I have made a small webtool to help calibrate various EQs by ear. It kind-of mimics a graphic EQ in the browser which can also play tones around the EQs frequency bands, which should sound about the same loudness as their neighbors according to the ISO loudness curve. I increase or decrease my laptops EQ bands until the tones on the webtool play without obvious difference. This is sure to be an unsatisfactory process for technical purposes, and I couldn't even guarantee that I implemented the loudness curve well, but I have a lot more success using it to help tune EQ than without it.
5000 reactor-years is very little in comparison to the amount which would count up if similar units were somehow economically rolled out for industry. To play any significant part in global energy supply hundreds or moreso thousands of these would need to be operated, each for decades. And by civilians - some liable to fail to match military standards of operation. 5000 reactor-years is really a tiny fraction of what many people are interested in.
the anti-nuclear folks throw around "long tail" and "black swan" a lot, but if you're turning your nose up when met with the hard data of "operated for 5000 years with no incidents" then we're truly doomed.
> civilians couldn't possibly operate reactors safely
inane, but ok simply make the navy operate the power grid
That is 1 reactor for 5000 years, or 5000 reactors for 1 year. It really is not much hard data in the context of regulating hundreds or thousands of reactors for decades. 5000 hard drive years, wouldn't even inform a hard drive failure rate.
I read code which is not highlighted with little want for color, except certain cases like mixed php and html where I find it really helpful to have the two separated into different hues eg. green/blue and yellow/red.
So I find the trend for color schemes with many lexical types colored differently, unpleasant to the eye and usually of little practical advantage.
The more different things we try to distinguish in a color theme, the harder it is to produce a comfortable aesthetic and the harder it is to make things which should advance or retreat from the eye, to do so.
Keywords can take pleasant color slots which are not the most easily read, because their color confirms they are typed correctly. There is little advantage and much overhead in theming keywords of different types differently.
Strings types can all share a hue similarity with small difference to help notice single or double quotes etc. Escaped chars are good to stand out a bit, within the appropriate quotation hue.
Comments should be in color range which retreats from the eye a little and is well separated from the executable hues.
I feel its all window dressing, plain text is just a little harder to scan for things than nicely syntax highlighted. Busy, un-finessed syntax highlighting is more of a quirk to be tolerated than it is a comfort.
I would say there is no strictly speaking there without a strict context. Bear in mind the characteristics of different animals excrement is not designed to any specification, it evolves in the context of it altering the animals habitat to some extents. We specify 'waste' should alter our habitat to a minimal degree, but we cant say for sure it evolves to that effect. It can fertilize, it can create apparent immediate problems, but such apparent problems can have significant systematic roles. To me the term 'output' then is less potentially misleading than 'waste'. A bit like the distinction between a crop and a weed. Our naming of things encapsulates presumptions and intentions, which is fitting for design, but things that are not designed are liable to exceed expectations.
You seem to claim that quantum mechanics can/does in fact model chaotic behavior, only that such chaotic behavior is "not actually real" in ways. That claim would seem to contradict Hossenfelders message, she seems to claim quantum mechanics can't model chaotic systems -however "actually extant" they may or may not be.
I just don't know, but I prefer to consider claims of hidden agendas after theoretic details are resolved, if at all.
The issue is quite simple at its root: the Schroedinger equation is linear, and linear systems can't produce chaotic behavior, so the existence of chaotic behavior implies that there is something going on beside the SE. But this is not news. The existence of classical reality in the first place implies the same thing. This is the measurement problem: if you start with a superposition, and you transform it according to the SE (or any other linear dynamic) then you have to end in a superposition, but in "reality" you don't. So you have only three choices: introduce some non-linear postulate, deny classical reality, or deny free choice. That is the long and the short of it. There's nothing special about choas in this regard, it's just more evidence that QM is weird, but we knew that already.
As far as I have been able to gather he is an engineer of historic significance like Brunel and Stevenson. He does get involved in engineering, and quite evidently "gets involved" way better than any other hands on technology investor alive.
Starts up a reusable rocket company after Blue Origin has started with the same basic ambitions - achieves it and remains the only reusable space launch system in the World for 7 years and counting... and is a good way through building a model carrying 150 tonnes to orbit, made out of stainless steel. I cant appreciate how to chalk that exceptional success up to an ability to hire talent that can push him of the way at the right time, but even that alone would be a great gift and demonstrated in multiple super successful technology ventures.
Telsa's self driving is while incomplete, also the most capable that has yet been produced or revealed to the world. The idea that Lidar is the secret of the final success is your hunch, I'm inclined to agree with Elon that its a software achievement - it certainly is in humans.
