ruchir

https://cen.acs.org/materials/energy-storage/time-serious-re...

"But very little recycling goes on today. In Australia, for example, only 2–3% of Li-ion batteries are collected and sent offshore for recycling, according to Naomi J. Boxall, an environmental scientist at Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). The recycling rates in the European Union and the US—less than 5%—aren’t much higher."

Until and unless this recycling rate is provably 50% or higher at the time of an EV sale, you should not diss on a 50% loss of efficiency in electrolysis for an FCEV.

that's like saying plastics can be recycled quite easily. only in theory - the real effects on the environment are staggering.

why not just use the electricity directly and not pay the 40-50% penalty of electrolysis?

because EV battery disposal can be a huge environmental problem. electrolysis is zero waste.

I've found most western books written on the topic unsatisfying and barely hitting the basics of what's in eastern books. Have found it more effective to improvise one's own techniques using analogies and would recommend this to others. I think this is 'scientific' because no two minds are quite alike - so do the experiment and see what works for you.

The mind is much closer to computer science (with multiple processes) than biology and physics as currently understood. Think of how a computer shuts down cleanly (vs after corruption or out of memory) and then bootstraps clean (clarity). Or a tall office building that is lit all the way up, that is gradually shutting out its lights level by level. A physical analogy that is useful is of a train that is slowly coming to a halt. One cannot stop it suddenly as it has a lot of momentum, but one can reduce momentum gradually and let it coast to a halt. The mind is similar to the train - it does not really want to stop when awake - that's why it takes practice. Sometimes one of these images work, sometimes none do. I'm curious about other's experience as well.

It goes a bit like this. Most human actions have side effects in addition to their main purpose. Some we are aware of (and may trouble our subconscious), some we are dimly aware of (and brush aside), some we find out later (perhaps to our regret). Not being aware of them causes reactive behavior and goal confusion and reduces the power to act.

Increased awareness of them allows us tackle them effectively, but requires lot of brainpower most of us are unwilling to spend.

Meditation allows one to simplify a problem so one can see its dimensions clearly (less brainpower needed), then allows one to weigh solutions along with their side effects (to get an overall better solution).

Progress requires change. Change requires handling tradeoffs between different sections of society with often competing perceptions and interests. Both nuclear power and hydro-electric power have had activist opposition to development because of fears of risks. These fears in a democratic society lead to a tendency towards sticking with the safe path, until the alternatives are better proven. As an example 13% of energy in India comes from renewables, only 1% from nuclear.

From the Indian perspective, one has to flip the question. The question is how did the rest of the world get so advanced ? Unless Indians travel elsewhere they will not find out.

Well it was clear from WW2 records that British were not willing to pay India even for the support India gave to them during the war. They only relented in the face of American pressure. Records also show that much of the 'development' in India such as railways was made practicable by Indian capital and labor, while the rewards of it all went directly to finance the Industrial Revolution in the west. The 'why' of this mindset of take-take only became clear to me when I followed events after the British losses of American colonies.

When any side feels the dominant emotion of 'loss', it makes it do selfish things to avoid future losses. But that extracts more losses from the other side and so the cycle can continue.

In the light of all that history, which current Indians being on the receiving side remember more than the British, any help the British give to India is at least perceived by India in a positive way.

As to the extent of the monetary help - its effect is limited by the ability of the recipient to absorb it. For analogy, YC reduced the investment into each startup down from $150k as it made things worse, not better.

Wealth is not fixed like energy. It can be created. Money can be used to create wealth when it is used to create new products for example. In this case you could argue there were no products in the traditional sense. But it got people's attention.

So a writer could write a sci-fi novel about mars and sell that to a ready audience.

An entrepreneur could create models of the planets and sell those to schools.

A movie maker could make a new movie with a space theme.

Not to mention actual technical innovations that could come out of new knowledge gained. Moreover, kids could be motivated to take up science and engineering for future jobs in 'STEM' fields. If this unlocks the imagination of even a few creative people, they could put back more than $100m of wealth into the economy.

I like the idea of mutating both the output and the key. You are using it for a single pass over the length of the data. You could use the final key as input to another round of crypto. Repeating it for a number of rounds would keep it deterministic, but increase the computational load of an attacker and create an even distribution of input to output. Ah, problem could be that decryption would need the final key, not the one you started with, if so it would be good for a 1-time hash. So the key idea for the crypto is the nuking of the part of the key that was just used for the xor. Thing that concerns me is if the attacker has access to your crypto in binary form, he could run it again and again on different inputs (data,key) to infer its structure - you'd want to slow him down.

No, Indian society does not label children anything other than children at birth. It is a label gratuitously applied by the author, likely as a short-hand to indicate poorer section of society. People from these self-identified sections have reached the highest post in the country - from writer of the constitution to president, to various positions in the political spectrum. There is a problem of equal access to education, yes. But a) this problem exists all over the world - consider school districts in the US and b) is more acute in India due to large, distributed population against a largely agrarian/human labor based economy. Active discrimination is a much smaller factor.

I think Turing's key insight was that a special FA with a tape mechanism could be devised that could imitate any other FA. The power of this FA in imitating other FAs is limited only by the length of the tape.

However the improvement of this construction over any specific FA is that you have a device that can run any FA. As the length of the tape increases you have a device that can imitate the any and all possible FAs.

The CPU is precisely this FA which can imitate any other FA. The tape is memory.

However it is important to note that, at the end of it, any specific program that is being run on finite memory is still an FA.

Could you please expand on that, or give a reference. What are the newer theories that do not possess the nonlinear characteristics ?