Who tf wrote those requirements?
It seems pretty clear to me that they intended the Trump Bible to be the only one that fit all the specifications.
Who tf wrote those requirements?
It seems pretty clear to me that they intended the Trump Bible to be the only one that fit all the specifications.
They’re was never any evidence of google’s wrongdoing, the accusation came from former MS edge developers:
https://www.developer-tech.com/news/edge-developer-google-youtube-chrome-browsers/
Officially Google denied it:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/19/18148736/google-youtube-microsoft-edge-intern-claims
You may be right, this could have been MS couldn’t make a better browser and pulled the plug, and the devs just blamed google.
I’m not defending Microsoft… but if we’re going to go after a tech company for leveraging their other assets to give themselves an unfair advantage can we also go after Google?
In the first releases of Edge, Microsoft tried to build a new web browser from scratch to compete with Google Chrome. By google kept changing YouTube’s code so that videos would playback janky on Edge. Microsoft eventually gave up trying to fix for YouTubes ongoing changes and now Edge is based on Chromium (the same open source web browser maintained by Google, that chrome os built on). Google leveraged YouTube to prevent completion from Edge.
And now Google is blocking ad blocking extensions so that users are forced to see more google ads in their browser.
Microsoft’s has leveraged their unfair advantage to get a little over 5% market share.
Google’s leveraged their unfair advantage to get 66% of the market.
Both companies need a hard smack down, but I want to see Google taken down too.
Just beware, sometimes the AI suggestions are scary good, some times they’re batshit crazy.
Just because AI suggests it, doesn’t mean it’s something you should use or learn from.
The article author is either confused or over-simplifying. We don’t need a “time zone” for the moon an earth time zone would almost certainly be used by anyone on the moon.
What we need is a standard way for how we keep time on the moon. Mainly so that we can establish the lunar equivalent of GPS.
Vulnerable to what? Mob justice?
People need to be held accountable but violence isn’t the answer.
If they’re forced to vote on it, at least we’ll know which politicians have a spine and which have a padded wallet.
They call it jailbreak because this is an issue of freedom
I support your position and the right to repair, but that’s not the origin of the term jailbreak in the context of computing.
The term jailbreaking predates its modern understanding relating to smartphones, and dates back to the introduction of “protected modes” in early 80s CPU designs such as the intel 80286.
With the introduction of protected mode it became possible for programs to run in isolated memory spaces where they are unable to impact other programs running on the same CPU. These programs were said to be running “in a jail” that limited their access to the rest of the computer. A software exploit that allowed a program running inside the “jail” to gain root access / run code outside of protected mode was a “jailbreak”.
The first “jailbreak” for iOS allowed users to run software applications outside of protected modes and instead run in the kernel.
But as is common for the English language, jailbreak became to be synonymous with freedom from manufacture imposed limits and now has this additional definition.
This also leads to stupid rules like you can’t change your password more than once a day, to prevent someone from changing their password 5 times and then changing it back to what it was before.
Which is good because mars will be about the only inhabitable planet in the solar system if Trump has another term.
In most jurisdictions, tripling renewables doesn’t get us to a place where we’re generating more electricity than we can instantaneously use. The few places where it is possible can usually export excess electricity to neighbouring jurisdictions that still rely heavily on fossil fuels.
We still have a depressingly long way to go before we’re at the point of renewables generating “excess” energy that needs to be stored.
It was a UPS I bought on Amazon.
It arrived damaged in the box, almost certainly because the driver dropped it.
My experience with Amazon customer service was umm… fun.
This item is not returnable.
Them: “This item is not returnable”
Me “it arrived damaged”
Them: “We’ll send you an email, reply to it with evidence of damage”
Please send the email from the same address associated with the Amazon account
The pictures you sent are in the wrong format please resend as jpeg or pdf
The pictures you sent do not show the entire product
Please send pictures that clearly show the damage
😡
It is, but lead based chemistries tend to wear out and need replacing a lot sooner than lithium ion.
You’re core idea is correct though, there’s a lot of battery techs that are cheaper / better when size and weight are irrelevant.
Whoever wrote that article is playing fast and loose with the definition of exponential.
Here’s the actual data of global electricity source on a log scale for the past ~15 years
Notice that the line for both wind and solar is inflecting to the right. If it was exponential it would be straight.
The time between each doubling of output is increasing.
It’s close, but not enough to be exponential growth.
It was exponential for a while but it’s slowing down in the last decade or two.
Such bullsh*t.
“Dear Doctors… You should perform abortions when it’s medically necessary… oh and if we don’t agree it was medically necessary (yet) you lose your license and possibly face criminal charges. - Sincerely Florida”
It’s not an exponential curve. It’s slower than that.
It’s more than linear; we are adding more capacity each year than the year before. But added capacity per year as a percentage of the previous years total is a decreasing.
If it was exponential the growth would be a straight(ish) line when plotted on a logarithmic scale… it’s not. On a log scale the line inflects.
Such an incredibly misleading article.
1 GW of nuclear capacity generates several times more electricity than 1 GW of PV capacity.
Nuclear power plants run at almost full capacity pretty much 24/7/365. With the occasional shutdown every few years for maintenance and to replace the fuel rods.
PVs only generate electricity during the day, and only hit their maximum capacity under ideal conditions. The average output of PVs is 15-25% of their capacity.
Globally we generate more electricity from nuclear than we do from all PVs together.
At the typical sizes we’re building them you need dozens of PV farms to match the energy output of a single nuclear reactor.
Yea basically. Creative accounting abuses of RECs are rampant. There’s no tangible product or service delivered when you buy a REC so there’s nothing stopping a bad actor from selling the same “REC” to more than one buyer.
But more importantly, RECs don’t work to reduce GHG emissions even if they’re purchased and sold in good faith. RECs don’t change anything, that’s the problem. They don’t reduce electricity usage, or change the grid mix. All RECs do is give a company the ability to claim that it was magically someone else’s electricity that resulted in fossil fuels being burned and not their’s. Companies that buy RECs are paying to shift the blame onto companies that didn’t.
Back when solar and wind was more expensive than fossil fuels it may have made sense to offer companies the option of paying extra to get “green” power that otherwise wouldn’t have made financial sense. But now that wind and solar are cheaper than coal and nat gas, utility providers will buy all available green power regardless of RECs.
The bottleneck to building more renewable power isn’t money. Companies paying for RECs aren’t making that happen any faster, they’re just Greenwashing their ESG reporting.
RECs and similar market based methods for Scope 2 accounting are complete bullshit and need to be removed from the GHG protocol.
It’s not driving a transition to renewables just literally just giving companies permission to claim their emissions are lower without actually changing anything.
Oh please.
The evidence for Szabo is circumstantial at best. I’ll give you he has the skills and experience and was working on digital currency at the time.
But Szabo was just one of hundreds of people working on different ideas related to digital currency around the time Bitcoin was released.
And how many hundreds of people developed their own cryptocurrency after getting the idea from the Bitcoin whitepaper? Clearly he not the only “person on earth who had both the skills and experience”.
Not to mention Szabo has repeatedly denied being Satoshi.