tb_ @ tb_ @lemmy.world

Posts

58

Comments

800

Joined

2 yr. ago

So do most "alternative" search engines, often with some of their own spice on top.

I know Startpage happens to use Google in their back-end, but Google's policy is a lot more restrictive than Microsoft's given their market position.

I thought captcha's worked in a way where they provided some known good examples, some known bad examples, and a few examples which aren't certain yet. Then the model is trained depending on whether the user selects the uncertain examples.

Also it's very evident what's being trained. First it was obscured words for OCR, then Google Maps screenshots for detecting things, now you see them with clearly machine-generated images.

I don't think 100% renewable is the way to go, given that energy output can vary.

And as long as any amount of fossil fuels are left in the energy supply chain, I'd rather they be replaced with nuclear. Even if it's more expensive.

I'm not making the decision so it doesn't matter.

Perhaps not directly, but assuming you live in a democracy your vote does matter.

It may not reduce the delta, but we gotta cover the base load somehow. Nuclear is ideal for that job.

I'unno, read the article.

Nuclear doesn't reduce the difference between supply and demand.

How does it not?
There's a certain "base load" to any power grid which could easily be done by "inflexible" nuclear powerplants.

Sodium doesn't address the problem with EV weight.

Inefficiency is fine if you have an abundance of energy.

Running a country exclusively on renewables comes with its own costs in storage and emergency solutions.
I'm not saying "go exclusively nuclear" either. Supplementing it with renewables should be done.

2024, you mean?

I'm not a fan. I prefer watching in theatre mode; when opening comments it closes theatre mode.

Going 100% renewable is going to require an immense amount of storage, nevermind their instability. Any base load we can replace with nuclear is going to lessen that burden.

EV's are heavy and require a ton of rare Lithium.

Using over capacity to generate hydrogen seems to me like a way to solve that. Hydrogen which in turn can be used to power cars, trucks, ships.

I don't see how nuclear would slow the transition away from oil and gas.

Depending on your definition "pay to skip" = "pay to win".

Sorry, I was replying to a comment about offshore wind in the EU.

Supposedly you'd set up some proper regulations, implement checks and balances but given the current US business and political climate; good question.

They have no upsides

Except the lack of greenhouse gas emissions, once up and running.

If we actually started developing them on any sort of scale most of those negatives you mention will be negated.
Flexibility, as in the inability to quickly ramp down, can be solved with storage or with generating hydrogen.

We need more nuclear reactors

Or "donations", "sponsorships", and similar.

Nokia doesn't make smartphones either, they licensed their brand name to HMD Global.

(In case you might find that curious)

I gave up after 14! Silly me.

For all its flaws, Halo 4 did have some intrigue. Which they then completely abandoned for Halo 5's story. Which they then, again, completely abandoned for Infinite. It's just like the sequel trilogy!

It's such a mess.

But they could've been much worse (cough Trump cough)

Add ?t=7m20s to your youtu.be links for timestamps.

https://youtu.be/wpJ41u9GN8Y?t=7m20s

While I, to some extent, agree with you; it is predatory behaviour by those companies and I don't like it.
And some people are weak to such practices. Customers have to be protected from themselves to some extent, as has been shown in other industries.