During a phone order one season – 2018 I believe – a customer shared this story where he smuggled some Vidalias onto his vacation cruise ship, and during each meal, would instruct the server to ‘take this onion to the back, chop it up, and add it onto my salad ‘.
This made me think of something I came across recently that’s almost the opposite problem of requiring PDFs to be searchable. A local government would publish PDFs where the text is clearly readable on screen, but the selectable text layer is intentionally scrambled, so copy/paste or search returns garbage. It's a very hostile thing to do, especially with public data!
I have encountered PDFs that would exhibit this behavior in one browser but not in another.
One fun thing I encountered from local government is releasing files with potato quality resolution and not considering the page size.
I had a FOI request that returned mainly Arch D sized drawings but they were in a 94 DPI PDF rendered as letter sized. It was a fun conversation trying to explain to an annoyed city employee that putting those large drawings in a 94 DPI letter size page effectively made it 30-ish DPI.
“every console behaves like it missed the last week of CEC school. They wake the TV, switch the input, then leave the Denon asleep so I’m back to toggling audio outputs manually.”
My Roku does this! It will turn on the TV but not the soundbar, which is so frustrating. Guess it’s somewhat normal.
My shield turns my receiver on, sets it to the right input (then the wrong input, then back to the right input), then... disables the decoder so there is no sound. Then sometimes enables the decoder about 20 seconds later.
I have a PhD in capital markets research. It would be even more informative to report abnormal returns (market/factor-adjusted) so we can tell whether the LLMs generated true alpha rather than just loading on tech during a strong market.
What? How does an SUV require less power per cf than a sedan? I would think that aero alone would always be worse for an SUV, making sedans more efficient.
I think he means less power per total overall volume of the vehicle. SUVs are certainly less efficient per mile, but their power requirements don't scale linearly with volume so you have a lot more "extra" room to place batteries, even if it is still entirely within the frame. So you can get away with less space efficient batteries.
Drag scales by frontal area (and the coefficient of drag tends to actually be lower on longer objects), so as long as the SUV is longer than a sedan, it'll tend to have less aerodynamic drag proportionally (rolling resistance scales with weight, though, so you still have to pay that cost).
I think this is just to make it so that data centers and crypto mining facilities can be built and operated where owners want. Makes it so zoning and environmental regulations can’t stop you as easily.
People need to be more skeptical. This is not going to be used to uphold individual rights, and that's not the intention. This will be used not only to fast track data centers, but to support companies like Flock and push back against any attempts to regulate widespread surveillance.
As you said, rare earth elements aren't really rare--they are very abundant. But they are mixed in with themselves (there's 17 of them) and lots of other elements. Think of it like if you had 50 different colored sands and had huge amounts of all of them, then mixed them all up. The rarity is that you're not going to go through that sand and find a big patch of blue sand.
There's plenty of them, and all over the world. It's also important to separate the mining of rare earths from the processing/refining. 60% of REEs come from mines in China. But 90% of the processing is done in China (for some of them, heavy REEs, 100% of it is done there).
It wasn't always this way, but started to change in the 80s and 90s as Chinese firms were able to process rare earths at much lower costs. It was a mix of things--labor rates, lax standards, as well as state subsidies (the latter shouldn't be overlooked).
It's difficult to reopen processors, and starting up new ones requires a lot of time and money. We can do it, we just can't flip a switch and start it up. Also, China has developed a lot of new technology to do it and have export controls on the tech. Also, we have much more severe environmental standards these days that would make it even more difficult to get going.
I'm all for the government getting stakes in companies that it invests in (see below), but I find it really odd that we already awarded this money to Intel through the CHIPs Act and, instead of disbursing the funds as a grant, they converted it into a stock purchase. I don't like that they're not going along with the law, although that's par for the course.
On getting a stake, I find it odd that the right wing (or at least Trump?) is all for getting stakes in businesses, as that seems so counter-intuitive to what they're about. Personally, I think that if the government is putting billions into strategic industries, taxpayers should get a financial return, not just vague promises of jobs or “competitiveness.”
They were closed because the Cold War ended and they were no longer needed.