• 8 Posts
  • 905 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: October 4th, 2023

help-circle
  • Hidalgo, who is against countries bringing their own units, stressed earlier this year that Paris organizers would not change course.

    “I think we have to trust science on two counts,” she said. “The first is what scientists are telling us about the fact that we are on the brink of a precipice. And secondly, we have to trust the scientists when they help us to construct buildings in a sober way that allows us to make do without air conditioning.”

    France has the highest percentage of nuclear power of any power grid in the world and its electricity is generated emitting a very low level of carbon dioxide.

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity

    According to this, France emits about a seventh the carbon dioxide per unit of power generated as the US does. We can use seven times as much electricity in Paris as back in the US and still have about the same carbon dioxide emissions.




  • China is already selling two EVs using sodium ion batteries.

    Sodium ion batteries won’t be a general drop-in substitute in vehicles for lithium.

    It might be possible to use sodium-ion batteries in place of some not-energy-density critical lithium-ion applications (the way lead-acid is currently used for some lithium-ion applications), and that’d free up some materials for EV use.

    https://physics.aps.org/articles/v17/73

    However, sodium and lithium atoms have differences, two of which are relevant for battery performance. The first difference is in the so-called redox potential, which characterizes the tendency for an atom or molecule to gain or lose electrons in a chemical reaction. The redox potential of sodium is 2.71 V, about 10% lower than that of lithium, which means sodium-ion batteries supply less energy—for each ion that arrives in the cathode—than lithium-ion batteries. The second difference is that the mass of sodium is 3 times that of lithium.

    Together these differences result in an energy density for sodium-ion batteries that is at least 30% lower than that of lithium-ion batteries [1]. When considering electric vehicle applications, this lower energy density means that a person can’t drive as far with a sodium-ion battery as with a similarly sized lithium-ion battery. In terms of this driving range, “sodium can’t beat lithium,” Tarascon says.

    In time, sodium-ion batteries will improve, but their driving range will never surpass the top-of-the-line lithium-ion batteries, Tarascon says. He imagines instead that sodium-ion technology will fill specific niches, such as batteries for smaller, single-person electric vehicles or for vehicles that have a range of only 30–50 miles (50–80 km). Weil agrees, but he says that society may have to change the way it views automobiles. “We cannot only point to the technology developers and say, ‘We need more efficiency.’ It’s even more important to stress that we need more ‘sufficiency,’ which is people being satisfied with a small car,” he says.





  • I don’t have a problem with Elon Musk as a person or him owning it – I wasn’t on the Elon hype train back when the progressive crowd was glamorizing him, and I’m not on the Elon-bashing train now that he’s making conservative statements and is unpopular with the progressive crowd. My problem is with the platform itself.

    Message length

    The thing doesn’t have the degree of message length limitation that it used to, but it’s still really short. Being concise is one thing, but this is at the level that it affects the format of the message.

    Informality

    Maybe it’s just me, but Twitter seems just intrinsically informal. There is virtually no form of communication that has traditionally been more-formal than state communications.

    Security

    This is the big one.

    It really boggles my mind that a state would grant Twitter the status of being the medium for their announcements.

    How secure is Twitter? I mean, I’m sure that Twitter’s engineers try to keep in secure, but I don’t believe that they have the kind of emphasis on security that, say, the people who are on TLS (which would secure a state website) do. What happens if someone compromises a state Twitter account, sends out a bogus message, and then manages to cut access off to the account for a period of time? At just the right time, like coups or something, that could have an enormous impact.

    Twitter is a private company. Their responsibilities are not the same as a national government’s. Yes, they care about their reputation, and there are bounds on what they’ll do. But they were willing to cut off Trump. I can very much believe that under the right circumstances, they’d be willing to cut off officials or governments abroad. And it wouldn’t even be sanctions-level stuff, where it’s an extraordinary act – like, they can put together whatever ToS stuff they want, block people all the time. If I’m a government, I absolutely do not want Twitter to be able to cut off my communications. I don’t want whatever governments might be able to exert pressure on Twitter – and I guarantee that in a serious-enough situation, many would be willing to try – to induce that the communications be cut off. There are Twitter offices around the world. What happens if there’s a war on and some Twitter employees are taken hostage? Is the CEO going to say “let them die, keep the communications open”? Where are his obligations going to lie?

    How vetted are the employees who have access to various levels of administrative access at Twitter? I would bet that there is a larger pool and that there is less vetting than the kind of people who have access to set operations at say, certificate authority operators or to cut international cable access at major ISPs, which collectively is comparable to the kind of control that an individual – who may-or-may-not be acting in line with the company’s aims as a whole – might have.

    I strongly suspect that there are ways to manipulate Twitter, given sufficient use of bot accounts, to make material from malicious accounts be ranked highly. I’ve seen disinfo campaigns in the past. This is a problem that search engines share, but Twitter does real-time indexing of all content and I strongly suspect is a lot easier to induce wild ranking changes on.










  • I’d call Reddit and the Threadiverse and Usenet and such forums. They’re just broad, with many different categories, or “meta-forums”, as compared to a site with a dedicated-to-a-single-topic forum.

    Some other drawbacks of having many independent forums:

    • You have to create and maintain a ton of accounts.

    • Different, incompatible markup syntax.

    • Often missing features (e.g. Markdown has tables; few forums let one create tables)

    • Some forum systems ordered comments by time rather than parent comment, which was awful to browse.

    • Often insane requirements to get an account. I can think of a few forums that were very difficult to get access to, either because the “new user” system was incompatible with some email system or just had other problems.

    I mean, there are a lot of websites with “comment” sections, which is kind of a lightweight forum attached to a webpage, and they’re almost invariably awful.


  • That means that if Russia were to, say, declare war on the US - however unlikely that might be - NK would theoretically be in favour.

    North Korea had a war with the US once, after they gambled incorrectly that the US would not respond to an invasion of South Korea. I doubt that Pyongyang would intentionally enter into another.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

    The bombing campaign destroyed almost every substantial building in North Korea. The war’s highest-ranking U.S. POW, U.S. Major General William F. Dean, reported that the majority of North Korean cities and villages he saw were either rubble or snow-covered wasteland. Dean Rusk, the U.S. State Department official who headed East Asian affairs, concluded that America had bombed “everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.” North Korean factories, schools, hospitals, and government offices were forced to move underground. In November 1950, the North Korean leadership instructed the population to build dugouts and mud huts and to dig tunnels, in order to solve the acute housing problem.

    By the end of the campaign, US bombers had difficulty in finding targets and were reduced to bombing footbridges or jettisoning their bombs into the sea.

    In May 1951, an international fact finding team from East Germany, West Germany, China, and the Netherlands stated, “The members, in the whole course of their journey, did not see one town that had not been destroyed, and there were very few undamaged villages.”