strainer

It enables more precise and complex concrete structures, reducing the amounts of concrete required.

Lz4 decompresses with very little CPU load - a fraction of Zstd's load. When bottlenecked by CPU time rather than I/O it could make a large difference.

Wooden structure is as durable as metal, it can rot if wet, but metal rusts if wet. Both can be painted, but its expensive and a bit polluting. Wood can be produced in systems vastly more friendly to environments than any current way to produce metal. Perhaps one day dropping it in from foundries in space might compete.

You shouldn't formulate the system like that - without any proportion. The proportions are what matters.

It is somewhat deceptive framing, because methane can not accumulate in the atmosphere the way CO2 does. Its levels in the atmosphere will break down relatively quickly if we reduce output, unlike CO2. But the present level of methane in the atmosphere basically captures about 30% as much heat as the present level of CO2. That still leaves CO2 as significantly larger immediate problem and the much larger future problem. We must do what we can, observing that every little counts - a little, and every lot counts a lot.

That is a humorous distraction. We need to put waste plastic into a billion bins, the billion bins empty into fewer larger bins and landfills are the final bins. The landfill area required for this eventuality is tiny relative to the area of environment which we consume for many other things - even car parks alone consume far more of Earths environment than landfills. Airports too, and Mines, Roads... all themselves dwarfed by agriculture. Properly situated 'big bins' have far less impact on surrounding places than those things.

Criticism is of interest to us when we are serious about achieving success. When really trying to achieve something, ideas of fatal flaws are fascinating. On the other hand during a performance, criticism must be effectively ignored.

Sorry I am commenting in a hurry, but I just have to say... Our way of living - is not a desirable standard. Your mileage may vary, you may be "making it" - but most people aren't. We find reasons to be thankful, but most people are lonely, insecure, unfulfilled and comforting with junk food or media, 'retail therapy' or drugs. Most adults are 'feeling their age', unfit or overweight, medicating. Surrounded by and even consuming materials untested by natural history, that may be contributing to rises in autoimmune and cancer. Some goods are in relative abundance, but also overall as many ills.

In the article I linked, a paper is discussed "‘Earthquake response of ancient five-story pagoda structure of Horyu-Ji temple in Japan‘"

How about the mass dampers in thousand year old Japanese pagoda architecture ?

https://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/engineer-in-wonderla...

Where there times when people who discovered sharing an interest were more keen to mine into each others insights or differences, than of late? Where people generally keener to increase and test and propagate their outlooks in person. Perhaps just my own foibles or relative age, but in later years it seems more contentious to conversationally dig into and challenge others takes on their subjects of interest. Its a though as individuals we have no call to query an others interest, no more than to pleasantly listen and affirm them. Perhaps with interests now developed more through information technology, where contrasting perspectives are already collected and competitively marked, it has become harder to be intellectually generous and curious in person.

It is no small feat that what is essentially pre-debugged C64 Basic psuedo-code, is yet dynamically illustrated quite nicely by bespoke javascript rather than a pulled-in browser c64 emulation module. Besides the unusual errors in the displayed code, the lesson seems to flow nicely and I think may be great when "actualised" to actual c64 Basic. I only missed not being able to scroll the screen with arrow or space keys, mobile and mouse wielding readers may not notice that issue.

I have made a small webtool to help calibrate various EQs by ear. It kind-of mimics a graphic EQ in the browser which can also play tones around the EQs frequency bands, which should sound about the same loudness as their neighbors according to the ISO loudness curve. I increase or decrease my laptops EQ bands until the tones on the webtool play without obvious difference. This is sure to be an unsatisfactory process for technical purposes, and I couldn't even guarantee that I implemented the loudness curve well, but I have a lot more success using it to help tune EQ than without it.

https://strainer.github.io/hearqualizer/

That is 1 reactor for 5000 years, or 5000 reactors for 1 year. It really is not much hard data in the context of regulating hundreds or thousands of reactors for decades. 5000 hard drive years, wouldn't even inform a hard drive failure rate.

5000 reactor-years is very little in comparison to the amount which would count up if similar units were somehow economically rolled out for industry. To play any significant part in global energy supply hundreds or moreso thousands of these would need to be operated, each for decades. And by civilians - some liable to fail to match military standards of operation. 5000 reactor-years is really a tiny fraction of what many people are interested in.

I read code which is not highlighted with little want for color, except certain cases like mixed php and html where I find it really helpful to have the two separated into different hues eg. green/blue and yellow/red.

So I find the trend for color schemes with many lexical types colored differently, unpleasant to the eye and usually of little practical advantage.

The more different things we try to distinguish in a color theme, the harder it is to produce a comfortable aesthetic and the harder it is to make things which should advance or retreat from the eye, to do so.

Keywords can take pleasant color slots which are not the most easily read, because their color confirms they are typed correctly. There is little advantage and much overhead in theming keywords of different types differently. Strings types can all share a hue similarity with small difference to help notice single or double quotes etc. Escaped chars are good to stand out a bit, within the appropriate quotation hue. Comments should be in color range which retreats from the eye a little and is well separated from the executable hues.

I feel its all window dressing, plain text is just a little harder to scan for things than nicely syntax highlighted. Busy, un-finessed syntax highlighting is more of a quirk to be tolerated than it is a comfort.

I would say there is no strictly speaking there without a strict context. Bear in mind the characteristics of different animals excrement is not designed to any specification, it evolves in the context of it altering the animals habitat to some extents. We specify 'waste' should alter our habitat to a minimal degree, but we cant say for sure it evolves to that effect. It can fertilize, it can create apparent immediate problems, but such apparent problems can have significant systematic roles. To me the term 'output' then is less potentially misleading than 'waste'. A bit like the distinction between a crop and a weed. Our naming of things encapsulates presumptions and intentions, which is fitting for design, but things that are not designed are liable to exceed expectations.

