Electric cars are generally simpler (and thus cheaper) to make than internal combustion ones. Their maintenance costs are also lower.
The reason they appear to cost more now is threefold: (1) they benefit less from economy of scale because they're made in smaller quantities; (2) they're new so research and development costs are higher; and (3) they're targeted at early adopters with lots of money to spend.
All three of those factors will lessen (and have lessened) as electric cars become more common.
I believe there's an industry that's pretty good at making electrical vibrators. Electrically powered sound reproduction has been a think for a long time.
Because banning X ten years from now gets you political points with the people who don't like X, and doesn't lose too many with people who do like X. It also means absolutely nothing will happen until you're either safely out of office or everyone has forgotten that it was you who instituted the ban in the first place.
Bonus points if in ten years the object of the ban is eye rollingly anachronistic.
That sounds like exactly what they're doing. Note the timelines in the summary. They're going to start rolling out their electrics and hope to have something at least partially electric in each category by 2030 (twelve years from now). They expect that almost everything will be electric by 2050 (32 years from now) but they're going to keep some internal combustion stuff going at least until then.
It actually sounds quite cautious. Many entire countries have announced plans to ban sales of internal combustion vehicles well before Volkswagen thinks they're going to stop selling them.
You don't understand. A modern economy is composed of a few percent of people who actually do the work, and the rest who "organize," "supervise," "plan," "administer," or similar. You may be part of the former, but if the majority concentrates too hard they might figure out that their purpose is to add to the N in the phrase "I have N people under me."
More like swap out that Maserati for a BMW. The primary care types do pretty well too, but it's hard to match the throughput of a good radiologist.
Problem with the primary care physicians is that the part of their job that's not vulnerable to machine learning is done better by nurses. Surgeons should have job security for a while.
Yes! They integrate messaging so you have to use whatever messaging system + interface they think you should! And they're in the cloud so they can spy on you! But you can do everything in one window, just like the good old days of single-tasking workstations! Retro style!
Git uses a hash tree, which is a generalization of the idea of a hash list or hash chain. All of those have been around forever, and are used in various forms in BitTorrent, zfs, etc.
IIRC the Satoshi paper describes bitcoin in terms of hash trees, but most (not necessarily all) blockchain implementations have provisions for pruning branches. Bitcoin selects the longest validated unbranched chain. You don't really want your accounting ledger to have branches....
You're right, git uses much more of the power of a hash tree than do most blockchain implementations, but the underlying data structure is pretty much the same. What novelty there is in blockchain isn't in the cryptography that gets hyped so much (public key plus hash trees), or the idea of making records public for accountability, but in the cooperative mechanism for assigning editing privileges.
Go back and read carefully. I said CRISPR is only *necessary* when you want to add something that neither parent has. I didn't make any statements at all about what CRISPR could do.
I'm talking about discarding embryos, specifically blastocysts. This is done every day. It's an unavoidable part of IVF, and also an unavoidable part of a reasonable reproductive gene editing procedure. CRISPR doesn't work 100%, so you want to keep the blastocysts it worked in and discard the rest.
You could, theoretically run CRISPR on the sperm only, but this has a bunch of problems. You would have at best a 50% chance of your editing being preserved in the resulting embryo. You might be able to make it work in the case where the father (and not the mother) carried a particular gene, say for Huntington's, that you wanted to fix, but you wouldn't be able to check to see if it took (or did something else you don't want). Or, if you figured out how to do that, you could just discard the sperm you didn't like, without the editing. Any reasonable CRISPR intervention in humans is going to be operating on an embryo, and so would be using IVF.
There are much easier ways to avoid Huntington's, cystic fibrosis, or other single gene disorders. Screen the embryos. You need to do IVF and screen embryos for CRISPR anyway.
CRISPR is only necessary if you want to add something that neither parent has.
To use CRISPR on the gene line you really want to be doing your modification as early as possible. So right away, you're talking about in vitro fertilization. The question is, if you're interested in preventing something like cystic fibrosis, wouldn't it be easier and simpler to just screen those cells before implanting them?
Now, most genetic diseases, and other traits, are way more complicated than CF. They're not just a binary one gene you've got it or you don't. Usually it's not even a few genes, it's a lot of them. So if you want to influence those, maybe you want something a bit stronger than just screening. But then you have all the practical problems with unintended consequences, because you don't actually know exactly what you're doing, you're just tweaking some things to nudge the baby in a particular direction.
The Chinese case is kind of an interesting in between. It's a single gene edit to confer HIV resistance, but it's presumably not an allele that either parent had already so there's no way you could achieve it through screening embryos. However, even CCR5-d32 isn't all gain like fixing the CF gene would be. Having the allele does confer resistance to some strains of HIV, but it also knocks out a bit of the immune system. There's some evidence that it decreases resistance to influenza, for example.
