lostmyoldone

I would assume that many/most countries in climates where power interruptions quickly turn into deaths to avoid building in a dependence on an extra-territorial grid for base-level power supply.

It's already a problem in Eurasia with nation states using eg. natural gas delivery as a means to apply political pressure on other states, and this while it is still (relatively) easy to solve energy needs as carbohydrates can be easily transported.

If all border crossing energy/power delivery is through a physical network of cables, adapting if delivery is cutoff would be almost impossible unless all gas/coal/oil plants were kept at/near operating condition.

Hence, yes, the buildout must be some X times necessary power, as much as possible locally. A significant fraction of that generated power should be used to create a) industrial feedstock b) to generate liquids/gas that can be easily used and transported.

The latter in the case some nation is being pressured by energy blockades where the existing grid can not supply enough energy through transmission lines from other bordering states.

If it is Prometheus' fire, we are not ready to handle that fire yet. When one of the core concerns of using a technology is to prevent it being used to create weapons capable of obliterating entire cities, we are not as a species mature enough to use it on a wider scale. This is only one example of why we are not ready yet.

Nuclear (fission) technology is not the problem, we are the problem. Looking at the recent history of political leadership all over the world, and the baffling level of support even the most immature of policies have, it's clear we have a ways to go. Most people doesn't even seem to realize that as a species we've only just emerged, we're so young. Toddlers on any timescale but the most naïve and short sighted.

My life kind of started anew.

Not in a "wow this is fantastic", rather the opposite. Old sorrows surfaces, forgotten experiences had to be dealt with, but I was finally able to start moving forward and deal with the reality outside myself.

It's hard to explain, but now I am growing older, not only my body as it used to be.

This is a good point!

Stimulants are not always necessary long term, but they usually are to start effecting enough change to be able to function in the present society.

For some (me probably) it'll be a lifelong thing, but it definitely doesn't have to be for everyone!

I'm happy for your success!

I really wish I had access to more talk therapy, physiotherapy, guided relaxation, mindfullness'ish sessions, and some other forms of support. The medicine helps me to stay mostly functioning, but with talking to a therapist and practicing "basal body knowledge" I was feeling so much better!

A typical characteristic of people with ADHD is that typical doses of - say Ritalin - creates no euphoric effect at all.

Every adult I met that is "on" stimulants has echoed the sentiment that they don't understand why on earth anyone would take them recreationally. Ergo, they don't feel euphoria, because then it would certainly be obvious why.

If you get euphoria from those doses, well then what you suffer from is probably not typical ADHD.

My story is the same, blown off by doctors for years because, I don't know, but not being "too successful" was definitely part of it.

Lead to a burnout-like state that started developing while basically being a stay-at-home dad for a year or so. It got worse, and now there are several years of my daughter growing up that I don't remember almost anything from.

In Sweden at least it is classified as a disability, because whether or not it's a evolutionary adaptation, people that present typical ADHD traits are functionally disabled in modern society. Society should change to accommodate these traits, but we can't expect people with those traits to live in misery until then.

Also don't forget that drugs have changed the life to the better for so many on the ADHD spectrum.

Though drugs are only part of the solution for most people with ADHD, it's almost always what enables other kinds of intervention to be effective.

For me, medication doesn't work too well. I tolerate it just fine, but it just isn't as effective as for most people.

It has still changed my life completely. I can accrue life experience in a way that was impossible before, probably as I had basically no perception of time before medication.

Maybe my daughter put it best when she (on her own volition) got diagnosed at 17'ish: "It great to not have to feel like you are going to die tomorrow." With which she meant that when you perceive time passing, you can also perceive the future ahead.

It's not the only thing that changed, and not all change has been easy. But the diagnosis has still been one of the most important things in my life, even getting it as late as at 36 years.

It's probably doing some equivalent of solving a hard inverse problem approximately using numeric method, likely with as lest as many unknowns per pixel as the image, in a noisy domain, and with an expensive cost function for the optimization.

Not saying they are doing exactly that, but something in that realm/scale. 100kOps per pixel is really not that much in those kind of problems.

While the wording isn't particularly clear, the later remarks contrasting full-width with full-screen makes it clear that full-width in this instance does not refer to the full-width of the screen, but only that the "widest" responsible layout is used.

Compared to a children's book it is both, but compared to a lot of other TV-series with similar audiences, not at all.

As the context is a bit unclear, I don't thing there's a straight cut answer here, but perhaps it's not unreasonable to think it's in comparison to the other literary work involved in the suit. With that other work being a essentially children's book, Star Trek - in comparison - is all those things.

