive state public benefits. That's because the burden of determining lawful status in the U.S. is on the shoulders of county social services employees who have neither the legal jurisdiction nor the practical ability to determine one's immigration status. Only an immigration official or federal worker whom the Secretary of Homeland Security has authorized may determine the immigration status of a person in the country. ----
You can have a look at the Census Bureau study, the Survey of Income and Program Participation, for yourself if you'd like, rather than fervently arguing whatever some comedian told you on late night TV, without having idea clue whether what the comedian told you has any basis in reality.
> Did those platforms have three major CPU architecture changes, two completely different OS core and a 32-to-64-bit upgrade path in the last three decades?
Yes, in the case of Unix. In fact most of the old Unix programs supported three different CPU architectures *simultaneously*. Instead of version 1.0 supporting one architecture and version 4.0 supporting a different architecture, all versions supported all architectures. They did so partly by using some *simple* abstractions so that the applications mostly didn't care what the CPU architecture was. (Complex abstractions can make these things harder, simple abstractions make them easier).
Two different "OS core" - yep, completely changed out the entire kernel. Most Unix software runs fine on any of three or four different kernels. Originally Unix, then most switched over to Linus's Not Unix (Linux), and they run fine on MacOS, which is derived from an old Unix. Again simultaneously - the developers didn't have to switch. Simple abstractions like "everything is a file" mean the application doesn't care which kernel is providing fopen(). The application only cares that some kernel allows reading and writing of files. Since everything is a file, fopen(), read(), and write() let you do whatever you want in the system.
"32-to-64-bit upgrade path"? Linux supported x64 before x64 hardware existed. At the same time, the same version of the kernel supported 32 bit, and someone even rannitnon an 8 bit processor.
Does it do syntax highlighting well, by using an external program / library, thereby leveraging all of the work done by an for people who don't use BBEedit? That sounds like a winner to me. Why should each editor separately implement parsing of every version of every language, when we can have a better result with less effort by separating parsing programming languages from a text editor. Two different jobs.
It's true that Facebook's demographic has more older people today than it did ten years ago. However, was originally an online "yearbook" for Harvard, nothing but college students. Currently about 45% of Facebook users are 18-34.
I would point out that while it's true that if Facebook (tm) suddenly started charging $1,000 / year, almost everyone would stop using Facebook.com - but only as they switched to a different brand of the same thing.
It would be inaccurate to judge the value of a gallon of milk this way: How much would you pay to get Borden brand milk, if you could get Daisy brand milk for free?
Assuming a sudden $1,000 / year charge, and everyone leaving all at once, the benefits of the network effect would move to another similar service that's offered with $0 subscription, free of monetary charge. That doesn't mean it's worthless, it just means people can substitute an equally-valuable service without paying money (but still paying via ads, privacy, etc.)
The article defines "poor" as basically "entitled to benefits", then looks at only those people. So we learn that a lot of people who are entitled to benefits get benefits. That's amazing! Maybe their next study will find that a lot of people who have a bus pass ride the bus.
What they didn't mention while talking about "poor people" is that people who enter the country illegally are exceedingly likely to be either "poor people" or criminals.
It's my understanding that immigrating legally takes a very, very long time. One reason the wait is so long is because it's based on how many *additional* immigrants the country accepts after the million who enter illegally each year. You would have gotten through much quicker if a million people didn't "cut in front of you in line" by entering illegally. You waited your turn, while watching all those other people skip the line in front of you. I find it interesting that you went through the long and arduous process, yet are so anxious to make stuff up to defend the people who skipped in front of you. If I were you, I'd might pissed at those people, thinking "I've been waiting, get in the back of the line like I did and wait your turn".
Once again you're confusing what people are supposed to do with what they actually do.
> > Only an immigration official or federal worker whom the Secretary of Homeland Security has authorized may determine the immigration status of a person in the country.
> And these authorized officers check all the federal welfare applications.
There is no "federal welfare application", for most of these programs. Most of the money is administered by the states, received from the federal taxpayers in annual chunks based on how many recipients the state reports. The state reports X milion recipients, and gets Y billion dollars from the feds. States are supposed to check eligibility, but in many states the clerks are barred by state law from actually checking immigration status. In other states, they just don't bother. Government bureaucrats aren't known for excellent work.
>> It's unlawful for them to release people who are fugitives from the feds, but they do it.
> No they don't. Illegal border crossing is a civil infraction in the US, not a felony.