They have. There's an app for that. It's pretty effective, but not perfect. And like any birth control, it has to be used correctly. In other words, when it says no fucking, no fucking. Unfortunately, people have difficulty even figuring out how to use a condom reliably, so rhythm methods often don't work so well.
Condoms, the pill, rhythm methods, pulling out... all are quite effective *if used correctly*. The caveat at the end is a big one.
There are in between options. Vaginal inserts can have lots of the conveniences of implants without the drawbacks. For some women they work a lot better, because they use a lower overall dose, but they do deliver a higher dose locally.
Different people have different needs, and it's good to have lots of options. There probably are some women who use the pill because they don't know about other options or stick with good enough though. The pill has been around for half a century, while other methods are much more recent.
The situation is inherently asymmetric because the woman has to carry the baby and the man cannot. Reproduction is never going to be completely fair in all aspects, at least not until the invention of the gestation tank.
The goal may be to put it in a transdermal patch. The gel delivery method seems pretty messy without any advantages except that it's cheap and makes it easy to continue tweaking the formula.
Physicians have really managed to dodge responsibility on this one. Opioids are prescription drugs; physicians are therefore the assigned gatekeepers, responsible for making sure the drugs they prescribe help rather than hurt.
And yet the media writes stories about evil pharma and physicians who say they didn't know opioids were addictive.
Moore's paper is freely available. He didn't state "Moore's law" of course, but he does talk about economic factors. The graph that's usually taken to be the statement of Moore's law (at least, Wikipedia thinks so) simply shows year versus number of components per integrated function.
So there's no reason bigger dies wouldn't count, although they shouldn't be any more expensive than the older, smaller ones were.
So a Tesla on autopilot with a sleeping driver has a worst case scenario that's about the same as the best case for a regular car with sleeping driver?
I think you got your numbers backwards. Commercial electrolysis systems have about 70-80% efficiency. Research is ongoing to raise this, and is having decent success at doing so, expecting commerical systems to increase to increase into the mid 80% range by 2030. Theoretical maximum efficiency for current technology is 94%.
Slashdot Mirror
There it is. The shark jumping moment for opposition to EVs.
Electric cars are generally simpler (and thus cheaper) to make than internal combustion ones. Their maintenance costs are also lower.
The reason they appear to cost more now is threefold: (1) they benefit less from economy of scale because they're made in smaller quantities; (2) they're new so research and development costs are higher; and (3) they're targeted at early adopters with lots of money to spend.
All three of those factors will lessen (and have lessened) as electric cars become more common.
I believe there's an industry that's pretty good at making electrical vibrators. Electrically powered sound reproduction has been a think for a long time.
Because banning X ten years from now gets you political points with the people who don't like X, and doesn't lose too many with people who do like X. It also means absolutely nothing will happen until you're either safely out of office or everyone has forgotten that it was you who instituted the ban in the first place.
Bonus points if in ten years the object of the ban is eye rollingly anachronistic.
That sounds like exactly what they're doing. Note the timelines in the summary. They're going to start rolling out their electrics and hope to have something at least partially electric in each category by 2030 (twelve years from now). They expect that almost everything will be electric by 2050 (32 years from now) but they're going to keep some internal combustion stuff going at least until then.
It actually sounds quite cautious. Many entire countries have announced plans to ban sales of internal combustion vehicles well before Volkswagen thinks they're going to stop selling them.
You don't understand. A modern economy is composed of a few percent of people who actually do the work, and the rest who "organize," "supervise," "plan," "administer," or similar. You may be part of the former, but if the majority concentrates too hard they might figure out that their purpose is to add to the N in the phrase "I have N people under me."
More like swap out that Maserati for a BMW. The primary care types do pretty well too, but it's hard to match the throughput of a good radiologist.
Problem with the primary care physicians is that the part of their job that's not vulnerable to machine learning is done better by nurses. Surgeons should have job security for a while.
Yes! They integrate messaging so you have to use whatever messaging system + interface they think you should! And they're in the cloud so they can spy on you! But you can do everything in one window, just like the good old days of single-tasking workstations! Retro style!
Git uses a hash tree, which is a generalization of the idea of a hash list or hash chain. All of those have been around forever, and are used in various forms in BitTorrent, zfs, etc.
IIRC the Satoshi paper describes bitcoin in terms of hash trees, but most (not necessarily all) blockchain implementations have provisions for pruning branches. Bitcoin selects the longest validated unbranched chain. You don't really want your accounting ledger to have branches....
You're right, git uses much more of the power of a hash tree than do most blockchain implementations, but the underlying data structure is pretty much the same. What novelty there is in blockchain isn't in the cryptography that gets hyped so much (public key plus hash trees), or the idea of making records public for accountability, but in the cooperative mechanism for assigning editing privileges.
