Panzer04

50 ms·

721.
by Panzer04 4y ago
Time to teach her about references and pointers :D
722.
by Panzer04 4y ago
Sure, but your standard of living will be lower. The energy needs he's talking about include all usage, including that which you get from burning wood on your land. There's nowhere near enough natural wood worldwide to meet our en
723.
by Panzer04 4y ago
It would certainly be on the low end I would expect, and only getting cheaper. It's unfortunate that Rwanda is so poor that even that is far too much :(
724.
by Panzer04 4y ago
Why is a carbon tax wrong? It seems very similar in principle to your proposal?
725.
by Panzer04 4y ago
You’re missing the point. Location based pay is not the norm, the norm is paying you as much as it would cost to find an equivalent replacement. That just happens to be location-dependant. It’s got nothing to do with discrimination, it’s pu
726.
by Panzer04 4y ago
You can - it's called buying a smaller house? The problem is land has gotten expensive, not so much construction. Also, regulations and the like generally raise the bar for what is considered an acceptable house, which also contributes
727.
by Panzer04 4y ago
Edit: My first paragraph conveys more frustration than perhaps I wanted, but it's what I think every time I hear this argument. I don't think "basic need" is a good argument, as many other things are basic needs but func
728.
by Panzer04 4y ago
It should be simple enough to have a baseline allocation, along with an increased price after that's used up. It's also worth noting that water probably doesn't need to be very expensive before usage starts getting curbed qui
729.
by Panzer04 4y ago
Bit late, but strongly recommend you learn how git rebase works - 90% of my git understanding came in once I started using it.
730.
by Panzer04 4y ago
It's not an offset if it would have been that way anyway - In other words, you owning/living in a rural area does nothing extra to offset carbon emissions, because that rural area would have offset it regardless. The infrastructur
731.
by Panzer04 4y ago
There being valid reasons to solder RAM doesn't preclude being annoyed at Apple for charging 3x the market rate to upgrade it with them, I suppose. It'd be a lot less controversial if that were the case IMO.
732.
by Panzer04 4y ago
The last few percentage points of performance take an insane amount of power. If you gave up 10% perf you'd probably halve power consumption. I don't think there's any reason X86 has to use more power than ARM - it's sim
733.
by Panzer04 4y ago
They have the same literal meaning, but "correct" is generally a pretty hard assertion of, well, correctness - If you say something, and someone else says "correct" in response, it can come across as demeaning, as if the
734.
by Panzer04 4y ago
I’d bet on ~95% round trip efficiency, if not more - lithium batteries are very efficient, as are modern power electronics.
735.
by Panzer04 4y ago
That's a good point as well - I suppose you could argue the likelihood of entering a conversation like that over text vs in person. In my experience you're generally a bit less likely to end up off track in text as opposed to talk
736.
by Panzer04 4y ago
I feel like this is a really good point - Most people are likely pretty bad at measuring their productivity, and honestly my expectation is that (if present), the productivity impacts of long term WFH are likely to manifest in ways that are
737.
by Panzer04 4y ago
What's with the title? The article itself does not make this claim (even if it has some outlandish presentations of information) - it claims that dollars have 86% less purchasing power, not that we have 86% less purchasing power. The a
738.
by Panzer04 4y ago
I've lost quite a bit of respect for some of the HN community here - this should be obviously wrong, we obviously aren't buying 86% less today than we were in the past. The title's premise is so outlandish it deserves at leas
739.
by Panzer04 4y ago
I don't know why you're downvoted - You're correct, even some basic common sense should show that we aren't buying 86% less stuff today than in the 70s. And that conclusion is born through when you actually read the arti
740.
by Panzer04 4y ago
Well, significantly before - if you were warrantying 50% of your stuff you wouldn't be making much money..
741.
by Panzer04 4y ago
If you don’t have enough electricity, the exact wrong solution is to pretend everything is fine and keep consumer prices the same, as there will be zero reason for consumers to reduce consumption. If prices increase by 2x or 3x you can bet
742.
by Panzer04 4y ago
Much of a muchness - 1kw for 1 minute is 1 kilowatt-minute or 1/60th of a kilowatt-hour. It’s just a matter of perspective. The 60x60 multipliers are making it sound more complicated than it really is.
743.
by Panzer04 4y ago
What makes you think it's because you're unattractive? Even so, you can achieve a lot with 3 months of strength training at the gym. (hell, you'll see results in the first couple of weeks) Consider that the vast majority of p
744.
by Panzer04 4y ago
By causing a reallocation of resources everywhere else - Fossil fuels would only be used where there is no alternative. A carbon tax won't completely kill them off, but it will cause anyone who can to switch away.
745.
by Panzer04 4y ago
Electronics don’t fail reliably though. The vast majority of electronic failures are due to excessive mechanical stress that varies from user to user. The failures we can predict (like batteries) have gotten more attention, admittedly, but
746.
by Panzer04 4y ago
Presumably most government employees are acting in good faith - why wouldn’t they fulfil a reasonable FOIA request? This is likely the result of some actors not acting in good faith, and so have no choice but to stonewall lest their intrans
747.
by Panzer04 4y ago
TBH, the only real issue I have with this is dealers capturing all the markup - this is happening because paying those prices gets you a new car now , and not in 12mo when the supply shortage is relieved. I'm not exactly sure how thes
748.
by Panzer04 4y ago
Revenue is "real" - it's the value of what Intel is actually selling. Market cap is a guess - whether it's justified or not will be proven by actual revenue in the future. A 3x revenue difference is a nontrivial gap, esp
749.
by Panzer04 4y ago
What a way to subsidize the middle and upper class :/
750.
by Panzer04 4y ago
Agreed - I think one could argue they enjoy reading it, but in a practical sense 99% of news is largely useless, especially from feeds, since there's no real reason to expect news from the feed to be relevant to you. Arguably the same

More ›