Single photon detectors have existed for a long timet - though not anywhere near those speeds afaik - hence the one bit part is not particularly strange, not as long as we're talking wavelengths close to visible light.

The speed and ultra low noise seems spectacularly good, but then, if you can avoid electronics and heat+junction noise in preamp you're going to get good figures.

It's almost certain several people did, but either didn't get a response, or - infinitely more likely - that the seed used for the icon was simply never recorded.

Found the timeline. Yes several people asked, and no, Mojang did not have any records.

Everything I have seen from Autodesk, this was what I expected from day one I learned of Fusion 360. I hoped I would be wrong, but no.

According to the tagged union Wikipedia you referenced, a disjoint union is also considered a tagged union. Whether or not that's actually a correct description within the vernacular of computer science, I don't know.

"In computer science, a tagged union, also called a variant, variant record, choice type, discriminated union, disjoint union, sum type or coproduct, ..."

Apple decided that /anaconda was an illegal place to store files during an update, so not only did I have a mysterious upgrade who took a very long time (hours) even on SSD, I also lost half a day when I needed to run some calculations for my client, as my Anaconda (python data science etc) was broken. The latter happened just the other week.

A few years ago, Windows mistook my root/system partition for the boot partition, which it helpfully "cleaned" by removing ALL executable files. Don't remember the trigger for that one.

Another Mac OS X update broke my Samsung color laser + scanner. A few years ago, still broken. Recently the scanner was broken by another update. At first it was only the printer.

I'm sure there are more, but thos were the first I could recall.

Hmm, I might have used that, or at least something very similar. Don't know exactly why, but then, it was a while ago...

It's true that Jetbrains has lots of developers in Russia, but Jetbrains s.r.o is Czech and was founded in Prague under the name Intellij Software.

San Fransisco has one of the highest, and in some cases - highest - housing and rental prices in the US.

If taxes are as high as you claim, it would be more rational to argue that the high prices are indirectly caused by that tax, rather than prices being held down by taxes.

Several causes seems more likely for a change in inventory, or pricing.

An extremely high cost of housing and the consequently smaller than average living spaces, which people are spending more time in due to covid has probably led some people to re-evaluate their priorities. It has in less heated markets.

Increased possibilities of remote work even in tech companies traditionally against it, and as tech drives SF, this is going to affect a majority of people living there.

Expectations of recession due to one of 1) covid 2) some of the giants getting pushback from an administration that is fickle at best 3) new competition from non US companies in driving markets, eg TikTok 4) ... and more.

There are plenty of somewhat plausible reasons to get out of the highest priced housing market in the US, especially if you can't handle a significant downturn in prices.

You could argue taxes too, if the market prices were average, or below average, but in the current situation any economic sensitivity is caused by an overheated housing market, nothing else can even touch the force of a market as hot as the SF one.

However, if a market with 1/4 the inventory of NY increase its inventory, even when it's with about 100%, one really can't tell anything. It's the hottest of the hot markets that's cooled down a little, and it doesn't really tell anything yet, except that the market has changed somehow.

Apple's smartphone market share in US is almost 50% according to the numbers I see, how is that small?

Apple is a government supported legal monopoly due to patents, licences and copyrights, so are many others, but they are too.

If Apple wasn't both the largest US phone maker and a legal monopoly, their behavior would not be as problematic, as you could (at least in theory, probably in practice too) sell other hardware to run ios/macos, or resell legally obtained, and modified software without Apple restrictions.

Whether their behavior is acceptable or not must be framed in a much larger picture. Companies are given legal rights by virtue of expectations of that being the best for society, and that's the metric that companies should be measured against.

Would it be good, and acceptable for society if all technology vendors/brands acted exactly as Apple regarding the App Store?

It's quite easy to answer that with a no, since clearly tying many frequnt small purchases indefinitely to a bigger purchase is not something that can ever increase competition. As it will form a less effective market, it can't be said to be desirable.

Copyright on macOS, and patents makes Apple phones the products of a company with a legal monopoly.

Are they an illegal monopoly in the US? Well, that's trickier. There are several reasons for and against. There are lots of phone brands, hundreds worldwide depending on how you count, and Apple are the are the largest phone and tablet brand with almost 50% of the US market.

Only Samsung is even close when it comes to phones, but afaik they have nowhere near the same profit margins.

Whether they are monopolistic or not, both Apple and Google has shown clear monopolistic behavior regarding their respective app stores, with Apple seemingly the more egregious.

Apple can be said to be a monopoly according to at least some definitions of monopoly, more precisely, and at the very least - it has a legal monopoly on selling macOS due to copyright.