DirectX was a brilliant idea, fuelled by the classic Microsoft monopoly.
Exactly. Except a blockchain adds a voting scheme to decide who gets to approve the pull requests.
Go back and read carefully. I said CRISPR is only *necessary* when you want to add something that neither parent has. I didn't make any statements at all about what CRISPR could do.
I'm talking about discarding embryos, specifically blastocysts. This is done every day. It's an unavoidable part of IVF, and also an unavoidable part of a reasonable reproductive gene editing procedure. CRISPR doesn't work 100%, so you want to keep the blastocysts it worked in and discard the rest.
You could, theoretically run CRISPR on the sperm only, but this has a bunch of problems. You would have at best a 50% chance of your editing being preserved in the resulting embryo. You might be able to make it work in the case where the father (and not the mother) carried a particular gene, say for Huntington's, that you wanted to fix, but you wouldn't be able to check to see if it took (or did something else you don't want). Or, if you figured out how to do that, you could just discard the sperm you didn't like, without the editing. Any reasonable CRISPR intervention in humans is going to be operating on an embryo, and so would be using IVF.
There are much easier ways to avoid Huntington's, cystic fibrosis, or other single gene disorders. Screen the embryos. You need to do IVF and screen embryos for CRISPR anyway.
CRISPR is only necessary if you want to add something that neither parent has.
It's not quite that simple.
To use CRISPR on the gene line you really want to be doing your modification as early as possible. So right away, you're talking about in vitro fertilization. The question is, if you're interested in preventing something like cystic fibrosis, wouldn't it be easier and simpler to just screen those cells before implanting them?
Now, most genetic diseases, and other traits, are way more complicated than CF. They're not just a binary one gene you've got it or you don't. Usually it's not even a few genes, it's a lot of them. So if you want to influence those, maybe you want something a bit stronger than just screening. But then you have all the practical problems with unintended consequences, because you don't actually know exactly what you're doing, you're just tweaking some things to nudge the baby in a particular direction.
The Chinese case is kind of an interesting in between. It's a single gene edit to confer HIV resistance, but it's presumably not an allele that either parent had already so there's no way you could achieve it through screening embryos. However, even CCR5-d32 isn't all gain like fixing the CF gene would be. Having the allele does confer resistance to some strains of HIV, but it also knocks out a bit of the immune system. There's some evidence that it decreases resistance to influenza, for example.
They have. There's an app for that. It's pretty effective, but not perfect. And like any birth control, it has to be used correctly. In other words, when it says no fucking, no fucking. Unfortunately, people have difficulty even figuring out how to use a condom reliably, so rhythm methods often don't work so well.
Condoms, the pill, rhythm methods, pulling out... all are quite effective *if used correctly*. The caveat at the end is a big one.
There are in between options. Vaginal inserts can have lots of the conveniences of implants without the drawbacks. For some women they work a lot better, because they use a lower overall dose, but they do deliver a higher dose locally.
Different people have different needs, and it's good to have lots of options. There probably are some women who use the pill because they don't know about other options or stick with good enough though. The pill has been around for half a century, while other methods are much more recent.
The situation is inherently asymmetric because the woman has to carry the baby and the man cannot. Reproduction is never going to be completely fair in all aspects, at least not until the invention of the gestation tank.
The goal may be to put it in a transdermal patch. The gel delivery method seems pretty messy without any advantages except that it's cheap and makes it easy to continue tweaking the formula.
Physicians have really managed to dodge responsibility on this one. Opioids are prescription drugs; physicians are therefore the assigned gatekeepers, responsible for making sure the drugs they prescribe help rather than hurt.
And yet the media writes stories about evil pharma and physicians who say they didn't know opioids were addictive.
Moore's paper is freely available. He didn't state "Moore's law" of course, but he does talk about economic factors. The graph that's usually taken to be the statement of Moore's law (at least, Wikipedia thinks so) simply shows year versus number of components per integrated function.
So there's no reason bigger dies wouldn't count, although they shouldn't be any more expensive than the older, smaller ones were.
https://drive.google.com/file/...
Nah. Play the one eye game. Never fails (to turn into the two eye game).
So a Tesla on autopilot with a sleeping driver has a worst case scenario that's about the same as the best case for a regular car with sleeping driver?
Except that light does curve space.
Iceland might not agree. But other factors could well make nuclear the best option for Japan.
I think you got your numbers backwards. Commercial electrolysis systems have about 70-80% efficiency. Research is ongoing to raise this, and is having decent success at doing so, expecting commerical systems to increase to increase into the mid 80% range by 2030. Theoretical maximum efficiency for current technology is 94%.