A project should garner favorable financing arrangements for its merits, not for its risks.

Thankyou for re-distilling that for me. Besides my meager comprehension of the area it was fascinating.

You seem to claim that quantum mechanics can/does in fact model chaotic behavior, only that such chaotic behavior is "not actually real" in ways. That claim would seem to contradict Hossenfelders message, she seems to claim quantum mechanics can't model chaotic systems -however "actually extant" they may or may not be. I just don't know, but I prefer to consider claims of hidden agendas after theoretic details are resolved, if at all.

"Moar free speech lmao" doesn't sound measureable

Did you just make up a ridiculous quotation and then attribute the sound of it to Musk ?

As far as I have been able to gather he is an engineer of historic significance like Brunel and Stevenson. He does get involved in engineering, and quite evidently "gets involved" way better than any other hands on technology investor alive. Starts up a reusable rocket company after Blue Origin has started with the same basic ambitions - achieves it and remains the only reusable space launch system in the World for 7 years and counting... and is a good way through building a model carrying 150 tonnes to orbit, made out of stainless steel. I cant appreciate how to chalk that exceptional success up to an ability to hire talent that can push him of the way at the right time, but even that alone would be a great gift and demonstrated in multiple super successful technology ventures. Telsa's self driving is while incomplete, also the most capable that has yet been produced or revealed to the world. The idea that Lidar is the secret of the final success is your hunch, I'm inclined to agree with Elon that its a software achievement - it certainly is in humans.

You need forms of storage for that. The conundrum can be turned on its head - "What do you do when you have nuclear and the businesses and factories are closed ?" You either simply waste nuclear capacity that you've paid and waited years for to be built - or you need forms of storage to make use of it. Both Nuclear and Renewables really want storage, they will compete for it. If you can only make use of 60% of a nuclear plants capacity, you're price per unit is 100/60 more than the 'base-load' ideal that it was sold for. And another thing future nuclear plants will have to run alongside - is more and more renewable supply since renewables are cheaper and faster to build. We will have a situation where almost all demand is met by renewable supply eventually, and before that situation the demand left nuclear will decrease from 70,60,50,40,30...% - that's even without storage. How many decades do you expect it will take before those plants built with contracts to run for half a century or more, become pointlessly uneconomic ?

Allow me increase your principled understanding of GMO safety - anyone that thinks that any technology is safe, should be kept away from it. All technology confers capabilities and all capabilities can be misapplied accidentally or negligently in the pursuit of private advantage. Fire is not safe, you have to be safe with fire.

What determines the safety of any commercial application of technology is regulation. No technology is safe - don't lose contact with fundamental facts in the coarse of trying to maximize your argumentation and technological expertise.

So you just doubled down on basing your assurance solely on the strength of your own experience pipetting liquids around all day. The safety of GMO food is not even overall determinable by whatever biochemical insights you might have, unless you somehow feel that problematic GMOs simply could not be created accidentally or unscrupulously. The safety of GMO produce is dependent on the performance of regulatory bodies, not the raw capabilities of the latest approved technologies.

Viable doesn't usually mean a thing is only just or barely sufficient. It usually means a thing is at least sufficient. It means a thing is more than good enough to be viable. The question "is it viable?" is used to find out if something is at the point of being "good enough" or greater, and something more than good enough will still be "perfectly viable". "Minimal Viable" doesn't extend to great, but it does also reach perfect viability. Describe something as "barely viable" suggests its not quite viable. Viability is all about passing the threshold of being in fact viable. As viable is a binary qualifier, the "Minimal" part more intelligibly constrains the "Product". Its a minimal product that is yet viable, not a product with minimal viability.

In the same vein "Minimal Lovable Product", shouldn't mean a product which someone could only barely love :]

I did reply to a blanket statement based on a bare claim of professional expertise - and with examples to plentiful historical evidence of premature confidences in technological understanding. There is no evidence that this fallibility has not carried into this century.

My argument was not like saying "we should never do anything like this because of past grave accidents in comparable novel products and practices" It was to be measured and wary of bare professional and institutional assurances.

Regarding the characteristics of plants and animals that we should feed to our children and mass rear in our environment - I am of the mind that the characteristics should be as well evidenced by the long history of life as we can afford.

Everything is totally fine until it bites hard enough to beat the marketing and legal campaigns run to promote and protect it. "Totally fine" is simply the orthodox professional position towards new potentially lucrative practices. Because it is a burden on the career opportunities to those who think otherwise.

Putting cattle remains in cattle feed was fine until CJD was discovered, mass producing CFCs was fine until the chemisty of the ozone damage was understood. More chemists assured leaded petrol was fine and the few who complained were attacked... this list is huge. Its totally fine to mass produce plastics still. So to assure the generally well informed about the safety and wisdom of a technological proposition - you would need to be able to carry more detail than just adding 'I am a related professional - this is fine'

Seems 'marine stabilized platforms' of many specs and sizes are advertised. Surprising if none suitable to mount a starlink on.

If this biohack is so good... moreso if it happened to be simply viable in nature - then why didn't it evolve and persist already ?

I can see how a simple notion of helping carbon capture could feel reassuring, but the true motivation behind this is the commercialization of a partially understood biohack which cannot be recalled once it is mass propagated into the system of time-served species on this planet. Time served in Epochs. Billions of years of development which somehow managed to perpetuate fertile habitats with a diversity of species and inter-relations, which to this day goes beyond comprehension and over all of our heads...