But is that the apocalypse? I hate the fact that we're destabilizing the environment, but humans (and wildlife) are pretty good at adaptation. Our ancestors have obviously survived massive extinction events in the past.
Survivorship bias. We look at our history and always survive the crisis. Because the ones that don't aren't around to see the failure.
Most species have gone extinct.
Personally, I do not believe climate change can kill us off. The worst case predictions are pretty dire (and beware the worst case makes the IPCC look tame--there is not enough data on methane hydrates for it to be in the IPCC model, but the worst case estimates are worse than the IPCC estimates and they will probably stack.) But I consider extinction likely because we can move around. An animal that loses 90% of it's habitat loses 90% of it's population but the survivors are pretty much the same as before. But are those humans who will be killed off just going to sit there?
Humans: by far the most populous large animals on the planet, thriving in by far the most diverse set of environments in and around the planet, are clearly good at adaptation. The fact that Eskimos and Bedouin and uncontacted amazonian tribes are all the same species is rather remarkable.
If anything, we have a much better shot at surviving the next mass extinction than we had at surviving prior ones, now that we have so many advantages.
I probably won't survive it because I'm a smooth brained weakling, but some humans surely will
I'm not arguing that humans are not adaptable, I'm just pointing out a fallacy in your original argument. Whether humans are adaptable or not is another matter.
In the back of my head floats $200 - $300 for the 64 GiB GDDR7 that you get for spending 7k-10k on an ADA 6000 96 GiB instead of 2k for a 5090 32 GiB. Am I off?
Is LPDDR5X more expensive?
Is their somewhere a (honest!) exploration/essay on why there are so few nuclear power plants being build?
Like South Korea is building some, and China (but they invest way more in renewables).
All other countries are either building 0, building less then retire, or on the process of building very little but taking ages.
If nuclear fission is "cheap, abundant and carbon-free", why has nobody put their money where their mouth is?
Extremely expensive because it is extremely expensive. The few projects in the west which get off the ground generally have:
1. Credit guarantees
2. Guaranteed extremely high electricity prices for ~40 years.
3. Direct subsides like zero interest loans
4. Subsidized accident insurance (the state takes all risk)
For example, in the UK they realized after Hinklkey Point C locking in extremely expensive electricity for 35 years that it telling the public how expensive it is was not a good political choice.
Therefore Sizewell C they instead foist the costs as a cost-plus contract on the ratepayers as the plant get built.
It takes a lot of engineering skills and you basically need to buy a pre-existing design because it's not something you can reverse engineer easily. Figuring things out yourself is basically too expensive for any countries that is already part of the rich few that can.
Then you have to deal with the geopolitics around nuclear material, since you could very much use it for military purpose (Iran problems, for example).
To finish, you basically need to build a specialized industry around it and it has to be very local. You would probably need to hire outside expertise for the first build to even be sure that all requirements/quality levels are met.
It's not something that you decide to buy overnight and just do. Since it benefits greatly for economies of scale (makes no sense to just build 1) you basically need to have full industrial planning for a very very long term. At the very least 15 years, but since you also need to deal with the waste and maintenance, you are basically committed for at least 50 years.
Which is exactly why once you know and can do it at the country level, it makes no sense to let go and do something else. You will have to deal with the maintenance of current reactors anyway and still have to deal with waste with no chance for potential repurpose.
But our current world is extremely dominated by neo-liberalism and that means short-term thinking and profit maximisation. This can be seen in the ever-changing political climate (at least in France).
I actually think this is the real major reason so many are infatuated with renewables: it can make money and they can profit from it. The funny thing is that this money-making is only possible thanks to the reliability of nuclear and coal/gas plants in Germany for example. From the most part this is predatory behavior, where they get to make the profits while not paying the full costs that would be necessary to be a truly equivalent solution (reliable electricity at any time/season).
If those were real problems then nuclear power would get built. Capitalism finds a way if there is profit to be made. Less scrupulous countries would pounce on the opportunity to have cheaper energy. That evidently has not happened and even China is reducing their nuclear share of the electricity mix, going all in on renewables and storage instead.
The real reason is cost. Nuclear power plants produce extremely expensive electricity until they are paid off ~40 years later. For paid off nuclear plants the cost is acceptable as long as they can get paid for nearly all hours of the day, if capacity factors craters then paid-off plants become too expensive.
And this can be a purely economical factor. Sure a plant may have a 90% capacity factor but if the market clears at €0 50% of the time they still need to recoup all the costs on the remaining 50%, pushing up the costs to what would be a the equivalent to a 42.5% capacity factor when running steady state.
Who wants to lock in energy crisis prices until ~2080 factoring in construction time? The nukebro squad seems to think that is reasonable.
> From the most part this is predatory behavior, where they get to make the profits while not paying the full costs that would be necessary to be a truly equivalent solution (reliable electricity at any time/season).
Take a look at France. They generally export quite large amounts of electricity. But whenever a cold spell hits that export flow is reversed to imports and they have to start up local fossil gas and coal based production.
What they have done is that they have outsourced the management of their grid to their neighbors and rely on 35 GW of fossil based electricity production both inside France and their neighbors grids. Because their nuclear power produces too much when no one wants the electricity and too little when it is actually needed.
Their neighbors are able to both absorb the cold spell which very likely hits them as well, their own grid as the French exports stops and they start exporting to France.
But this is the issue you guys never tackle. It is all about "baseload" without the slightest understanding about how the demand curve looks.
Since all comments seem to agree that noise cancelling wont work, 3 practical tips:
1. use the Bernoulli-Effect, aka get "up to 50+%"(depends on fan model) more airflow by placing the fan 0.2(0.5) - 1.5m away from the window.
2. Blow air out of the window, dont try to suck air in.
3. To avoid noise: Put the fan in another room and open the window in the room where you are.
[+114% Attention acceleration]
Any idea how they got +50% FP4 from the same silicon? "Firmware" improvements?
Or did they found a way to disable the INT8 and FP64 units and re-use them e.g. as overspill registers?
Any other ideas why INT8/FP64 is down -97% on the same chip? QA/certification issues?
I could not get over the fact that 0,0 in d3 is the top left corner instead of the bottom left.
Why??
Everything in real life uses bottom left for 0,0! Probably because the first EGA/VGA accelerators worked this way to save one instruction in the most common use case and things never change....
It predates EGA. Most/all 8bit BASIC systems were top left, and they got it from somewhere earlier. Spreadsheets are top left, as are lots of other apps graphical or otherwise. The web (CSS, SVG etc). OpenGL etc etc.
CRTs scanned downwards, most people read downwards.
I would say that nearly everything in the real world (outside math) especially computer related uses top left as an origin.
> I would say that nearly everything in the real world (outside math) especially computer related uses top left as an origin.
I concede that point, its not want to meant, but I did express my point poorly.
My point is:
- A lot of things work like books[1]: top-left to bottom-right
- However, 99+ % of graphs (anything from revenue numbers to health data) in all mediums (books, newspapers, websites) use a bottom-left origin. Never seen a revenue bar growing from top to bottom. In fact, I dont remember the last time i have seen a graph not using the I. Quadrant. Do you?
- D3.js (imo) is a lib to create graphs from data, but does not abstract this problem away? Why?
I know that it is a SVG thing[1], but wouldnt that be a point of sth. like d3 - to be a software that gives me the option to choose my coordinate system origin with one line of code and deals with all the bullshit internally?
[1] and before that, a "every screen is a CRT TV with a photon gun that 'draws' lines, starting in the top left"-thing
