cygx

64 ms·

691.
by cygx 7y ago
At the very least on HN, people are quick to point out the radioactive material released by coal plants - I do not remember a single relevant discussion where it wasn't. Personally, I'm on board with getting rid of nuclear and fos
692.
by cygx 7y ago
Then of course we have to answer the question of how can we get ships into orbit when they are full of shielding, but that's not insurmountable. If regular travel becomes a reality, you wouldn't shield the launch vehicle, but th
693.
by cygx 7y ago
> Renewable energy sources needs to be supported by power plants that can produce constantly. Varying power sources need to be combined with adjustable power sources. So do constant sources, unless you want to force consumption to corres
694.
by cygx 7y ago
> Now Germany is polluting more than ever. That's incorrect. While Germany failed to make its reduction goals, it still reduced emissions while simultaneously increasing production.
695.
by cygx 7y ago
Intermittent power sources can be combined with storage and peaker plants to cover base load. Gas plants make nice peakers, and while not ideal, they are certainly superior to coal (less pollution, 40% less CO2) and allow the eventual trans
696.
by cygx 7y ago
Once you combine them with storage and peakers, intermittent renewable sources do compete with other base load providers. It's still a work in progress, though.
697.
by cygx 7y ago
Germany has actually slightly increased its gas usage - though compared to other energy sources, its currently more of a rounding error in magnitude: 2002 2018 Total 503 545 Coal+Oil
698.
by cygx 7y ago
No idea why you keep hearing that: Failure to meet your reduction goals does not equate an increase in pollution. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/38...
699.
by cygx 7y ago
On the flip side, it complicates workflows with non-xcf master copies.
700.
by cygx 7y ago
Yes, 'some'. Specifically, 4.44TWh.
701.
by cygx 7y ago
Germany did scale up its natural gas usage - from 40TWh in 2002 to 44 TWh in 2018. That's a rounding error. In 2016, gas consumption in Germany was about industrial (38%) and domestic homes usage (31%), not electricity production (15%)
702.
by cygx 7y ago
Doesn't matter for the argument under discussion. If you look at the numbers, you'll see that Germany did reduce coal energy by 48TWh, which was essentially offset by increased biomass capabilities and some natural gas. So focussi
703.
by cygx 7y ago
In 2018, Germany imported 10TWh of electricity from France, while it produced 545TWh. That's not even 2% - how are you supposed to cover baseload with that?
704.
by cygx 7y ago
Given these numbers, how was it possible for Germany to cut nuclear energy production from 156TWh in 2002 to 72TWh in 2018? ( source: https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&p... )
705.
by cygx 7y ago
Adding in female mice (who go through estrus cycles) is probably going to mess up your results and make them even harder to interpret. The article and its linked sources address this point, citing two meta-analyses regarding mice and rats
706.
by cygx 7y ago
And people are free to work on that. If Musk wants to take a shot at colonizing other planets, more power to him. We're blowing trillions of dollars on pointless wars or 'frivolous' entertainment, so even if you don't ag
707.
by cygx 7y ago
My mistake, then. Point is, you didn't need to start off in print design to end up with certain attitudes under discussion. Customers demanded it, and you can only do so much trying to convince them otherwise. For another, wishing for
708.
by cygx 7y ago
I don't see this connection of XHTML and semweb XHTML continued the spirit of HTML 4 strict, getting rid of presentational elements and replacing them with 'sematic' ones. Eventually, you were also supposed to combine it wi
709.
by cygx 7y ago
However IE didn't support it until IE8. Which got released in 2009, but took another year to overtake IE6+7 in market share. This means `display:table` was of limited usefulness for nearly a decade after its introduction...
710.
by cygx 7y ago
What good is a standard you can't use in practice? There also were other issues: XHTML was chasing the dream of the semantic, well-formed, machine-readable web, but it didn't do enough to help with pragmatic problems web designers
711.
by cygx 7y ago
The error handling has already been mentioned. There also was that issue of what mime-type to send in your HTTP headers to get the page displayed correctly in various clients. While you could develop in XHTML, you needed to serve it as tech
712.
by cygx 7y ago
You don't come from print design by any chance? You've not been doing that whole web design thing for very long, by any chance? Those of us who have been around for a while do remember the inadequate layouting capabilities of CS
713.
by cygx 7y ago
Personally, I was fine with ditching tables, but stuff like differing box models, unequal CSS support, quirks modes, etc did make for a rather painful cross-browser development experience: Making things work out correctly (or at least grace
714.
by cygx 7y ago
yes, formaldehyde is a carcinogen.... if you swallow it The main concern with formaldehyde tends to be inhalation.
715.
by cygx 7y ago
Case in point? We’re still alive. That's a rather crude metric...
716.
by cygx 7y ago
Rapid prototyping and hot-patching running systems come to mind. Note that traditionally, Smalltalk environments are modified at run-time and dumped to images for deployment.
717.
by cygx 7y ago
Personally, I find the prefixes helpful when memorizing approximate values, eg for back-of-the-envelope estimates (proton mass is 1GeV, electron mass is .5MeV, room temperature is 25meV, h_bar c is 197 MeV fm, ...)
718.
by cygx 7y ago
And that doesn't answer my questions. It wasn't supposed to do so, but raise awareness that your questions are already highly relevant in the present and not just a hypothetical future: The UK consumes something on the order of
719.
by cygx 7y ago
Note that this is not a hypothetical situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_fuel
720.
by cygx 7y ago
Oh, it's gone now? I (temporarily) removed it because I claimed the referenced article only talked about cancer death rates instead of cancer rates . That was a mistake on my part.

More ›