Kon5ole

32 ms·

451.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>If the old code has 104 weeks worth of features, and the maintenance team works on fixes and additions for 1 day per week ... you'll need 130 weeks to catch up. I don't agree with this as a general rule. All the communication,
452.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>the OP's take that the FE consistency doesn't matter. No no, FE consistency matters for sure! I really appreciate a good brand identity document, it's really nice to have. But using Arial everywhere would also be consiste
453.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>News flash: technical worker thinks more resources should be diverted from non-technical matters to technical matters. Good one, but that's not my point just to be clear! I think this kind of documentation tends to happen in organi
454.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
I suspect you're on to something ;-) It might also be that people who obsess about typography are more inclined to create pretty documents whenever they can. API authors and DB designers are maybe less interested in making pretty docum
455.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
Good points which I generally agree with, but I still think it's common to see a remarkable level of time and effort spent on typography compared to even other parts of the frontend. Not always, but surprisingly often. Many companies h
456.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
I am fascinated by typography and page design and enjoy reading about it, but I have to admit I don't understand how this level of pedantry is able to survive. The amount of documentation and attention to detail spent on typefaces and
457.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>It's hardly short term if it's been there for 26 years. It certainly is short-term storage. Short-term simply means that it is not intended for permanent final storage. All nuclear waste in the world is currently in short-term
458.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>They have been profitable for decades. How can you know if they were profitable or not before you know the final costs? >> Why doesn't that count as being part of the decommissioning costs? >Decomissioning a plant has two
459.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>France's general budget received tens of billions in dividends from EDF in recent years, would you say EDF saved as much for the taxpayer? Of course, my point is only that it's true to say that EDF sold the power too cheaply,
460.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>That by itself isn't an issue. Plenty of companies take on debt to invest, for instance. My company intends to take €40bn of new debt in the next decade or so, and our investors don't see it as an issue. But that isn't th
461.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
65 billions in debt and having to be saved by the state means you are not profitable. It doesn't matter where the costs come from in this case, they are not covered by the money EDF has accumulated from selling power, which was the poi
462.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>>> And the power having been sold and used at a price that did not fund those costs, they are well and truly screwed. >I don't know where you read that, but that's nowhere in actual reasonable sources. We know for a f
463.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>It's not about making Jeff Bezos pay individual taxes, You are commenting in a thread that started with a statement that the very existence of billionaires is a problem, and a followup claimed that billionaires exist because they d
464.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
That makes no sense to me - you don't become a billionaire just by avoiding taxes, you have to actually create at least a billion dollars worth of surplus value first. And the only way to create a billion dollars worth of surplus value
465.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
In the western democratic world billionaires are an inevitable side-effect of having a high standard of living for the general population. If you create a company that employs a million people and manages to remain profitable you'll be
466.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>It's because a smaller screen with the same (high) resolution means higher pixel density and smaller pixel size. It's something noticeably more expensive to manufacture. That's a fair point but I don't think it appli
467.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
I don't understand why these monitors are so expensive. I've been using a 55" 8k TV as my main monitor for years and paid less than USD 1000 for it new. Recently I saw a similar deal for a 8k tv again, so making panels at 8k
468.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>Being productive is really hard when any value produced immediately and only goes towards lining the pockets of the wealthy. Many people (young and old) don't realise that the value of increased productivity goes to themselves firs
469.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
Carmack is clearly talking about "work you care about" in his post. That's not necessarily the work you are paid to do by your employer, though it might be. Having the mindset that all your talents are equally available to &q
470.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
> That can't be right. The human FoV is huge, more than 180 degrees. To cover that range without visible pixels requires much more than "4k" type resolution. I'm not so sure. Human vision is only sharp in a coin-sized
471.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
Nuclear waste contains a lot more than plutonium (and also a lot more plutonium than was injected into Albert Stevens). The sad fact is that nobody has correctly estimated how big a problem nuclear waste is. We keep having to pay more for i
472.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
> We know exactly how to store nuclear waste Sure but we don't know how much it will cost. Yucca mountain has been debated for decades already, all those experts, contractors, scientists, politicians have already cost millions. The
473.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
> Got a source for these claims? Sure! If you are honestly interested in the truth, it's quite easy to find information about all things nuclear. The veneer of falsehoods causing people to believe that nuclear is cheap and safe when
474.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
>In the US at least, the cost for all decommissioning and fuel handling are built into the cost of electricity sold by law. That was the plan, but it has failed. The mechanism varies but the end result is the same - the operator doesn&#x
475.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
It's not a lie, I am obviously not talking about the cost of decommissioning but the costs that keep ticking after the decommissioning has been done. Rancho seco is an interesting example, it was closed in 1989 and is still costing mil
476.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
I base it on common sense and several known examples. The common sense part is that we know that we have to keep managing the waste after the plants no longer produce any energy, or money. Managing the waste costs money, and since we can&#x
477.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
>Western nuclear power plants always had containment buildings, so no, this isn't a factor. You can't build a building that contains a steam explosion from a runaway reactor. If you could, the reactor could be made indestructib
478.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
>Except if you add the cost of 12 hours of batteries to solar it's massively more expensive. Nobody knows what nuclear costs, because nobody knows what it will cost to handle the waste 10 years from now, let alone 100 or 1000 years
479.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
>Still, amortized over more than half a century they've ended up being the second-cheapest source of power in the province Even after 50 years you have accumulated only a small percentage of the total costs related to the plant. The
480.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
My guess is that they thought deeply about it and discovered that it’s a very bad idea.

More ›