Normally the light of the big bang is too dim (frequency too low) to be seen, but if you travel really fast the blue shift effect will make it visible, and since this light is uniformly distributed in the sky, it will appear as while light everywhere.
Struggling a lot with the response rate, once I could get one interview in three applications, now it's one in 50. I am hoping that it will pick up this January since everyone is making plans for the entire year. I was told by a manager in a large startup that they plan to complete hiring for the whole year by the end of February, and it might be the case for the entire industry.
For anyone wondering about the best times to apply, conventional wisdom is that January is the best time, since it's planning season for the whole year, and then around August, to get some quick help to reach the end-of-year goals. Of course this is anecdotal and applies in normal circumstances, which I don't think the industry is at.
A ton of people have the impression that "nobody hires in December" but it's the furthest thing from the truth.
Almost every job I've ever landed I interviewed in December. Just last month I interviewed a dozen people or so for roles in my company. My recruiter friends that I talked to all landed a bunch of offers last month.
Everyone is about to get swarmed with resumes right now but there's a pool out there with a three week headstart and less competition because of the reasoning I mentioned.
The problem with December is the 2 week scheduling break for holidays as everyone leaves the office. Even if your application is in, you probably aren't scheduling interviews for that whole back half.
Except we did and all of those employers I interviewed with in December did as well. Not everyone leaves the office.
Late December is a perfect time for interviewing because of code freezes and lack of progress on bigger projects. We had more time to interview than candidates in pipeline during that back half. Plus it's a time of year when generally people are relaxed and in a good mood.
In my experience, you _can_ get hired but it tends to be much slower. These were all also small companies so only 1 - 2 people were sorting through applications.
Ideally you want to apply all the time, and not wait for the best time. Still, I am hoping that applicants will get some encouragement and try a bit harder in the next few weeks.
WebRTC makes this possible, but server implementations are quite difficult to set up. I recommend you check out Pion (Golang) as a good implementation that's also easy to deploy and integrate with Node (presumably your game server is implemented in JS).
This was completely expected, at the macro level this is easily observed by measuring the outputs of metabolism and bodily function, mainly heat and physical activity. All humans have a baseline bodily temperature, meaning that the inner metabolism also is the same across all humans.
Sweating at different rates, surface blood vessel dilation including in your lungs, all change the flux. Having longer hair or wearing warmer clothing can too and can be balanced by those other things. Activity also gets balanced by those things. Eating cold food and drink vs warm etc.
That we maintain a baseline temperature doesn't tell you that metabolism alone is all that regulates it, there are other factors.
I too once thought "Why don't girls like me for who I am, why do I have to dress nice and make myself presentable, this is just a façade and I want them to love me for who I am inside", but then I grew up and understood that appearances matter and there's no point in fighting people's feelings. You might say "don't worry buddy, my startup is really good and effective, don't mind the messy styling and presentation" but why place that hurdle on your business when just a tiny bit of effort can make a big difference.
There's no need to be pixel perfect, but some eye for colors and proportions goes a long way, just like there's no need to perfectly groom every single hair, but a nice shave and deodorant go a long way.
For that I had the quote saved to a text file of comments, with the link.
If it were something like a web page which I found worthwhile it'd be saved as a MHTML, categorized and with notes in the filename for quick searching via Everything. I don't use bookmarks for anything except regularly accessed pages.
20 years ago there was an article[1] that argued anything worth sharing was worth saving, on the benefit of keeping a copy of content locally vs linking/bookmarking (which is prone to link rot). Ironically that site itself no longer exists.
> If you want your links to be worth anything in two, three, or five years, download all the pages you're linking to to your hard disk.
Location: Kosovo
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: no
Techologies: JavaScript of all kinds, React, Node.js, WebRTC, Web gaming, SQL(Postgres, MySQL), NoSQL (Mongo, Redis, DynamoDB), AWS.
Résumé/CV: https://suldashi.com/cv.pdf
Email: ermirsuldashi@gmail.com
I'm a senior full stack engineer with 8 years of experience, with a particular background in WebRTC. I focus on the JS stack but I'm willing to try out new things.
My latest project: https://jsforgames.com
Website: https://suldashi.com
I'm a senior full stack engineer with 8 years of experience, with a particular background in WebRTC. I focus on the JS stack but I'm willing to try out new things.
Location: Kosovo
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: No
Techonogies: WebRTC, JS, React, Node, AWS, lots of others I have tried or done minor projects on
Résumé/CV: https://suldashi.com/cv.pdf
Email: ermirsuldashi@gmail.com
What would really integrate with the developer workflow would be some kind of npm command that can check the package.json or the lock file and generate instant output on the console. You can then have whitelists, integration with CI/CD, and lots of other neat stuff.
Iron is not widely available in nature as a ready-to-use element, it must be processed into elemental iron, which takes a lot of energy as input. Therefore this can't be really considered as fuel, more like energy storage. You still need fossil fuels or nuclear power to turn iron ores into iron, then you have iron available for the process described in the article.
I'm not criticizing the process, but it's not accurate to call it "fuel" like it could be the solution to replacing fossil fuels.
