Chewy @ Chewy7324 @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

96

Comments

1,006

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's not possible to change the name for services independently. I'm either with my real name in a phone game, or with a pseudonym in Messages...

What a terrible idea.

@palordrolap@fedia.io

A great, short explanation of the different meanings of HDR is up to minute 1:40 in the video below.

https://youtu.be/frBNnNWEbyk

You put it in a hole, done. Humanity is capable of that, for sure

Looking at the discussion where this hole should be doesn't give me confidence. Everyone wants long term storage, but no one wants it near themselves.

We're producing nuclear waste for half a century and there's still no long term storage location. The generation who created this early waste is currently dying away and I don't think the generation after wants to deal with the problem either.

Not everything is about economics, otherwise we probably wouldn't be talking about renewables at all.

Taking the long term impact of coal, gas and oil on our climate and nature into account, renewables are cheaper. The cost of destroyed infrastructure through (ever more likely) extreme weather events alone is immense and often not taken into account, not to mention the impact on food.

The amount of money countries have is limited. If the goal is to replace coal, gas and oil as quickly as possible it's more efficient to use cheaper technology.

As for "free energy", no energy is free.

Yes, my point was about already built solar and wind turbines, that lose money the moment they are not running. The same is true for a powered down nuclear reactor, as the fuel isn't the expensive part of the operation.
My point is that technology that is expensive even if not curently in use, does not make for good backup power. This makes renewables and nuclear not a good combination, as it's quite expensive.

Biomass isn't practical as it releases far too much emissions to be worth it, you almost might as well use gas.

Yes, biogass is only an option as an addition and shouldn't be used continuously (for backup power it should be fine).

This is especially true for Thorium technology or actinide burners. Actinide burners literally reuse nuclear waste.

Those are future technologies never used commercially (if at all). Thorium reactors are not even in the testing stage yet, it's even worse if you look at acinide burners. I'd like to switch to low emission energy now, not in a few decades.

Oh I agree. Keeping the status quo is a terrible idea and will get increasingly more expensive (as in increased likelihood for extreme weather events which are bad for health, food, infrastructur, ...).

There'll be at least alpha 5 and 6, so early next year a beta might come out.

Yeah I'm really fond of the 2017 too, likely because I've started using Firefox again around that time.

I don't know why brands have to continuously update their branding, without any need (e.g. I understand why they no longer use the Red dino, that's a bit outdated). On the other hand I don't really care about branding, as it's the product I actually care about.

People arguing against nuclear power for it's cost and unclear timeline usually don't argue for coal, oil and gas.
Wind and solar are cheaper, continue to get cheaper and can be built within years, not decades.

Also, renewables are a proven technology while proposals for new nuclear reactor tech have usually never been deployed successfully (as in running continuously and actually contributing to the grid).

Nuclear stocks rise and fall with state funding. It's neither practical to privately ensure a fission recator, nor is it practical to build them privately.

There are better investments.

You're telling me humanity will able to manage nuclear waste for hundreds to thousands of years, given the fall of multiple great societies over the last few thousand years?

It's not even a solved problem how to communicate danger with signs[1], and you think knowledge about where nuclear waste is being stored will be preserved for a thousand years?

I really envy you for your optimism in humanity.

[1] https://youtu.be/lOEqzt36JEM

No one is suggesting Nuclear as the only source of energy. It is very helpful though for grid firming and reducing the amount of expensive and environmentally destructive energy storage therefore reducing the overall cost of operating the grid while increasing reliability and reducing land usage and environmental damage.

Nuclear reactors are not useful for grid firming in a renewable grid, because they have to be running at 100℅ all the time to be anywhere near economical.

Renewables (wind-/solar) aren't the most predictable sources of energy, so they need something to jump in when power demand is higher than supply. Nuclear reactors can't deliver on that use case, while battery-storage, pump storage, biomass etc. can.

This means a grid with 30℅ nuclear would have to stop wind turbines and solar panels (free energy, since they are already built) instead of powering down more costly biomass. This results in more expensive renewables (as they aren't used to their full capacity).

SteamOS as a whole is not open source. Most of it is, but it also includes proprietary software (e.g. Steam itself). This is likely why you were downvoted, as SteamOS can be kept private without violating any license thus your first statement was false.

Valve could distribute each single piece of open source software they use on request to their customers, without publishing any guide to actually build it. (Thanks for linking to Valve's repo, which seems to match this statement.)

This is how Apple does it with Darwin, the BSD-derived open source core of macOS. Without all the proprietary parts it's not useful as an OS, even though they follow all the necessary licensing.

I've just looked it up and the A380 seems to only draw ~17W at idle. That's better than I thought, but still 2-3 times a HDD.

I wonder whether the new generation will lower the idle power usage too, or only the performance per watt.

It likely depends on how much they pay for power and how many users they serve.

E.g. I'd really like AV1 support on my server (helps with slow upload), but the cost for power of a dedicated GPU is inacceptable in my country. The few transcoding reams I'd theoretically need in a worst case scenario are more than met with an iGPU.

Pirate groups generally try to optimize for the minimum they themselves actually need.

For example most specialized trackers only allow for english audio and some even restrict subtitles, which makes it difficult to find torrents for other languages. The only option is finding BluRay disks and then doing the remuxing.

Good point. Setting up shadowsocks and tunneling wireguard through is on my to-do list. I believe ss also works over TCP so it should work reliably in filtered networks.

Protections of consumers and regulating ISPs is the job of the FCC. If consumer protection gets reduced and things like net neutrality get worse, pirating will get more difficult and/or risky.

E.g. until recently ISP's didn't have to really do anything if a user was caught infringing on someones copyright (e.g. through torrenting). This has now changed and the risk of getting disconnected massively increased. [1]

An example of the worst case might be Germany, where copyright owners can demand the information of a user who was caught infringing on someones copyright. This allows them to sue users directly for damages of sharing copyrighted material.

tl;dr
It is important for us pirates who decides what the FCC focuses on.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/record-labels-win-again-court-says-isp-must-terminate-users-accused-of-piracy/

I'm regularly using ChatGPT to find the name of movies and books based on the few things I remember about them. It's almost impossible with a regular web search, as I often lack the exact term used in a movie.

Wireguard uses UDP which results in better latency and power usage (e.g. mobile). This does not mean Wireguard can't tunnel TCP packets, just like OpenVPN also supports tunneling UDP.

I'm using Wireguard succesfully for torrenting.

I wouldn't use Mint or other desktop-focused OS for a server. Ubuntu's advantage of newer packages gets largely negated by how long Mint takes to release a new major release, so I'd rather use Debian.

I do think Ubuntu is fine for servers too, like almost any other point release distro.