myrmidon

40 ms·

781.
by myrmidon 2y ago
No, I'm not purposefully giving this the worst framing. My main point is that setting it higher than gift tax rates is effectively pointless, and basically just punishes people for dying unexpectedly (and/or not planning ahead for
782.
by myrmidon 2y ago
Are you actually advocating for an inheritance tax close to 100%? Because that is completely unworkable IMO, for several reasons: 1) Unless you introduce comparable "wealth transfer"/gift taxes, it becomes completely meanin
783.
by myrmidon 2y ago
You can order 1kW of panels with 1kWh of batteries as a plug-and-play system off of Amazon for about $1k. Thats gonna generate >1MWh of electricity per year easily (probably closer to 2MW even), and with spot pricing for electricity at ~
784.
by myrmidon 2y ago
I think preserving nuclear industry is a decent justification on its own. Especially the whole steam turbine/generator tech is a huge synergy for them (because all their coal plants need basically the same), and gutting suppliers by sc
785.
by myrmidon 2y ago
> things like docker have been around doing just that for a while now. Thats just not enough. If you are hunting down tricky bugs, then even extremely minor things like memory layout of your application might alter the behavior completel
786.
by myrmidon 2y ago
Lets turn this around. Why would you ever want non-reproducible builds? Every bit of nondeterminism in your binaries, even if it's just memory layout alone, might alter the behavior, i.e. break things on some builds, which is just
787.
by myrmidon 2y ago
Absolutely. This applies to "negative" inventions, too: Eugenics was a pretty favorably and openly discussed concept in the early 1900s (e.g. Winston Churchill was a pretty vocal proponent), but Hitler basically gets all the credi
788.
by myrmidon 2y ago
The article basically builds up a straw man definition, which makes the whole thing rather worthless. Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism ) gives a much better overview of what the movement is and its
789.
by myrmidon 2y ago
You are barely touching on my point, which is that availability of cheap intermittent sources is really bad for nuclear power economics. Yes going "full solar" or "full wind" is expensive, but thats a strawman; the &quot
790.
by myrmidon 2y ago
For ball-to-ball collisions, 6 is already a highly conservative estimate-- this is basically a chaotic system (outcome after a few iterations, while deterministic, is extremely sensitive to exact starting conditions). The error scales u
791.
by myrmidon 2y ago
I know the guidelines. But downvoting without comment would not have helped get my point across in any way. I also hope of making other people scrutinise their own voting behavior, and be more mindful/conscious in those interactions an
792.
by myrmidon 2y ago
> Europe's problem in this area seems to be inability to build a mechanism to realize large, unprofitable projects. I don't disagree with this take completely, especially in regards to IT infrastructure, but I don't think
793.
by myrmidon 2y ago
Please lets just call things what they are. This is not "anti-technology"-- it is just a potshot at Elon Musk. You could also accuse it of mixing up issues of infrastructure independence, wealth inequality and increasing plutocrat
794.
by myrmidon 2y ago
> Vogtle actual costs are already competitive with actual renewables costs No. At $160/MWh? Maybe competitive with renewable costs 15 years ago. Most certainly not with renewable cost now (and those still trend down). > build t
795.
by myrmidon 2y ago
There is no base load to provide for a nuclear plant if the marginal cost of electricity is close to zero whenever wind/sun is on. Building nuclear plants to then operate them in load following mode is just stupid. If the things can&#x
796.
by myrmidon 2y ago
My personal theory is that a lot of nuclear advocates are pro-nuclear first (possibly to be contrarian, or because they think the tech is cool), then look for favorable facts/data second. Meaning the advocacy is not driven by best-ef
797.
by myrmidon 2y ago
If your hypothesis was true (cost overruns and delays are caused by lack of recent build experience in every western nation, and would immediately vanish if we started building more reactors) then we would expect to see the same clear trend
798.
by myrmidon 2y ago
Multiple things. First, I believe that focussing on health outcomes misses the mark a bit in this case; I see the main problem in the actions that were taken to intentionally and maliciously circumvent the regulations much more so than the
799.
by myrmidon 2y ago
Vogtle 3/4 (USA): 10 years. Shin-Hanul (Korea): 12 years. Olkiluoto (Finland): 18 years. Flamanville (France): 17 years. I did not even need to cherry pick those. Your estimates are wildly unrealistic. Also note: Those times are from b
800.
by myrmidon 2y ago
Your conclusion makes absolutely zero sense. You are against gas peaker plants (for renewables) because they are expensive/produce CO2, but as a solution you suggest building nuclear reactors (which are much more expensive) and then AL
801.
by myrmidon 2y ago
Do you think that the NOx-affair consequences for VW were too little? What would have been appropriate in your opinion? Every government can be expected to help local industry where reasonable, because that is in many ways what the constitu
802.
by myrmidon 2y ago
> The deeper problem is China has a lot of dedicated engineers developing stuff and dominating in batteries and the like that are largely churned out by automated machinery. Deeper problem for what? I don't think that automation cha
803.
by myrmidon 2y ago
This misses the point. Hydroelectric dams have a big negative cost component in human lives, because they protect a significant amount of them every single time there are flooding conditions (e.g. heavy rain) and the dam doesn't fail
804.
by myrmidon 2y ago
> Are you suggesting that more people would have died had we replaced all coals plants with nuclear decades ago? Absolutely not, and I'm not sure what I said that made you assume that. On that topic: I do believe that the economics
805.
by myrmidon 2y ago
Blaming Chinese manufacturing dominance on government subsidies or lack of environmental regulations or human rights violations or somesuch is simply delusional. It is missing the forest for the trees. The core fact is that chinese manufact
806.
by myrmidon 2y ago
Thats also a good point. For the big Milk-V systems I mentioned they use external DRAM-- but cache might still be a die-space issue (I'd assume that it's always shared completely between ARM/RISC-V cores, and would need to be
807.
by myrmidon 2y ago
You are absolutely correct that just low wages by themselves are not enough to attract manufacturing on a global scale. There are a lot of prerequisites (power/transport infrastructure, capable workers, political stability, organizatio
808.
by myrmidon 2y ago
I find this whole concept remarkable, and somewhat puzzling. Have seen the same (ARM + RISC-V cores) even at larger scales before (Milk-V Duo @1GHz-ish). But how is this economical? Is die space that cheap? Could you not market the same thi
809.
by myrmidon 2y ago
> Because of low human rights advantage, their products are much cheaper. Honestly, this is strongly misleading. Chinese goods are not primarily cheap because they are subsidised by communists, or because of lax environmental regulations
810.
by myrmidon 2y ago
You can probably work around this completely by just cranking up the sample frequency and lowpass filtering the value before you use it (if the error is just noise and not bias). Four times as many samples => half the noise (given some r

More ›