Tja, besides LLMs I can't really see the major improvement todays IDEs and language combination brings over Eclipse+Java. Great docs, good autocomplete, good compiler feedback.
When Visual Studio (not VSCode) incorporated a time travel debugger, that felt like a major advance in an IDE. I don’t remember exactly when that was, but I think it was around 2013.
I am still a little stunned by the rapid adoption of VSCode over IntelliJ and the original Visual Studio. Maybe being free was the important part, but I still chafe at the idea that we should configure our tools using JSON instead of just, you know, buttons and checkboxes.
Of course, VSCode and its ilk are jam packed with AI stuff I don’t not want, so it is mostly back to a fancy text editor for me.
The other thing to do is discharge it, so it has little energy stored to maintain/enlarge a fire
A drone engineer I worked with would immediately put any suspect battery into a barrel of water for several days, then get them disposed of properly.
The risk really seems trivial, probably because of our extensive experience with ordinary alkaline and NiCad batteries with a very benign degradation pattern, but the risk with Li-Ion is no joke.
All your fire extinguishers will do you no good if it goes off while you are out of the house. Also, the fire extinguishers will only suppress the surrounding fire, and do nothing about the core Li-Ion fire itself.
It's trivial until they go, and then it is instant misery. I've done it on purpose just to see how bad it would be and even knowing it will happen it will still surprise you with how sudden, total and hot those things burn. You have < 2 seconds from first signs of ignition to all-out fire with the battery moving all over the place due to outgassing. It's a thing to behold.
How am I supposed to be able to observe it slowly swell more over time then? I think I might have overstated how big this battery is, or understated how small it is. It's fiiine :)
Yes lots of people swim in both the lake and the narrow parts. The lake also has a few sand beaches that are popular in the summer. And designated swimming areas with shallow water for kids like this: https://share.google/5bko4Xpb0tzkfEChJ
There is an app to check water quality. In general it's fine to swim in, but at high temperatures sometimes algae form. That's common in lots of these kinds of lakes in the Netherlands.
Gdp is not really a great measure of how well an economy works for it's inhabitants, if it was we should all spend our time breaking each others windows.
You have the right idea, but remember that tax rate is not 100%. So if a company gets a fine on X dollar, that reduces their surplus by X, and they pay e.g X*20% less in tax (if the tax rate is 20%).
But you just read an argument, and then completely ignored it, instead started brining up other aspects of red meat.
That most red meat is very co2 expensive compared to getting the proteins from other sources is a relevant argument for many of us, and not a particularly 'strange obsession' for those of us caring about reducing our co2 footprint.
Grazing animals are part of a cycle. Any methane from digestion is broken down in the atmosphere and bound again to plant life and recycled. This is vastly different from drilling rock and letting out new carbon into the atmosphere at a drastic rate.
That goes to my second point; if you keep cows (or other animals) and feed them grain, and use artificial fertilizer and add other fossil-fuel dependent machinery on top of that - yes then that becomes a problem.
But it is mainly a problem if e.g. the population of cows drastically increases. In Europe and North America, it has decreased since at least the 50s; increasing in other parts of the world.
So regardless of the downvotes - "we have to stop eating red meat due to co2" is way too simplistic.
Methane is a short-lived potent greenhouse gas. In regards to the effect on global warming there is no cushy cute 'circle of life its all natural dude ' effect, methane release heats the world.
Even ignoring methane gas releases the production of red meat causes higher emissions of co2 than comparable plant-based proteins. These emissions originate from feed crop production, synthetic and organic fertilizer application, manure storage, land-use changes like deforestation for pastures, on-farm energy use, and meat processing and transport. As you see most of these are 'running costs', and reducing global meat consumption would reduce emissions.
Whats your actuall claim? That methane release is irrelevant for global warming? Or that beef production excluding methane is not more co2-expensive than plantbased protein production? Or both?
Anyway, feel free to make an actual argument. Both of the claims above of is contrary to established science, so you must say something more than 'you are wrong'.
Methane traps 81 to 84 times more heat than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, but drops to 28 to 30 times more heat over a 100-year period.
Cows create methane (or rather the microbes in their bellies) from co2 and hydrogen, they do not 'capture' it from somewhere. More cows -> more methane, which heats the world more than the co2 used to create that methane would have heated the world.
