crote

22 ms·

421.
by crote 4mo ago
IPv6 doesn't solve the Airdrop problem. It'll only work at reasonably-fast speeds in the rare case that both people are connected to the same wifi network - but there's already tools like LocalSend[0] for that. Having a file
422.
by crote 4mo ago
You have to decouple the physical infrastructure from the service provider - how else are you supposed to have competition in a market with a natural monopoly? It's just about the only thing the EU did right during the mandated priva
423.
by crote 4mo ago
> 99+% of people will just do the ID verification and move on Why? Is Claude really so much better that the additional hassle and privacy invasion is worth it? What's stopping people from switching to one of the dozen or so other
424.
by crote 4mo ago
Sure, just like 1000 monkeys with typewriters will write 1000 technically unique books - but they are all still filled with the same garbage.
425.
by crote 4mo ago
Norway has an abundance of hydro power. They've had an almost-entirely renewable grid even before the energy transition begin. Combine that with their small population and large oil reserves, and they have always exported far more th
426.
by crote 4mo ago
There are way more cars than planes.
427.
by crote 4mo ago
> buy electricity at a random charging station Well there's your problem. Try doing the same calculation with the average residential electricity cost. Most car use is for commutes after all, so most people can just charge their E
428.
by crote 4mo ago
> If the human wants to go first, they have to step into the street and walk around the robot. The robot and its operator are never courteous enough to back up. Tip them over to make a path. The sidewalk is for humans, the robot is a gu
429.
by crote 4mo ago
Is there actual cycling infrastructure, or is it just a painted line on car infrastructure done in a way that only a suicidal person would use it? My country has great cycling infrastructure. I never see bikes on the sidewalk. There is
430.
by crote 4mo ago
But as they already said: unjustifiable hubris to assume it can't happen to you . Humans make mistakes all. the. time., and you're a human. It is pretty much guaranteed that you are making the exact same kind of mistakes in you
431.
by crote 4mo ago
Bad weather can develop around you, and when flying you can't just pull over and wait for it to pass. A cliff doesn't suddenly develop in front of your minivan. A relatively minor error can quickly develop into a situation well be
432.
by crote 4mo ago
The big difference is that aviation doesn't have a pause button. If weather gets bad on the road you can just pull over at basically any time. But if you're flying you have to keep flying until you are able to land.
433.
by crote 4mo ago
That's the obvious answer, yes. But if they are doing it, why should anyone assume the competition isn't doing it? If it is possible to cheat on the benchmarks used to judge AI performance, how can the general population be ce
434.
by crote 4mo ago
A lot of women wear headphones / earpods without playing anything on them. It is a great way to stop men from trying to flirt to you, as you've got a convenient excuse to just completely ignore them! And the lack of music is for
435.
by crote 4mo ago
The "Dutch bank account" part is almost certainly illegal, by the way. Due to EU regulations they are required to accept any European bank account. It's called "IBAN discrimination", and the national central bank
436.
by crote 4mo ago
Citation needed. Public transport in larger cities is generally profitable as the seats are well-filled. Commercial companies pay the government for the privilege of being allowed to operate the services. Public transport is indeed not ve
437.
by crote 4mo ago
> Imagine a Thorium reactor that can be put into the bowels of a Hospital or an office building basement and supply electrical power. Imagine the terrorism we'll see when highly radioactive material is within reach of any disgruntle
438.
by crote 4mo ago
Gas peaker plants are designed to be turned on and off regularly. They can go from cold shutdown to full load in less than an hour, with some able to do it in less than 10 minutes[0]. A decent bunch of that is going to be sheer inertia as
439.
by crote 4mo ago
Right, so a regular satellite. That's indeed as relevant to the multi-100kW-scale "space datacenter" idiots like Musk are proposing as naval SMRs are to commercial power plants.
440.
by crote 4mo ago
So in other words: a non-naval SMR which doesn't use HEU is going to be substantially larger - which would make it substantially more expensive, and therefore not representative of civilian SMRs?
441.
by crote 4mo ago
Nuclear base load is a lie. The aforementioned subsidies aren't just for the electricity it produces, it is also for the electricity it could produce. The nuclear plant has a right to sell electricity to the grid at a certain price.
442.
by crote 4mo ago
> We also know SMRs work very well, considering the majority of the US Navy is powered entirely with SMRs And what's their cost per MWh? Considering they are fueled by highly-enriched uranium: are you okay with most of the world bei
443.
by crote 4mo ago
Mass-produced reactors don't need operators or guards?
444.
by crote 4mo ago
But they'll never be small enough to be truly portable. It'll be closer to another Akademik Lomonosov [0] than a truck-sized diesel generator, which severely limits its deployment options. The additional per-site engineering req
445.
by crote 4mo ago
Sure, but it makes cooling extremely difficult. And due to the confined environment any kind of incident response is needlessly difficult.
446.
by crote 4mo ago
The program led to the Three Mile Island accident, which is one of the largest releases of radioactivity in US history. Naval reactors are inherently safer due to their small size and unlimited supply of cooling water. A meltdown is virtual
447.
by crote 4mo ago
Right, because the general public has direct daily experience with... whaling?
448.
by crote 4mo ago
You can only spend a dollar once, so any money going into nuclear won't go into solar, wind, or hydro - which have far better payoff when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions.
449.
by crote 4mo ago
So how do you propose the energy is supplied in the 20 years it would take for the first nuclear reactors to become offline? Let me guess: gas turbines? So we either fully rely on gas turbines for the base load for the next 20 years, orrrr
450.
by crote 4mo ago
No? That's exactly the point. Today's politicians can't even be trusted to maintain critical infrastructure, leading to things like the Ponte Morandi collapse, or the Fern Hollow Bridge collapse, or the Carola Bridge collap

More ›