Robbery is a crime. Domestic abuse is a crime. Yet cities release illegal aliens who have already been convicted of these crimes, in violation of ICE detainees. According to acting ICE director Thomas Homan, "among âoe*criminal* aliens that have been released, rather than turned over to ICE, nearly 10,000 have recommitted *another* crimeâ between January 2014 and August 2017".
> So states are not obliged to notify the federal police about it.
Wrong again. 1907. TITLE 8, U.S.C. 1324(A) provides prison sentences of up to 10 years for knowlingly transporting illegal aliens (cities do this by policy), concealing, aiding and abetting, conspiracy to do these things, etc.
Again, we're not talking about what the law says people are *supposed to* do. They aren't *supposed to* BE in the US. By definition we're talking about people who don't follow the law like you do.
Slashdot Mirror
At the top of your link there is an interesting chart.
It shows China being at the bottom for at least the last 500 years (as far back as the chart goes).
Of course China DID inent one thing a thousand years ago, fireworks. Well, maybe they invented it, maybe they got it from someone else, but they had it a thousand years ago. If GGP's point is that the Chinese invented one thing in a thousand years, I'll grant that's true.
You fail at internet. I believe you meant to link this puff piece https://cleantechnica.com/2019...
If you want to be a true believer, that's fine with me.
You think Telsa is going to make 50% more money than any car company ever has, and they are going to do that real soon now, go ahead and believe that.
Yeah, China has always been the leader in space technology.
Or else maybe you're the idiot.
Fireworks a thousand years ago != space flight.
(Check Mythbusters for your "Ming dynasty rocket man" myth)
Read your words carefully "a decline in growth".
Yes, going from 150% growth to 93% would be a declining growth rate.
Which is a problem, because in order to justify a $51 billion valuation on a few million profit, one must expect they'll achieve a 1,000% growth rate.
Americans take on big challenges, because they are big challenges. For example, Americans were the first to fly around the world, the first to fly around the world non-stop, the first to fly around the world in a balloon, etc. Why? What's the urgent practical need to do these things?
There is no practical need. As Kennedy said, we do these things because they are hard. China doesn't. That's not part of Chinese culture. China is known for making a million copies of something that the US designed a decade before. Americans traditionally look at something that "can't be done" and try to figure out how to do it. Chinese study the company procedure to see exactly how a task is done, in detail.
The most important thing here is not that Chia succeeded in this attempt, but that they attempted it. There is no immediate need to do this, they did it simply because it is hard. That demonstrates a new attitude in China. It shows the "American spirit", the spirit of bold adventure, in China.
Americans drive to "to boldly go where no one has gone before" has been significant factor in their success over the last hundred years, a differentiator from from most nation's. (Though partly inherited from Europe, then grown and expanded in the US). To see that in China means things are changing. China is getting something that used to be one of the great advantages of the United States.
Just FYI, if you are a head engineer, you are probably a Principal Engineer.
A Principle Engineer would design maxims, precepts - principles.
Of course that was probably just autocorrect.
I'll leave your No True Scotsman alone since that could be considered a matter of opinion, I suppose. You love the company. That's cool. Maybe you love the former CEO. Okay, some people like the guy.
I wonder about your arithmetic on stock valuation, though.
> That's why Tesla's stock is so valuable. It isn't an indication that the company is going to rapidly grow to be bigger than Toyota.
You probably know shares of stock essentially represent a share of the company's profit. If you own X% of a company's stock, you get X% of the profits. For example, after I quit working at a certain company, I still owned 100% of the stock in the corporation, so I got 100% of the profit.
If you loan me $1000 today, how much do you need me to pay you per year in order to make it worth your while?
If you give me $1,000 today and I give you $100 / year, that would be a typical stock.
Would you give me $1,000 today if I agree to give you $10 / year in exchange?
Tesla stock: if you spend $1,000 on Tesla stock, your share of profit is $0.15 / year.
If the company gets ten times as big, your $1,000 investment will get you $15 / year as your share of profit. That's of it grows ten times it's current size - still an absolutely horrible deal.
The value of the stock is based on the amount of profit you expect it will generate. Typically, a stock is worth about 15 years earnings, less for risky stocks, up-and-coming companies, more for less risky companies with a track record of 30 years or more of success. We'll just take 15 years of profit as a typical way to value the profits that the stock represents.
