I'd really like to see the math on this one. It implies that building wind and solar on Earth is somehow worse than building it in space _and_ moving the data center there? It's not just counter-intuitive, it's bonkers.
you need to look at numbers instead of intuition - intuition naturally gets us wrong when we deal with unfamiliar things like space.
A ready 10 ton house will cost $500K-1M to place in a well developed area - the cost of land itself, communications, permits, also delays and unpredictability of process, etc. Add to that yearly taxes. Add tremendous electricity costs in case of the datacenter. And all those costs have and will be growing.
Launching 10 tons on Starship - sub-$1M and that cost will drop down to about $100K-200K.
> It implies that building wind and solar on Earth is somehow worse than building it in space _and_ moving the data center there?
The issue is that as solar panels become cheaper than dirt, we will find ways to use them which are not "base load" things. Maybe we in the future will factor in the annual Solar Harvest into our energy plans.
>we will find ways to use them which are not "base load" things
If you build solar for much of base load there for those clouded winter weeks where you won't even hope to reach the average winter output then i'm curious what those applications will be that'll fit the model of capitalism.
Are you gonna overbuild 20fold with matching grid (not talking about that north-south connection that Germany can't seem to manage) and have metalurgy industries that will only run in summer?
Or are you going to build/maintain gas plants at a fraction of the cost even if solar panels end up dirt cheap for those weeks where people still want to run their industries and heatpumps and continue to add to the problem.
Looking at my own gov and what i expect from the german one I think I know the answers.
Until that happens, I think we should assume that solar only isn't a viable option. At the moment Finland would need 60x more solar to cover current needs (during daytime), and it's barely winter yet. Sure, you'd get away with 20x in Germany but remember we _all_ need to scale up for actual winters where you can't just say "whoops" if things don't go to plan.
This is not a general rule and many non-cooled and air-cooled batteries can hold up pretty well. The battery cooling becomes a limiting factor for DC charging, especially if multiple charging sessions are required per trip.
The Leaf limited battery life is mainly to its battery chemistry (LMO), although it arguably doesn't go to great lengths to ensure thermal stability of the pack.
The Leaf has went through many battery changes through out the years. The Gen 2 (2018+ model years) were NMC (532?) and then there was a change again in 2023 (811?).
FYI, You are comparing the modern version of DotNet (the first link) with the old legacy version (the second link).
The modern version of DotNet, "Net Core" is effectively a reboot of DotNet, with a very cross platform focus and redesigned API's based on decades of experience.
The impressive thing between .NET Framework (original .NET) and .NET now (rebooted as .NET Core but now dropped the “Core”) in that they largely foxed the API while leaving almost all of it intact.
Library code you wrote in C# 10 years before .NET Core will often just compile and run. Even more than code the resides developer learning. The plumbing between ASP.NET MVC (old) and ASP.NET Core (new) was completely and radically different. Yet writing an application in it was very much the same.
The first link appears to be for .NET Standard, which has a common API compatible with both Framework and Core.
Though it might be worth checking Github to find example usages of the APIs. Maybe there's even some libraries that improve the developer experience with cryptography.
These limitations come from cryptographic implementations provided by specific platforms, not from .NET. Can you list specific algorithms you need that are not supported?
The second article uses the wrong link too (it's for Framework, not for .NET).
As someone with no horse in this race, I must say that I'm a little disappointed in the way Linux "compatibility" deals with platform differences. Most parts of the crypto API seem to be marked as "works on Linux if/except when" which seems strange given that porting to macOS didn't seem to impose such restrictions. In some cases, the inner workings of the underlying library works differently and you get an exception when using certain functionality on Linux at all.
I though Microsoft did better porting dotnet to Linux. I knew they don't care about Linux GUI, but I hoped they'd at least do system libraries better.
This is an uncharacteristically involved type of comment for "someone with no horse in this race". It is unserious and/or malicious. I can't believe we are still having to deal with the same type of conversation 9 years later.
In case someone else is reading:
- AvaloniaUI/Uno
- Algorithms are dependent on what an OS crypto provider supports (which is OpenSSL in the case of Linux, so it's an OpenSSL issue), but you can always just use bindings to an alternative and wrap it in a stream, like some do with e.g. libsodium
- IO behaves differently because each OS has different IO implementation, .NET tries to homogenize it within reason, but there are differences that cannot be hidden, big surprise?
AvaloniaUI/Uno are both third party open source GUIs ... not by Microsoft. The Microsoft provided MAUI does NOT run on Linux (though it runs on ALL others ... android, ios, and even Mac). Not squinting on this omission and not ignoring it, sorry!
Agree on the "Algorithms are dependent on what an OS crypto provider supports" bit.
