Kon5ole

24 ms·

301.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
>But it is the percentage that matters? If I have 10B transistors and I add 1B to it, the speedup I can expect is 10%. If I have 1B transistors and add 1B to it, the speedup I can expect is 100%. Tremendous difference. Why would I ever c
302.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
>But this is not what I as a consumer end up seeing at all. Consider the RTX 5090. Gen-on-gen (so, compared to the 4090), for 20-30% more money, using 20-30% more power, you get 20-30% more raster performance. Meaning the generational im
303.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
What we see in the market is caused by software bloat. Chips are gaining performance faster than ever in absolute terms. I think Moore’s law should be avoided altogether when discussing progress in this area, because it’s hard to understand
304.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
Quite the opposite, a hydrogen power plant would generate clean water as a byproduct.
305.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
Of course it is a path to clean energy. It's basically a perfect solution if you consider the whole cycle. We have increasingly longer periods of surplus electricity from solar and wind. So much so that getting rid of the surplus is a
306.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
Sometimes the right approach is to keep the consistency. Other times, that approach is either impossible or catastrophic. IMO software development is so diverse and complex that universal truths are very very rare. But to us programmers, a
307.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
>Is there any reason why most TVs still don't support USB C display port and just support HDMI? Personally I’m convinced it’s mostly because the display manufacturers want to discourage the use of TVs as monitors, in order to protec
308.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
>I'm somewhat annoyed that we're culturally ok with people who use online services and block ads, and yet we're not ok with people who ride on public transit and don't buy tickets, even though it's basically the
309.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
Being poor is really terrible in the US, being rich is really great. Everybody learns this from day 1 and get reminded of it almost daily. There are downsides to such a society but it creates a strong incentive to get rich, or at least to n
310.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
VW's former boss mentioned in an interview that it took VW 3 times as long to make a car than it does for Tesla. So I think that while there may be some dumping as well, the main explanation is efficiency. A company that builds a robot
311.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
I got my 8k 55" tv for under 1000 usd several years ago. Brand new, from a brick and mortar electronics store. So it is definitely possible to make 8k monitors for less than 1000 usd. A mere 55" with 8K resolution makes no sense a
312.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
>The majority of health effects from Chernobyl were from the evacuation, not the accident. Check the WHO reports. No, 6000 cases of thyroid cancer from Chernobyl were not caused by the evacuation, it was caused by the fallout. And the to
313.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
>> It was reported >You should read your sources. It confirms what I wrote and contradicts what you wrote. It most certainly does not. Maybe english is not your first language? Here is a story in spanish about how France gave EDF 2
314.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
>> 50 billion of debt will be paid by the taxpayers sooner or later. >No it won't. Which part of "profitable" and "investment" do you not understand? A company that drowns in debt and needs government bailo
315.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
> Yes they did [EDF "bankruptcy"] >This is not true. Yes it is. It was reported in just about every language on earth, look at any newspaper you wish. Here's one. https://www.neimagazine.com/news/fr
316.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
>> Yes, and [EDF] did [go bankrupt], a few years ago. >No they did not. Yes they did. That the government bailed them out instead of actually letting the bankruptcy take place makes no difference. However you slice it, the bottom l
317.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
> What are those "entirely disproportionate downsides", in your opinion? If you subtract the effects of radiophobia? A handful of people operating Chernobyl have caused costs that passed 600 billion euros already in 2016, and w
318.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
>This is completely false. Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used. Not if you consider the full costs. Every official source you find only shows the costs that the operators have to pay, but the operators never pa
319.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
I have the same feeling but opposite. Nuclear energy has never been profitable anywhere in the world to date, has entirely disproportionate downsides that have manifested repeatedly despite the most rigorous safety procedures found anywhere
320.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
Exploring is a major human need, as history has shown repeatedly.
321.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
Pebble bed reactors are not safe, they fail for different reasons than other reactor designs but they can still fail. They don't need fanatical attention to active cooling, but they do instead need fanatical control of the atmosphere n
322.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
Chernobyl and Fukushima both demonstrate that humans fail over time, and that when they do, nuclear is certainly not clean. Claiming it is safe and clean when it requires demonstrably superhuman effort to keep it both safe and clean is a we
323.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
> Nuclear fission is safe, clean, secure, and reliable. Which energy source has stricter safety and security regulations than nuclear? Surely the strictest security regulations are applied to the least safe and secure operations? Which o
324.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
The case against Google surely is that they shouldn't be allowed to use their dominant position in ad sales to price dump unrelated businesses until all competitors are gone. Like for example having youtube be free until they're t
325.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
The thing that makes markets work is the struggle. A Darwinian survival of the fittest in a way. Once the struggle is over and only one contestant remains, the results are generally dystopian. Also I believe that even when working optimally
326.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
I have spread no disinformation. Seems to me you fail to come up with arguments against what I actually said so instead you create a strawman. Nuclear costs are way higher than anyone has ever accounted for and they are kicked to future gen
327.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
>I think you are under the impression that if a company files for bankruptcy they can discharge debts they owe to the government. No impressions here, surely you realize that if a company has no money, they won't get money just beca
328.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
Four decades of studies by experienced engineers and a very decent budget to figure out how to store US nuclear waste has resulted in 0 solutions so far. I think we can safely assume that dumping it at sea is not an option.
329.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
Any one power plant has no measurable effect on global climate. (All fossil power plants combined worldwide have about the same emissions as all cars; about 1/6). So, if your fathers started coal plants, you close them, stop paying for
330.
by Kon5ole 2y ago
>At least in the US such costs are factored in According to [3] the industry is liable for 16b per reactor but the industry doesn’t have that much money to pay out. Entergy for example operates its nuclear plants in a subsidiary that gen

More ›