Operating margins in the automobile industry are 3%-4%, meaning $100 in revenue will generate $3-$4 in profit each year. If you value your share based on 15 years of profit, the value is $52.50 per hundred in revenue. Telsa has revenue of about $24 billion, so they should be making about $84 million profit. As I recall they actually lost money last year, but let's pretend they made the $84 million we'd expect a decent company to make on $24 billion revenue. Multiply that by 15 and the present value of their future profit is $1.26 billion. That's the value of a car company with $24 billion revenue. Their actual stock price is is $53 billion - forty two times their current fair valuation based on their current valuation. They have to get 42 times bigger just to justify their current stock price and have investors not LOSE money.
If Tesla grows to be 100 times the size it is, a $1,000 investment today will generate $150 / year in profit for the stockholder. That's a pretty decent return. That requires the company to grow 100 times larger, though. And do you want to wait 100 years to get your money? Cause it might well take more than 100 years for Tesla to grow 100X bigger.
Yeah I see they've been doing PR pieces on it for over a decade. Hopefully in another decade or two it'll be an option on one of their vehicles. That would be cool.
Actually the growth is decelerating, as they continue to fail to fulfill their promises. That's not the point, though.
What you have to remember is that the current stock price has Tesla larger and more profitable than Volkswagen, Toyota, or any other car company.
Volkswagen did $270 billion last year, and had a profit of $23 billion. Toyota did a bit more.
Tesla did about $15 billion sales and lost money.
In order to justify the current stock price, Tesla would need to be 20 times larger than they are and infinitely more profitable.
"I think Tesla will grow!", they say. Yeah it *might* grow to be the size of Toyota, in 50 years. Tesla growth for 2018 is up 93% and is accelerating... is that enough? already IS that big, and is that profitable. So to value the two companies the same is insane. Guess what - Toyota might grow even bigger and even more profitable too.
"But Tesla has ELECTRIC cars!" Toyota unveiled three new electric cars last year and has seven more scheduled for release within 24 months. Not "pay us $40,000 today and maybe in three or four years we'll figure out how to build a car". And that's a relatively small project for Toyota - they aren't betting the company on the next model.
> They're watching for the host's commentary and the social interaction with other viewers through chat.
Well that's almost as silly as this site I saw once where somebody would post poorly spelled, ridiculously biased commentary about some months-old news item. Then people would have "social interaction" discussing old news that didn't even matter to anyone other than total nerds even when it was fresh. So silly.
I thought the court would hold that the state may prohibit using the title "engineer" commercially, to solicit business, but could not prohibit calling oneself an engineer in other contexts. In fact, the court ruled much more broadly. The ruling is that title laws in general are questionable, and must be narrowly tailored. (Though "professional engineer" and 'registered professional engineer" are still regulated).
Quoting here the part of the ruling that I found most interesting and surprising:
---
The Title laws restrict constitutionally protected speech. While the Court need not reach the question of whether the Title laws are invalid in every application, the Title laws prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech. The record demonstrates that the threat to free expression is not merely hypothetical. Therefore, "from the text of [the law] and from actual fact," the Court holds that the Title laws are substantially overbroad in violation of the First
Amendment. Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 122 (2003)
---
https://ij.org/wp-content/uplo...
When I was a kid, we played outside. We invented a pretty sophisticated game of battling kingdoms that involved running around acting like it was Game of Thrones or whatever.
A few years later, video games came out. We sometimes sat on the couch pressing buttons.
Now the "fun" is to watch someone else sit on the couch pressing buttons.
I thought it was sad that my four year old daughter got into watching Ryan's Toy Reviews - watching another kid play with toys. This is another level, sitting in the couch watching someone else sit in the couch. If people enjoy that, I suppose that's cool. To each their own. Sure is different, though.
You didn't mention the catalytic converter, which gets very hot. You did mention several places that get hot - where heat is dissipated. Unless you put the entire car in a bubble of transducer material, you're not going to capture most of that heat.
You're right you'd probably get the most electricity by wrapping the radiator in this material. Of course then the radiator would stop working and the engine would overheat. You'd need to make the radiator about 50 times larger to offset that.
Where this technology might be useful, according to the people who invented the technology, would be sensors and such would require only a tiny amount of power. In an automotive context, consider for example tire pressure sensors. You can't very well run a power wire to them.
Perhapss more useful, sensors in the exhaust stack of a factory, where it's rather inconvenient to put plastic wiring inside a hot chimney. Easier to let the wireless sensor be powered by the heat.
Another way, perhaps simpler than the math and making assumptions about waste heat, is to try this simple experiment:
Walk by your tailpipe with the car running.
Does it feel like a 42,000 watt heater to you? In other words, did you get cooked when you walked by?
> A lot of alternators on a car can draw 1-2 hp. So that is now either top end power or additional MPG.