It's interesting to see the power of wealth up close. For one the massive lobbying against any tax on the usage of the fjords(or on the wealth). But there is also cases where they will hire retired professors in tangentially related fields (like sea urchins) to write "scientific reports" "showing" whatever they want, which they then send to individual local MPs to convince them to allow more farming.
The statement from the lobbying group is a classic example of PR deny, deflect, distract, confuse. The statement is basically "we're not the cause of the problem but if there were a problem we're doing everything we legally should so it's not our fault but we're also working to reduce this theoretical problem, which of course does not exist and isn't our fault".
The effects of salmon fishing in Norway aren't limited to the local communities, it influences the whole area, back to the county government. Politicians lose a lot of support if they go against the money because despite driving our electric cars to our cabins and loving going to walks in nature, us living in Norway really, really like the good life and don't want anything to impact that. (To be fair, this also applies to the majority of the planet's population.)
As a scientist and an adult immigrant to the US, I came to appreciate both systems as useful for different objectives.
Celsius/Metric is neatly rooted in science - where it truly shines by removing /most/ of the conversion factors (but does it? we still have, today, speed of light that should be 1, Avogadro and Boltzmann constants are just odd numbers you memorize too) - but doesn't match neither everyday weather and life (0F being "coldest you'll experience in a place humans commonly live" and 100F being "hotest", and close to wet bulb temperature and, through a fluke of an undiagnosed fever of Fahrenheits' wife, nice threshold for fever).
Fahrenheit/Imperial is actually relatively convenient to machining, industry and agriculture (but not engineering or science) - how much of that is actually fractional measurements (1/16th makes a ton more sense than 0.0625), and how much are the "fingertip/decent meal/daily water intake/sustains a person" idea of an inch/lb/gal/acre.. is quite intuitive. Far more so for composite units. 1 PSI is intuitive - you know what force to exert at what area of a piston, same for torque'ing to 80 lbs-ft.
But.. it makes a ton less sense when you separate N from kg (yeah, I am a physicist, I know why, it just makes less sense when building stuff in a dirty corner of an industrial revolution), then somehow apply it to a whole square meter to get a Pascal, and now you need decimal fractions of a million of those.. to represent what you actually see. Quick, do you think you can plug a 2cm diameter garden hose at 0.5MPa with your thumb to spray your dog?
CGS system was quite popular and useful, IMHO for that reason, at the time when Europe was actually manufacturing stuff and inventing them in barns and factories. But it was essentially "neither" - bastardization of sacred kg and meter - lost to SI.
US keeps inventing and making stuff in garages and fields.. and it shows in its devotion to imperial system. But I can see convincing mechanics to 1/8th of a cm and 40g way before I can see them taking up 1.25 mm and 0.04 kg.
I accept that psi is more intuitive in many cases than Pascals. But I remain unconvinced about Fahrenheit. I reside two places during the winter. One has temperatures around 0C, and the difference between -1C and +1C is much more important than the difference between -1F and +1F, it's the difference between rain or snow! The other place regularly sees temperatures around -25C. In both places -18C is just some random uninteresting temperature, letting it be 0 is... disturbing.
Well, where? I live in MA, lived in NH and visited MSP quite frequently, also spent a winter in Toronto… but even a quick search suggests that in MN it “dips” to negatives Fahrenheit, occasionally, with monthly Jan averages in low single digits.
Most of inhabited Canada is a thin sliver by the US border, or coastal which stabilizes the temperature around freezing quite well. Ditto with Norway.
Can you share a good example of a large (say 500k+ metro area, the “commonly”) city that actually dips below 0F daytime regularly? Murmansk comes to mind.. maybe..
> 0F being "coldest you'll experience in a place humans commonly live"
Using US and Canada cities, here are the top 10 places at or below 0F a year:
Fairbanks, Alaska — ~115 days
Yellowknife, Northwest Territories — ~103 days
International Falls, Minnesota — ~57 days
Grand Forks, North Dakota — ~55 days
Winnipeg, Manitoba — ~52 days
Regina, Saskatchewan — ~50 days
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan — ~48 days
Fargo, North Dakota — ~42 days
Thunder Bay, Ontario — ~40 days
Williston, North Dakota — ~39 days
> Can you share a good example of a large (say 500k+ metro area
I've lived in over a dozen places in North America but only 1 time was it in a place with over 500k.
There are ~ 52 cities in the US and Canada with a pop over 500k. Those 52 cities make up 0.2% of all incorporated cities and towns. Over 75% of US towns have less than 5k people. The US is a country of small towns.
reply