How can you compare the "efficiency" of solar and combustion engines?
For a solar panel, you can calculate the amount of fossil fuels that went into producing the panel, and determine total amount of useful output. You can then put the same amount of fossil fuels directly into a car, and also measure total useful output.
It's not that obvious when you're talking about floating point calculations in combination with external memory. A GPU is highly optimized for both of those requirements, and it's not all that simple to make an ASIC that does this better. The main reason Google got such an improvement is because the require much less precision in their results.
They are 15-30 times faster, not 15-30%. That's a huge difference. And this is only the first version, so it is likely that the TPU can be improved faster than GPUs that have been on the market for years.
Science itself has nothing to do with consensus, but policy does.
and still throwing out or "adjusting" data to fit the predetermined conclusions
If data is not adjusted, people rightfully complain about urban heat islands, and changes in thermometer technology/placement. If data is adjusted, people scream manipulation. So, what is it ? And if there's something wrong about the methods that are used, why don't deniers grab the raw data and run their own analysis ?
You seem to have problems with reading. A quote from one your articles:
Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity
On the timescale of AGW, the Sun's output only shows very minor variations. While they do have some influence on the climate (as documented by the experts), they aren't nearly as big as the warming caused by CO2. And actually the Sun has been cooling a little bit since the 1980's.
You mean to say the sun is hotter and, as a result, is having an effect?
The sun is slowly getting hotter, over millions of years, due to hydrogen slowly turning into helium, with greater density, following a standard progression for stars of this type.
This means that for the same CO2 levels, the Earth is getting hotter now than it did before.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's pretty hard to know that in advanced. Lots of very nice people have chosen very poor partners, unfortunately.
Recognizing shitty behavior isn't very hard. The problem is not getting attracted by it.
Yeah, cause removing the only source of stability is such a great idea. Just look at Libya now.
How can you compare the "efficiency" of solar and combustion engines?
For a solar panel, you can calculate the amount of fossil fuels that went into producing the panel, and determine total amount of useful output. You can then put the same amount of fossil fuels directly into a car, and also measure total useful output.
Electricity is also much more flexible. Once you have the distribution and consumer infrastructure in place, you can easily swap generators.
It's not that obvious when you're talking about floating point calculations in combination with external memory. A GPU is highly optimized for both of those requirements, and it's not all that simple to make an ASIC that does this better. The main reason Google got such an improvement is because the require much less precision in their results.
Check out Tensorflow.
Thanks for fixing, but it was obvious for everyone else.
It will take a while for Moore's law to catch up with 15-30 times speed improvement, and even better power improvement.
And Moore's law also helps this chip.
They are 15-30 times faster, not 15-30%. That's a huge difference. And this is only the first version, so it is likely that the TPU can be improved faster than GPUs that have been on the market for years.
Energy cost is lower, and those will be dominant over longer term.
Yes, I think that was clear from the start, but thank you for repeating it.
For some reason, corporations prefer to hire expensive white men, rather than cheap black women.
It's not illegal to pay one person less than another.
.Isn't the US a net CO2 *sink*?
Lol, no.
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and the rise in CO2 cannot account for the rise in temperature, even when you rejigger the timelines however you want.
If order to draw that conclusion, you'd have to use an accurate model. But you don't believe accurate models exist.
Science doesn't happen by consensus
Science itself has nothing to do with consensus, but policy does.
and still throwing out or "adjusting" data to fit the predetermined conclusions
If data is not adjusted, people rightfully complain about urban heat islands, and changes in thermometer technology/placement. If data is adjusted, people scream manipulation. So, what is it ? And if there's something wrong about the methods that are used, why don't deniers grab the raw data and run their own analysis ?
Without (1) and (2), there would be no (3-5), so very relevant.
You seem to have problems with reading. A quote from one your articles:
Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity
Which is exactly what I said.
On the timescale of AGW, the Sun's output only shows very minor variations. While they do have some influence on the climate (as documented by the experts), they aren't nearly as big as the warming caused by CO2. And actually the Sun has been cooling a little bit since the 1980's.
if you're starting to notice that there are issues beyond (1) and (2)
For those that are denying (1) or (2), there are no issues beyond.
The AGW experts(and media, and talking heads) have been telling us for decades, that the sun(aka solar changes) have no impact. None
You seem to have problems understanding the difference of "decades" vs "millions of years".
Why would anyone look at Mars to see if the Sun is getting hotter, when you can directly look at the Sun ?
You mean to say the sun is hotter and, as a result, is having an effect?
The sun is slowly getting hotter, over millions of years, due to hydrogen slowly turning into helium, with greater density, following a standard progression for stars of this type.
This means that for the same CO2 levels, the Earth is getting hotter now than it did before.
The sun isn't hotter compared to a few decades ago. The sun is hotter compared to millions of years ago. There's no contradiction.
Get yourself an STM8 eval board from Ali Express for less than a buck, a STM stlinkv2 programmer dongle for less than 2, and have some fun.