You're correct there. The alternator needs to be able to produce about 1 HP of electricity. At 1.8% conversion efficiency, a TEG would need 56 horsepower (42,000 watts) of heat in order to generate enough electricity, in the lab. Do you think your engine wastes 56 HP as tailpipe heat while cruising around? Even at full throttle?
The car uses about 20 HP to maintain cruising speed. Is it wasting three times that amount as heat? Probably not. Let's say it's wasting 5 HP as tailpipe heat.
Obviously blowing the exhaust through "radiator" (heat exchanger) isn't going to make the exhaust cold. It'll be out almost as hot as it went in. Perhaps we can recover 1HP, on a brand new vehicle in the lab. We need 56HP, we only got 1HP. Oops.
Now go look in your tailpipe. See the soot? Notice all the rust and everything on the bottom of the car after a few years of driving? That'll probably cut efficiency in had again, so we end up getting about 1% of the power we need.
Thanks though.
I find it interesting that you would cite the 9th circuit's reasoning in Spokeo, and fail to note that the ruling you cite was overruled by Supreme Court.
As the Supreme Court held in Spokeo:
--
a plaintiff does not automatically satisfy
the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a right and purports to authorize a suit to vindicate it. Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.
--
Are you going to cite Dred Scott next and pretend it's current and correct law?
More from the Supreme Court in Spokeo, the exact case you tried to cite: ...
--
(1) The Ninth Circuit's injury-in-fact analysis elided the independent "concreteness" requirement. Both observations it made concerned only "particularization," i.e., the requirement that an injury "affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way," Lujan, supra, at 560, n. 1, but an injury in fact must be both concrete and particularized, see, e.g., Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. Concreteness is quite different from particularization and requires an injury to be "de facto," that is, to actually exist.
We have made it clear time and time again that an injury in fact must be both concrete and particularized.
--
The Illinois statute says the plaintiffs are entitled to the greater of:
A) $1,000
B) Their actual injury / loss
The (stupid?) plaintiffs' attorney filed a federal action under title 3 which requires injuries addressed to be "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."
There is no concrete injury here, so it looks like the plaintiff's attorney screwed up. Should have filed in Illinois and taken $1,000 / person. It's possible that they did first file in Illinois and screwed up the jurisdiction argument.
> Simple parsing, IMHO anyway, shouldn't require external code.
You're entitled to your opinions. A mathematically proven fact is that only Perl can parse Perl. If you want fully correct syntax highlighting for Perl, you have to implement the entire Perl language. In other words, only /usr/bin/perl can do it. Because of optional semi-colons, t-sql (Microsoft SQL) is just as difficult. You can think correct syntax highlighting "should be" easy, but the fact is you have to implement a complete programming language in order to do it correctly.
> It's almost certainly slower, it is definitely clumsier, and it is indirect.
You that, /usr.bin/python, for example, is really slow at parsing Python? You think you can write a faster Python parser this weekend? I'll give you $2,000 if you can pull that off.
> It requires a level of knowledge far beyond that of "a person who edits text", and frankly, it's simply unnecessary if some basic tools are available.
Plugins > Load > Perl is too hard for you?
I think you mean to claim the State of New York is lying when they say that they are sending out welfare checks to illegal aliens. And Politifact is lying when they confirmed it, in your imagination. And the State of California was lying in 2016 when they passed a bill allowing illegal aliens to receive state benefits. And the census bureau is lying in their Survey of Income and Program Participation, according to your wish. Again, from the State of New York web site nicely explains the situation in most states (California being the exception since they've passed laws actually allowing some and or preventing workers from checking immigration status in other cases):
----- ..
Whether illegal aliens can obtain state benefits is not clear-cut. The short answer appears to be that they are not legally entitled to most benefits, but do in fact receive them.
A fair interpretation of the federal statute and state regulation must result in the conclusion that illegal aliens should not receive any form of state public assistance. However, illegal aliens do, in fact, receive state public benefits. That's because the burden of determining lawful status in the U.S. is on the shoulders of county social services employees who have neither the legal jurisdiction nor the practical ability to determine one's immigration status. Only an immigration official or federal worker whom the Secretary of Homeland Security has authorized may determine the immigration status of a person in the country.
----
You can have a look at the Census Bureau study, the Survey of Income and Program Participation, for yourself if you'd like, rather than fervently arguing whatever some comedian told you on late night TV, without having idea clue whether what the comedian told you has any basis in reality.
> Did those platforms have three major CPU architecture changes, two completely different OS core and a 32-to-64-bit upgrade path in the last three decades?