"If these problems can be overcome, you could use renewable electricity to produce iron, store it as long as necessary, transport it there and then burn it for power when needed, says Bergthorson. “Places that have excess energy could make iron, and others can buy it. This way, you could commodify renewable energy so it can be globally distributed without the need for transmission lines. Metals can solve a big problem in the renewable energy transition: long-duration energy storage.”"
Sure you could use renewables to make iron. But that thought process also extends to other methods too. You could use renewables to make other non renewable fuels.
I think this is likely more of an energy storage project, rather than an energy production one (which seems to be the stance the article takes).
At grid-level, battery tech is challenging, requiring technologies like pumped storage that require particular environments (e.g. damming a river) and can't really be transported.
If this works out you could use excess solar during the day to deoxidize the rust produced, and then run the iron reactor overnight, or on cloudy, windless days.
Well, if you can burn it to produce energy + spent fuel
and then put back energy in the spent fuel to make new fuel again
then you have really a battery. That's how li-ion batteries work. The issue is the efficiency: how much of the energy you used to recharge the "battery" (iron) is going to be available when you discharge (burn) it
Non-rechargeable batteries are also consuming a fuel. The products just stay in the same enclosed container. Same with rechargable batteries, just that there the process is easily reversible.
It is a bit of a fuzzy distinction. Batteries are typically simple chemical reactions that cause electrons to move around. But viewed from the outside a hydrogen fuel cell behaves the same; so why not call this one a battery too (especially since the process is reversible).
A useful distinction seems to be that batteries are solid state and don't use high process heat, else something would be seriously wrong. Of course, the underlying reactions are probably very similar if you look at them with a chemist's eye.
Well, it ties into the storage issue that we see with renewable. We still need energy when there is no wind at night. Burning iron at night and regenerating during the day could be a solution.
It needs to prove that it can be competitive with the other methods (compressed air, li-ion batteries, flow batteries, molten salts, flywheels...).
> It needs to prove that it can be competitive with the other methods.
I think the one thing is that iron storage would be a potential long term form of storage, while all those other methods that you mentioned are really short term, designed primarily just to deal with the daily peaks and troughs of renewable production, but not as much the "it's been completely overcast for 3 weeks" problem. The only other form of storage I'm aware of that is also long term like that is pumped water storage, and that is obviously very geographically limited.
If using Fe why not iron batteries? Keep the redox, remove the energy from the system via eletrical current instead of low efficiency heat, boiler and steam engine combo.
Great point. Fe batteries are very new so I'm not aware of the cost/benefit or if Fe batteries still slowly discharge over time, but yeah in both cases you're just oxidizing iron, so why not take the more direct route to generate electrical current directly.
Here’s an out of the box thought. Can we wrap the globe in undersea cables or does transmission losses kill the idea? Reason being that time zones and hemispheres make the “renewable is not always on” problem go away. It’s always on somewhere, so if there was a global grid you don’t really need storage?
They mention that with hydrogen. It's cheaper to produce hydrogen but much harder to transport it. Fortunately, hydrogen can reduce iron oxide, which turns out to be a great complement. Their analysis is that the system cost of burning iron and renewing it at electrolysis plants is lower cost (and safer) than using hydrogen directly.
Because renewables are intermittent and unevenly located. This could potentially solve those problems.
There could be a space for it. Or maybe batteries will just always be better. Depends on the full costs of each and the use case. Burning fuel to make electricity is pretty inefficient, but burning fuel for heat compares better.
This is actually the same principle as BTC. High volume cheap electricity is used to process random numbers and the value is stored as BTC allowing it to be freely transferred once first mined.
The green economics of this need some serious consideration as i'd be really aware if you can reprocess it and get a second reaction for less energy than it cost you to turn the rust back into free iron metal.
There's a pretty big difference between BTC and a burnable fuel. It is not possible to turn BTC back into electricity directly, it is only possible to turn it into electricity by first turning it into money, which then buys more electricity (from any, renewable or non renewable) power source. You can't ship someone a container of memory sticks containing BTC and then they get power out of them without burning more fuel or building more solar panels/other renewables. The much better comparison would be hydrogen, which can be produced using readily available water and renewable electricity, shipped, then burned. The difference is that hydrogen doesn't really produce much in the way of by products when burned.
The maniacs who claimed that something had a price on a market and cost to create claim that this means value was created.
From an ecological perspective, nonsense. Economically, somewhat sound.
Misappropriated rare resources cause destroyed nature for the reason that capitalism said it was sound.
Every joule can only be spent once, but and as long as there is no moral coercion, there is a profit to be made from pillaging it from the supply.
Not sure I agree, on one hand you have actual, physical potential energy, on the other hand you have numbers on a computer that could become worthless depending on unpredictable economic factors.
If a power plant has sufficient store of Iron, with a complete cycle, from burning iron to recovering iron, then it is no longer a consumable.
I can imagine a solar plant, making iron in the day and burning it in the night and essentially act as a base load plant, the holy grail of renewable energy.
Yeah but it pretty much requires that producing the fuel requires less energy than the fuel provides, otherwise itd be like trading a quarter for a dime.
But also don't underestimate how huge it would be if we could store energy efficiently as elemental iron. E.g., produce it using solar, burn it for grid energy. Of course that depends on the efficiency of the whole process.
