drran

39 ms·

361.
by drran 5y ago
Smart grid can solve this problem, when appliances will report of their needs and abilities to the grid, and then the grid will schedule power delivery to meet the demand.
362.
by drran 5y ago
No lanes, no rules, no turn signals, pedestrians are walking everywhere, every transport had it own speed and size, etc. And lots of goo on the road.
363.
by drran 5y ago
Coincidentally, one of the safest sources of energy also produced the most dangerous and long-lasting problems, for which the only solution so far is to run away and leave the land empty. Luckily, we still have plenty of land to move in. Fo
364.
by drran 5y ago
Why «irrational»? It just to add color to your message, or you truly believe that radiation contamination is harmless?
365.
by drran 5y ago
Skip the conversation over phone/skype, and it will work even better. Worked fine for me for 20 years (since 1998), until Covid, when Zoom become the new norm.
366.
by drran 5y ago
It's typical experience for a competition.
367.
by drran 5y ago
It's written in C: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/tree/examples/load...
368.
by drran 5y ago
Will it work on WSL? It can be a good way to run Android on Windows.
369.
by drran 5y ago
My parents are living in Northern Ukraine (Rivne region), so I have first-hand experience with all that stuff. Moreover, I'm lieutenant. My country is on war with RF. Both countries are nuclear, so it's high risk of using nuclear
370.
by drran 5y ago
Nuclear stations are efficient until they leak or blow up. We cannot build a nuclear station in a desert, because it needs a river or a lake with fresh water for cooling. Nuclear station is the huge steam machine. It cannot work without wat
371.
by drran 5y ago
You clearly have no idea what we are talking about, but I will not write about the issue with nuclear waste on a public forum. I don't want to inspire somebody.
372.
by drran 5y ago
Nuclear make inhabitant 400x more land than gas.
373.
by drran 5y ago
> There's nothing interesting (e.g. terrorism, bombs) you can do with nuclear waste, and it's not especially poisonous. LOL. Nuclear materials, including waste, are extremely dangerous in evil hands. It regularly kills people b
374.
by drran 5y ago
Yep, it's the classical runaway tram problem: people will die anyway, but we should kill as fewer people as possible. So, let look at nuclear risks: * potential damage area is extremely high. If a state sponsored actor will take contro
375.
by drran 5y ago
OK, good starting number. Few thoughts: When we phase out coal, say in 20 years, the next acceptable number will be much lower. We need about 20 years to build nuclear stations, so we should orient at this new number, isn't? When a nex
376.
by drran 5y ago
Nuclear does produce radioactive waste. It's why Chornobyl, Fukushima, Kyshtym, and few other places are inhabitable. We should clean these dirty places before we call nuclear energy «clean».
377.
by drran 5y ago
So, replace fossil fuels with renewables + batteries, such as salt water battery. Moreover, batteries will improve usable performance of nuclear power stations a lot: from 1/3 of peak demand (known as base-load) up to 3/4 of peak
378.
by drran 5y ago
> They are only if you include subsidies and neglect to account for storage. Hey, nuclear energy is heavily subsidized by government, and it badly needs batteries for storage too. For example, insurance for nuclear stations is provided b
379.
by drran 5y ago
Very few people are bitten by sharks in comparison to car incidents, so it's safer to ride a shark than to ride a car. Right? Risks and long term effects of nuclear is few order of magnitude larger than solar.
380.
by drran 5y ago
> Nuclear is clearly green. We should repaint radiation warnings in green, to indicate that. > Gas is more interesting. At 500g/kwh it's on higher side normally. So there must be more to this. Nord Stream 2.
381.
by drran 5y ago
Yeah, nuclear is very green. Just look at Chornobyl: it's very green with lots of wild life. But gas?
382.
by drran 5y ago
It's a good argument to replace coal energy with clean energy, but why we should replace dirty coal with dirty nuclear?
383.
by drran 5y ago
* Strict rules and prohibitions reduced the number of deaths from radiation poisoning to a very low number. * Yeah, the number of deaths from radiation poisoning is very low, so we can be reckless.
384.
by drran 5y ago
How much we can «safely» kill by nuclear power? Can you give us a number?
385.
by drran 5y ago
Black hole? Throw mass into a black hole, to generate energy, and increase mass of the black hole, to generate even more energy.
386.
by drran 5y ago
Earth rotation and Moon orbiting can do a massive amount of work (see tide waves), but energy density is very low.
387.
by drran 5y ago
You forgot about power, size, and cost. I can create a device, which will harvest 1W of power from starlight infinitely. Good luck with your ambitions.
388.
by drran 5y ago
2^63 is just 292 billion years. Beware.
389.
by drran 5y ago
> A goal-aware package manager would look like this: A typical package manager is already goal-aware, like `make`. It's input DSL is far from English, but it's not hard to translate your English sentence into «apache postgress
390.
by drran 5y ago
Level of abstraction ≠ Generation of languages. The first 3 generation of languages were powered by higher levels of abstraction, which were possible because of better machines. However, further increase in level of abstraction did not make

More ›