HTS was available in ceramic form, but ceramics sorta suck to work with. So potential users had to wait for people to make them into wires, which was apparently a fat pain in the ass, and then for that technology to be commercialized, all of which took until the 2010s.
Certainly the plasma could melt the wall if it were allowed to touch it, but by shaping the magnetic fields that confine the plasma, the plasma can be made to stay away from the wall (not perfectly, but well enough). This is how many fusion experiments operate today. The walls are made of tungsten and other materials that can handle heat, so even if (when) the plasma hits the wall, the melting isn't too severe.
Some "plasma touches wall" events are more severe than others. Sometimes it's even intentional. A "limited" plasma deliberately touches a part of the wall called the "limiter", and the limiter is used to bound the shape of the plasma. (Contrast with a "diverted" plasma; search both terms for more details.) On the other hand, one type of event where it's very much unintentional is called a vertical displacement event, in which the plasma, well, vertically displaces itself until it hits a wall and melts it. These suck but are planned for and handled.
If you're counting neutrons in that "energy flux", they'll just go through the wall (mostly); this is how tokamaks are supposed to make electricity, ie the neutrons go through the wall and hit a "blanket" that's much better at absorbing neutrons, and the blanket will heat up and the heat will be converted to electricity.
> If you're counting neutrons in that "energy flux", they'll just go through the wall (mostly); this is how tokamaks are supposed to make electricity, ie the neutrons go through the wall and hit a "blanket" that's much better at absorbing neutrons, and the blanket will heat up and the heat will be converted to electricity.
Yes! This is what I was wondering about. Presumably you would want more energy out than you use to run the reactor, and if that amount of neutron flux would melt the wall it would not be a workable design. Glad to know if this is not true.
I don't need high school level ideas, though. If people do, that's good for them, but I haven't met any. And if the quality of the ideas is going to improve in future years, that's good too, but also not demonstrated here.
I am going to argue that you do. Then I will be interested in your response, if you feel inclined.
We all have our idiosyncratically distributed areas of high intuition, expertise and fluency.
None of us need apprentice level help there, except to delegate something routine.
Lower quality ideas there would just gum things up.
And then we all have vast areas of increasingly lesser familiarity.
I find, that the more we grow our strong areas, the more those areas benefit with as efficient contact as possible with as many more other areas as possible. In both trivial and deeper ways.
The better developer I am, in terms of development skill, tool span, novel problem recognition and solution vision, the more often and valuable I find quick AI tutelage on other topics, trivial or non-trivial.
If you know a bright high school student highly familiar with a domain that you are not, but have reason to think that area might be helpful, don’t you think instant access to talk things over with that high schooler would be valuable?
Instant non-trivial answers, perspective and suggestions? With your context and motivations taken into account?
Multiplied by a million bright high school students over a million domains.
—
We can project the capability vector of these models onto one dimension, like “school level idea quality”. But lower dimension projections are literally shadows of the whole.
It if we use them in the direction of their total ability vector (and given they can iterate, it is actually a compounding eigenvector!) and their value goes way beyond “a human high schooler with ideas”.
It does take time to get the most out of a differently calibrated tool.
The argument that density puts stress on people to move _towards_ that density seems to me to have the direction of causation reversed. People look at prices when they move, not density.
up 30 min before train leaves, phone in bed for 10-15 min, change clothes (staged on top of dresser to save time), brush teeth, [optional if time, pack snacks], [optional if needed, start dishwasher and/or washing machine], rush to train station (takes 6-12 min depending on fast I go, which in turn depends on how much time I wasted on my phone in bed)
certainly works for me. perhaps someday I'll have a more productive one, but I like how this one maximizes sleep and phone usage.
Looking past the condescending "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed" description and the unfounded assertion that the number of years spent looking at something or a person's age put a ceiling on how informed they can be about it, she does actually discuss the unblockables right there in the middle of the essay, and the cash flow ("Whereas the people who actually make the product? They don't make any money."), and the paid editing ("They are suffering from, uh, a not very ethical PR person going in there."). And she literally says she doesn't trust Wikipedia's information. I don't know what you could be asking for, for an interview with this structure at this level of depth.
Post some examples and we'll see what you think of as bullying.
Also $3M is a hilarious undercount and shows your own lack of understanding, because what good is some metal without ops, software maintenance, and support services? Might you also count the lawyers who get editors out of jail, or the specialists who handle CSAM so the volunteers don't have to, or does that count as part of the jetset board too?
Yes, she gets barnstars. Are you complaining about that? Does she not do a tremendous service to the project through her outreach and recruitment efforts?
Yeah, it seems like you preferred another article, as a sibling said.
>Looking past the condescending "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed" description
Why look past it? It's an important criticism and helps describe why the interviewee's answers lack depth and wisdom.
>discuss the unblockables
Wikipedia doesn't want to block them, nor do they try. Influence peddlers, NGOs, etc., are the most prolific editors.
>Post some examples and we'll see what you think of as bullying.
You're entering a lecture on the role of class-based modalities in Shakespearean scansion and demanding the professor explain the "i before e" rule. If you're not aware of the most fundamental aspects of the discussion then remove yourself from the conversation. Searching "wikipedia editors bullying" will return you tons of resources on this basic fact, including *an article on Wikipedia about that widespread phenomenon,* with examples.
No one is obligated to teach you the absolute basics of the topic or refrain from relying on them in an argument because you're personally uninformed.
>Also $3M is a hilarious undercount
Read the audit
>Yes, she gets barnstars. Are you complaining about that?
Am I?
>does that count as part of the jetset board too?
Why would they? How is that related?
> Does she not do a tremendous service to the project through her outreach and recruitment efforts?
Does she? And?
>Yeah, it seems like you preferred another article, as a sibling said.
Gigawatt thermal, as opposed to gigawatt electric. Gigawatt thermal is the heat your power plant makes, whereas gigawatt electric is the electricity that the heat is used to generate. They're not the same because not all the heat can be converted into electricity, and the percent of heat that gets converted varies from power plant to power plant.
