Until they break. Then you generally need to fix them. Even worse, most "robots" in space were not actual robots (as in automated systems for exerting mechanical work).
Is it really? Or is it just an input for composting or other processes that get rid of the inevitable pathogens before you actually start growing plants with it?
Here's where wind and solar just become proxies for natural gas. When building a backup system for wind and solar this backup must be able to come online quickly, in a matter of minutes as the system detects the wind or sun fading. That means natural gas turbines. Well a natural gas turbine is about 30% efficient. Because of the laws of physics, and cost constraints, this is about the best we can do. If this same natural gas was burned in a combined cycle power plant, where water is boiled for steam, then they can achieve efficiencies of about 60%. These plants, again because of physics and cost, cannot come online in minutes but instead take hours. This makes them unfit as backup for wind and solar.
This is utter bullshit reasoning because not only don't we have to "detect the wind or sun fading" since we have predictive models, we also have geographically dispersed generation. The changes in the aggregate output literally take hours and an overwhelming fraction of them (90%+) is accounted for by those models, so why would it be handled mostly by fast-acting sources? That's completely irrational! Who upvotes this garbage?
Not just fluctuations. Americans are blissfully unaware how fucking expensive natural gas is in most parts of the world. Only complete idiots would regularly burn it for electricity.
You're transforming a small part of the electromagnetic energy that is coming from the surface of the Sun. In the most inefficient ways possible.
20% direct conversion is hardly "the most inefficient way possible". In fact, that's only 33% less electricity output for the same primary energy input as a regular nuclear plant gets.
Of course. There will be no wind and solar dominating without the oil industry. From those oil wells comes a lot of natural gas, and that natural gas will be needed as backup power for the unreliable wind and solar.
If only you could do that with, say, hydro or nuclear, right?
They get to "greenwash" their industry by providing the natural gas to keep those windmills spinning. Oh, people do know that those windmills need power to get up to speed to catch the wind, right? They can't get going on their own, they take electricity to get started before they produce any on their own.
Even if that startup issue was true, which it definitely isn't, what the fuck would be the point of using "natural gas to keep those windmills spinning"? They're generators, not fans. Are you suggesting some kind of large-scale scheme is going on that involves passing natural-gas-generated electricity as wind power?
Then there is the transportation sector. There's not any airplanes without hydrocarbons. No cargo ship is going to cross an ocean without hydrocarbon fuels either.
Quite the opposite; the middle is the most boring one from the engineering perspective. It's the transitions that are exciting (not in a good way a lot of the time).
Let's say you can miniaturize everything needed to mine an asteroid into a one-ton spacecraft
That's most likely not how it would work. You'd first need to assemble large pressure vessels on site, to deal with carbonyl separation. But once you have them, *limiting* the output would *not* be the way to amortize the investment.
And by the time human beings are finally ready to undertake the journey, robots will have become as versatile and clever as people on Mars
^^^ THIS is the part where you are completely and obviously wrong. Claiming that humanity will achieve human levels of intelligence and self-sufficiency *in mobile space robots* in 10-15 years? Seriously? Is there *any* hint of that in current AI development? We're happy today that a factory-sized computer distinguishes humans from gorillas...sometimes... Yeah, in fifteen years, it will totally be doing expert scientific decisions while being shoebox-sized. Right.
You might as well complain about any library written in any other language that any Rust program links to. As a complaint it makes no sense.
It makes no sense to complain that the inclusion of, say, a buggy C++ library could make a Rust program with its oh-so-perfect memory management vulnerable? Then why do people bother with Rust in the first place? Surely not to end up with programs mostly glued together from C++ Swiss cheese.
What will you argue next? That C isn't really C because actually it's all machine code in the end, and that machine code isn't really machine code because that's not how the processor works internally?
Non-sequitur much? How is that relevant for including buggy components in programs?
The question was what language is Rust written in. The answer is that it's written in Rust.
The more accurate answer is that a large but not overwhelming portion of it is written in Rust, compared to Go written in Go, the various Lisps written in Lisp, the various Schemes writren in Scheme...
Slashdot Mirror
Kinda hard to pay with it online
Not really, cash-on-delivery still works.
Totally clears the CEOs. Thank you!
Energy that costs money to clean up in the future is not cheap. Just like any other kind of predatory lending.
What is your list supposed to prove? That there's a healthy competitive environment in the energy market? What's so bad about that?
...how fucking expensive natural gas is in most parts of the world.
What makes natural gas expensive is transportation.
No shit, Sherlock! :-p What else could it be, gas fairies?
Until they break. Then you generally need to fix them. Even worse, most "robots" in space were not actual robots (as in automated systems for exerting mechanical work).
The instructions on my bottle specifically say not to let your kids and pets play in a treated yard for 72H.
So basically, the instructions are "round up your kids", not "Roundup your kids"?