Since they have a legal monopoly in some sense, it's not completely unreasonable to revisit how actions potentially prohibited by antitrust laws shold interact with legal monopolies. Especially when it comes to devices where changing device mandates you also change almost all apps (Which the legal monopoly profited of.) To sometimes significant cost, and inconvenience.

It's not entirely obvious that simply because Apple isn't the only seller of smart phones, that they can't be involved in anti-competetive behavio, and/or monopolistic behavior.By using their app store to extract considerable revenue by an questionably high transaction cost. It could be obvious because of precedent, but nevertheless, unless that judgement was made in resent years, and with the soaring costs of migrating your digital life, it's only as obvious as you make it to be if you narrow the scope of monopoly for physical to that where a single worldwide monopoly is the only business there is.

One can be safe to say that in penning the dictionary definition of monopoly, the author was probably not considering entire markets that would fit in a pocket, and where the good purchased in the market can only be used on the pocket device, and impossible to extract from the market to use in another setting!

Neither did likely the lawmakers.

Seems there is a fair bit of non-flying insects in the data, and seems also to be only few sites, so might be hard to compare with European data?

European decline is afaik mostly related to flying insects.

Short on time, but it would be interesting to compare population densities, as that's quite likely a major factor.

Hard to tell anyone's intentions, but that's probably, at least partially, a side effect.

Apple seem to use security primarily for two things, marketing, and to ensure they have control over the platform, and the developers who write applications for it.

Maybe that's three things? Anyway, the totality of what they do in security isn't user centric enough that the reason for external security hardware would be to primarily increase the user security. Obviously they have to do this (increase user security) to make it palatable to the customer, but there's a certain asymmetry in their actions that makes it seem unlikely that actual increased user security was the original goal.

You aren't wrong, but it's fairly easy to make a plausible argument for national security.

You can argue nation security when it comes to any app that isn't doing end-to-end, especially if it's written in a way that could allow the first, or a third party, to get access to arbitrary user data with the plausible deniability that security bugs can offer.

TikTok has had security bugs that made me outright mad when I looked at an expose on some of them. The kind of comedically terrible bugs they've had not too long ago makes it absolutely certain there are many, many more. Not even checking which user is logged in when you send a message for the user? Seriously, that's embarrassing in a rarely used feature on an app with a handful of users. Core functionality on a hundreds of millions users app? That's so terrible I almost can't believe it.

Not that other apps don't have bugs, but the track record, and global spread would make a solid argument. Confound by their app appearing to spread the data over an absolutely massive number of domains, and hosts, making auditing very hard, and also attribution of blame if data gets in the wrong hand.

I'm not saying eg Facebook is necessarily much different, only what argument can be made. Incidentally, what TikTok is doing is almost certainly illegal in EU, as I have no information that they have even attempted to follow GDPR rules.

The best latencies observing "causal fairness" you can achieve is to simulate/emulate the information propagation properties of light, rescaled so that "light speed" is related to whatever time it takes to traverse the slowest link, and that all faster links are path dependently delayed as to create a similated equidistance between players.

To do this anywhere close to perfectly you need absolute local time measurements with reasonable precision to determine the parameters.

Anything with less latency than that will have some kind of paradoxes, as that'd essentially be the equivalent of someone transferring data (or traveling) faster than light. It's kind of odd that it turns out this way, but it seems that any general case communicating network that's paradox free must be reducible to an equivalent physical light circuit.

It is still possible to make something very very counterintuitive that has a better perceived latency, is still fair for most purposes, and is at least eventually consistent. That is however more based on the relative predictability of humans over very short terms and the same of any physical simulation, and not at all causally consistent in any strict sense.

You can obviously do something to the same effect without this kind of modulation, and it has been done.

It might not be impossible that something like this could make it easier, but iirc correctly, the primary problems were more related the noise created and possibly the chemical results of air turned plasma.

The most perplexing: How is it possible to come to believe water is bad for athletic performance, especially long distance running? Not only water, but seemingly distrusting any tangible amount of any liquid?

I generally agree, except if I don't. Whether or not that is the case, I'm entirely uncertain about!

Generalizing to transportation one might ask: What is the better transportation device, a boat or a horse?

... of which one can somewhat reasonably conclude, that whether the question itself is the right question, is the real question.

Few oppose types if they don't have to do anything at all and if it doesn't take any of their time either in runtime, compile time, or otherwise. Realities being what they are, there is always at least some parts of the aforementioned that is false for any type system that is actually useful.

Because of this, and for a few other similar characteristics of types and computation, it boils down to nothing but a question of which kind of tradeoffs people find palatable.

Given that premise, there should be no surprise that the answers are subjective no matter the responder. The question of better is here nothing but an entirely subjective question veiled as an ostensibly objective one.