Morphit @ Morphit @feddit.uk

Posts

4

Comments

284

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well read the BBC article on this then: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0elzk24dno

It's an iPhone 'feature' that summarises a bunch of notifications into one. It took a set of BBC headlines and turned them into "Luigi Mangione shoots himself..." They don't list the article that was being summarised so I don't know what the original headline was.

Are we talking Adobe Flash ancient or Macromedia Flash ancient?

Already done of course

BBC article mentioning this flight. A tweet from FR24 says that the aircraft "was old with an older transponder generation, so some data might be bad or missing", that it was "flying in an area of GPS jamming, so some data might be bad", and that there was not aware of any airports in the area where the signal was lost.

7km altitude give or take

The ADS-B data puts it as descending between 23 and 22 thousand feet. That's below 7km.

We heard it here first, comrade.

I didn't recognise the '10 seconds of human consideration' claim. I found this ProPublica report on it: How Cigna Saves Millions by Having Its Doctors Reject Claims Without Reading Them

There a former Cigna doctor says “It takes all of 10 seconds to do 50 at a time.” They claim to have seen documents for a two month period that put the average at 1.2 seconds per review. That's using a specific review system that processed 300,000 claims over that period.

They don't mention if there were other claims processed with different methods but still, the OP article seemed to be generous with that claim.

I don't know what the "90%-error-rate AI" claim is about though. It'd be nice if the sources were actually cited.

Yeah, they're a burgers & spies joint.

really vibes with me

Just watch out for the ground resonance.

The Phénix reactor shut down in 2009 so I think that was the end of France's breeder reactors. India, China and Russia still have operating breeder reactors.

Breeding from non-fissile material is different to reprocessing though. Reprocessing is a chemical process, not a nuclear one. The UK had an operational reprocessing capability - though it is being decommissioned now because it wasn't cost effective with such a small fleet. Japan is still trying to bring its reprocessing plant online (after years of trouble). However France is doing it routinely for their domestic fleet and some foreign reactors IIRC. The USA made reprocessing illegal back in 1977 due to proliferation concerns. Despite that ban being repealed, they haven't set up the regulatory infrastructure to be able to do it so no one has bothered. Maybe the new nuclear industry will shake that up a bit.

They're over by a factor of 6 which would add up to 21 hours, not 24. I don't know what they've done to get 2.5 million, it should be 417 thousand with those numbers.

Edit: Oh dear. They said each oven could completely cook 6 turkeys in a day so they rounded to that number. At least it no longer reads GW/day.
The source

1500 cubic meters

Did you really pick the figure from the RBMK reactor type?

For PWRs, 250 m³ of LILW per GW annum is 28.5 m³ of LILW per TWh.

2.5 million turkeys in a 2.4 kW oven for 3.5 hours uses 0.021 TWh.

So 2.5 million turkeys and 0.6 m³ total low and intermediate wastes generated. Most of this can be released after ~300 years with negligible activity over natural background. That is a long time but not "basically forever".

They're talking about recycling the fuel and putting it back into the reactors. Unfortunately it's cheaper to mine fresh fuel than to reprocess used fuel ... as long as you just ignore the waste problem.

No permanent storage location for the waste has been found, to date.

Onkalo

to burn the unburned fuel you would have to breed the material

France reprocesses spent fuel. With increased scale it would be cheaper and cut down on the volume of waste that must be dealt with regardless of if there's a nuclear industry in the future.

Too right. They wanted to show off the design of the Apple I so much, they didn't even put a case around it. It's all about the aesthetics with Woz.

All the way through?

I expect (hope) it's a small factor, but I wonder where pedestrian fatalities fit in. Several of the worst models seem to be large SUVs or sports cars - alongside these Teslas and some rather cheaper compact cars.

Go to the actual report. There is one table for the top fatalities by vehicle model and another for the top average fatalities by manufacturer.

As a note, it looks like the data they used is publicly available from the NHTSA. They mention that "models not in production as of the 2024 model year, and low-volume models were removed from further analysis." I wonder where the Hummer and Rivian show up there since they are not mentioned in the report whatsoever.

Yeah the Rolling Stone article is written really weirdly. I don't think it's technically wrong anywhere but it reads really misleadingly when you compare it to the actual report.

Like it leads with "the group identified the Tesla Model S and Tesla Model Y as two of the most dangerous cars" - meaning they are in the list - at sixth and twenty first places respectively. The mix is really weird though. As you mention the top of the list is cars like the Chevy Corvette and Porsche 911, but also things like the Mitsubishi Mirage and a load of Kia models. So it seems like there's a lot to interpret there.

Certainly it's somewhat damning that despite the driver assistant technology, these models are not particularly safer. But I think other manufactures have a wide range of vehicles at different price points that also vary in safety, which brings their averages below Tesla's in the final rankings.