Poop is a common fertilizer in "organic" farming
Is it really? Or is it just an input for composting or other processes that get rid of the inevitable pathogens before you actually start growing plants with it?
Here's where wind and solar just become proxies for natural gas. When building a backup system for wind and solar this backup must be able to come online quickly, in a matter of minutes as the system detects the wind or sun fading. That means natural gas turbines. Well a natural gas turbine is about 30% efficient. Because of the laws of physics, and cost constraints, this is about the best we can do. If this same natural gas was burned in a combined cycle power plant, where water is boiled for steam, then they can achieve efficiencies of about 60%. These plants, again because of physics and cost, cannot come online in minutes but instead take hours. This makes them unfit as backup for wind and solar.
This is utter bullshit reasoning because not only don't we have to "detect the wind or sun fading" since we have predictive models, we also have geographically dispersed generation. The changes in the aggregate output literally take hours and an overwhelming fraction of them (90%+) is accounted for by those models, so why would it be handled mostly by fast-acting sources? That's completely irrational! Who upvotes this garbage?
Is every wind turbine ALSO going to house a giant water reservoir?
There actually was a suggestion for something like that.
and secondly the fluctuations in fuel prices
Not just fluctuations. Americans are blissfully unaware how fucking expensive natural gas is in most parts of the world. Only complete idiots would regularly burn it for electricity.
You're transforming a small part of the electromagnetic energy that is coming from the surface of the Sun. In the most inefficient ways possible.
20% direct conversion is hardly "the most inefficient way possible". In fact, that's only 33% less electricity output for the same primary energy input as a regular nuclear plant gets.
Of course. There will be no wind and solar dominating without the oil industry. From those oil wells comes a lot of natural gas, and that natural gas will be needed as backup power for the unreliable wind and solar.
If only you could do that with, say, hydro or nuclear, right?
They get to "greenwash" their industry by providing the natural gas to keep those windmills spinning. Oh, people do know that those windmills need power to get up to speed to catch the wind, right? They can't get going on their own, they take electricity to get started before they produce any on their own.
Even if that startup issue was true, which it definitely isn't, what the fuck would be the point of using "natural gas to keep those windmills spinning"? They're generators, not fans. Are you suggesting some kind of large-scale scheme is going on that involves passing natural-gas-generated electricity as wind power?
Then there is the transportation sector. There's not any airplanes without hydrocarbons. No cargo ship is going to cross an ocean without hydrocarbon fuels either.
If only there was a way to synthesize hydrocarbons...
The oil industry has nothing to fear. Except nuclear.
Ah, so they're going to build nuclear airplanes, based on what you wrote above?
"No, they won't. There is nothing as energy dense..."
"We're all individuals!"
I'm actually quite sure there's LaTeX ports to Android.
They can only teach you how to write; they can't teach you how to think.
If OpenAI wants us to believe they are really doing edgy and dangerous stuff, they need to provide better evidence than this.
But it only needs to fool Facebook users, no need to invoke Turing.
Their colour is caused by a recessive gene
Ah, incoming recession confirmed?
Chinese are white? :-p
Quite the opposite; the middle is the most boring one from the engineering perspective. It's the transitions that are exciting (not in a good way a lot of the time).
A connection seems rather unlikely there. Are you insinuating one? When exactly was "early 2000s"?
Let's say you can miniaturize everything needed to mine an asteroid into a one-ton spacecraft
That's most likely not how it would work. You'd first need to assemble large pressure vessels on site, to deal with carbonyl separation. But once you have them, *limiting* the output would *not* be the way to amortize the investment.
And by the time human beings are finally ready to undertake the journey, robots will have become as versatile and clever as people on Mars
^^^ THIS is the part where you are completely and obviously wrong. Claiming that humanity will achieve human levels of intelligence and self-sufficiency *in mobile space robots* in 10-15 years? Seriously? Is there *any* hint of that in current AI development? We're happy today that a factory-sized computer distinguishes humans from gorillas...sometimes... Yeah, in fifteen years, it will totally be doing expert scientific decisions while being shoebox-sized. Right.
You might as well complain about any library written in any other language that any Rust program links to. As a complaint it makes no sense.
It makes no sense to complain that the inclusion of, say, a buggy C++ library could make a Rust program with its oh-so-perfect memory management vulnerable? Then why do people bother with Rust in the first place? Surely not to end up with programs mostly glued together from C++ Swiss cheese.
What will you argue next? That C isn't really C because actually it's all machine code in the end, and that machine code isn't really machine code because that's not how the processor works internally?
Non-sequitur much? How is that relevant for including buggy components in programs?
The question was what language is Rust written in. The answer is that it's written in Rust.
The more accurate answer is that a large but not overwhelming portion of it is written in Rust, compared to Go written in Go, the various Lisps written in Lisp, the various Schemes writren in Scheme...