You need forms of storage for that. The conundrum can be turned on its head - "What do you do when you have nuclear and the businesses and factories are closed ?" You either simply waste nuclear capacity that you've paid and waited years for to be built - or you need forms of storage to make use of it. Both Nuclear and Renewables really want storage, they will compete for it.
If you can only make use of 60% of a nuclear plants capacity, you're price per unit is 100/60 more than the 'base-load' ideal that it was sold for. And another thing future nuclear plants will have to run alongside - is more and more renewable supply since renewables are cheaper and faster to build. We will have a situation where almost all demand is met by renewable supply eventually, and before that situation the demand left nuclear will decrease from 70,60,50,40,30...% - that's even without storage. How many decades do you expect it will take before those plants built with contracts to run for half a century or more, become pointlessly uneconomic ?
If there's too much power, it will be dirt cheap, and you'll charge your electric car then, which will maybe become affordable by then. Also with smart grid you'll regulate water heaters, ACs etc.
Still better to have too much power than not enough... Especially if eg. Russia decides to close the gas pipe, or if americans decide to "bring democracy" to another middle eastern state and that disrupta oil delivery.
We've sidetracked nuclear for decades now... The best time was decades ago, and the second vest time to build some new ones is now.
Electric cars are affordable now, assuming electricity is dirt cheap.
Nissan Leaf: $17K after tax incentives, $27K before.
Gas is $5/gallon. You can buy 5400/gallons for the price of an unsubsidized leaf.
Assume a leaf-alike ICE car gets 40 miles per gallon. It will go 216K miles for the unsubsidized retail price of the leaf.
Leaf batteries last at least 100K miles, and cost about $6K.
The purchase cost of the ICE car, and 216K miles of motor oil, engine and exhaust work have to be under $6K ($12K if the leaf batteries need to be swapped twice) or the leaf is cheaper.
No, having too much power without storage is exactly as bad as not enough. That's how the physics works. It's a zero sum game or it's lights out for the grid. It takes a lot of smart people and simulations to do a semi decent job of walking that tightrope day after day after day. Overproduction is a huge problem, as evidenced by the frequent negative power pricing of CA solar
If you have the infrastructure to produce hydrogen at scale you pretty much automatically have the infrastructure to store excess renewable production. That makes the "baseload!!" argument for nuclear moot.
It may be still better to run nuclear plants then. We'll need data from modern nuclear designs, (especially the small ones) but renewables are not exactly free to run. Storage degrades, solar degrades, lithium needs to be mined, turbines mean lots of mechanical parts, etc. We may learn that running just the renewables common today is even more uneconomic.
The maintenance burden you suggest for wind turbines is exaggerated. Compared to a gas car there are way fewer moving parts in common wind turbines, and some designs with no moving parts are being tested: https://www.windpowerengineering.com/dutch-wind-wheel-genera...
Additionally, battery degradation appears to be primarily related to high speed charging. In decade old battery packs that were not charged at extreme rates like 2C or above, you rarely see significant degredation. Grid scale operators will almost certainly manage their battery farms to limit the C rate to optimize battery life and long term profits.
Compared to a gas car a wind turbine is a completely different mechanism with a completely different scale, material requirements, elements exposure, and pretty much everything apart from "it has spinning things".
I can't exaggerate the maintenance burden for the turbines, because I didn't claim what it is, beyond that it exists. We'll have to compare it to new nuclear plants before stating which becomes uneconomical.
Solar degradation is commonly estimated at 20% in 25y, but then we get inverter failures on top of that which account for ~80% of issues in home installations. Batteries are commonly estimated to lose 20% capacity in 10y. All of those stack up too. Again - we'll have to compare the actual numbers which we don't have yet.
Viable doesn't usually mean a thing is only just or barely sufficient. It usually means a thing is at least sufficient. It means a thing is more than good enough to be viable. The question "is it viable?" is used to find out if something is at the point of being "good enough" or greater, and something more than good enough will still be "perfectly viable".
"Minimal Viable" doesn't extend to great, but it does also reach perfect viability. Describe something as "barely viable" suggests its not quite viable. Viability is all about passing the threshold of being in fact viable.
As viable is a binary qualifier, the "Minimal" part more intelligibly constrains the "Product". Its a minimal product that is yet viable, not a product with minimal viability.
In the same vein "Minimal Lovable Product", shouldn't mean a product which someone could only barely love :]
https://strainer.github.io/hearqualizer/