Yes, in the case of Unix. In fact most of the old Unix programs supported three different CPU architectures *simultaneously*. Instead of version 1.0 supporting one architecture and version 4.0 supporting a different architecture, all versions supported all architectures. They did so partly by using some *simple* abstractions so that the applications mostly didn't care what the CPU architecture was. (Complex abstractions can make these things harder, simple abstractions make them easier).
Two different "OS core" - yep, completely changed out the entire kernel. Most Unix software runs fine on any of three or four different kernels. Originally Unix, then most switched over to Linus's Not Unix (Linux), and they run fine on MacOS, which is derived from an old Unix. Again simultaneously - the developers didn't have to switch. Simple abstractions like "everything is a file" mean the application doesn't care which kernel is providing fopen(). The application only cares that some kernel allows reading and writing of files. Since everything is a file, fopen(), read(), and write() let you do whatever you want in the system.
"32-to-64-bit upgrade path"? Linux supported x64 before x64 hardware existed. At the same time, the same version of the kernel supported 32 bit, and someone even rannitnon an 8 bit processor.
Does it do syntax highlighting well, by using an external program / library, thereby leveraging all of the work done by an for people who don't use BBEedit? That sounds like a winner to me. Why should each editor separately implement parsing of every version of every language, when we can have a better result with less effort by separating parsing programming languages from a text editor. Two different jobs.
It's true that Facebook's demographic has more older people today than it did ten years ago. However, was originally an online "yearbook" for Harvard, nothing but college students. Currently about 45% of Facebook users are 18-34.
You made some good points.
I would point out that while it's true that if Facebook (tm) suddenly started charging $1,000 / year, almost everyone would stop using Facebook.com - but only as they switched to a different brand of the same thing.
It would be inaccurate to judge the value of a gallon of milk this way:
How much would you pay to get Borden brand milk, if you could get Daisy brand milk for free?
Assuming a sudden $1,000 / year charge, and everyone leaving all at once, the benefits of the network effect would move to another similar service that's offered with $0 subscription, free of monetary charge. That doesn't mean it's worthless, it just means people can substitute an equally-valuable service without paying money (but still paying via ads, privacy, etc.)
The article defines "poor" as basically "entitled to benefits", then looks at only those people. So we learn that a lot of people who are entitled to benefits get benefits. That's amazing! Maybe their next study will find that a lot of people who have a bus pass ride the bus.
What they didn't mention while talking about "poor people" is that people who enter the country illegally are exceedingly likely to be either "poor people" or criminals.
It's my understanding that immigrating legally takes a very, very long time. One reason the wait is so long is because it's based on how many *additional* immigrants the country accepts after the million who enter illegally each year. You would have gotten through much quicker if a million people didn't "cut in front of you in line" by entering illegally. You waited your turn, while watching all those other people skip the line in front of you. I find it interesting that you went through the long and arduous process, yet are so anxious to make stuff up to defend the people who skipped in front of you. If I were you, I'd might pissed at those people, thinking "I've been waiting, get in the back of the line like I did and wait your turn".
Once again you're confusing what people are supposed to do with what they actually do.
> > Only an immigration official or federal worker whom the Secretary of Homeland Security has authorized may determine the immigration status of a person in the country.
> And these authorized officers check all the federal welfare applications.
There is no "federal welfare application", for most of these programs. Most of the money is administered by the states, received from the federal taxpayers in annual chunks based on how many recipients the state reports. The state reports X milion recipients, and gets Y billion dollars from the feds. States are supposed to check eligibility, but in many states the clerks are barred by state law from actually checking immigration status. In other states, they just don't bother. Government bureaucrats aren't known for excellent work.
>> It's unlawful for them to release people who are fugitives from the feds, but they do it.
> No they don't. Illegal border crossing is a civil infraction in the US, not a felony.
Robbery is a crime. Domestic abuse is a crime. Yet cities release illegal aliens who have already been convicted of these crimes, in violation of ICE detainees. According to acting ICE director Thomas Homan, "among âoe*criminal* aliens that have been released, rather than turned over to ICE, nearly 10,000 have recommitted *another* crimeâ between January 2014 and August 2017".
> So states are not obliged to notify the federal police about it.
Wrong again. 1907. TITLE 8, U.S.C. 1324(A) provides prison sentences of up to 10 years for knowlingly transporting illegal aliens (cities do this by policy), concealing, aiding and abetting, conspiracy to do these things, etc.
Again, we're not talking about what the law says people are *supposed to* do. They aren't *supposed to* BE in the US. By definition we're talking about people who don't follow the law like you do.