variaatio @ variaatio @sopuli.xyz

Posts

14

Comments

168

Joined

2 yr. ago

That is refrigerant dependent. For example R744 (plain old CO2) works well efficiently down to -4F, -20C and down to -40C/-40F just with some efficiency drop.

Main issue is CO2 needs a constant high pressure heat pump system, since it needs to be highly pressurised to be fluid at all. In ambient it sublimates (goes straight between gas and solid aka dry ice).

However that is a solved issue. Working CO2 heatpumps are off the self commercially available these days. Just still little more expensive as I understand. However prices should come down with production economies of scale, upon CO2 taking over due to pollution, toxicity, flammability, green house considerations. He nastier chemicals weren't used for being all the ways superior, but due to it being easier to make the heat pump units (be they running in heating or in cooling) due to lower pressure requirements.

Since CO2 and ammonia were the original refrigerants. Used in large ice production facilities early on, where their specific needs weren't issue even for earlier technology. Large, purpose built, stationary industrial facility had no problem accommodating the needed massive pressures by just really massive and heavy pipework.

However these days the propeller head people developed micro channel tubing and heat exchangers to keep the high pressure CO2 in control.

Not really. Heat pump is not creating heat unlike resistive heater. It's just transporting it. One must remember even though freezing temperatures are cold for humans, for physics and universe those are still relatively high temperature environment. After all 0 Celsius is 273 positive Kelvin degrees. So that is 273 Kelvin forth of heat to pump around. Well say in -30C, still 243 K worth of heat to pump around. So the issue isn't is there heat, the issue is the practical mechanical and thermodynamic realities of he pumping. Which in practice comes down to can you find suitable refrigerants with suitable phase change characteristics to pump around.

Which for normal ambient temperatures on Earth is "yes". Just usually matter of how high pressures one has to use and other nasty features of the materials. For example recently even just CO2 has been started to use more again, issue with it mostly being it has to operate at higher pressures than more traditionally used refrigerants. They just don't call it CO2 in the bizz, it's refrigerant fluid R744. That works down to -56.6 Celcius given its triple point temperature. So it won't heat one in antarctic -80C winter, but for most of Earth even in cold climates -56.6 C is plenty. Problem just is it has to always work under high pressure, since in ambient pressures CO2 just sublimated from solid to gas. Pumping around solid blocks of dry ice isn't very convient for continuous heat exchange process machine.

Which adds some cost to the pump components. On the other hand... CO2 is pretty darn harmless. As long as concentration locally isn't too high, humans, animals and plants are perfectly used to handling the gas they exhale. It is non flammable, it is green house gas, but it is green house gas we naturally exhale. Some unit leaking it doesn't change much, since usually CO2 for industrial use is extracted from waste product gas, that would end up in air anyway.

Plus on need be it can be distilled from air, it's just energy intensive. Which is why "carbon capture" isn't a bigger thing. We know how to do carbon capture. It's just energy intensive and thus on climate impacting massive scale energy prohibitive.

Not how it works. GDPR gives DPA powers to for example order deletion of all of the iris data for not having being collected with proper consent and at that point operator bleeding "but it breaks our system" doesn't cut it. If it breaks the system, then it breaks their system. They should have thought about that before starting collecting data without proper consent.

Plus on top of Fines, GDPR gives DPAs some investigative powers and power to ask police assistance to enforce their orders. They might come and confiscate servers or shut them down personally, if the organization refuses to comply on their own.

Only business they can make is the little they do before the hammer falls and as said after that they can't claim and keep PII or any derivative data they have collected. The data has been poisoned with non-compliance. It will be ordered to be deleted, since the processor has no right possess it let alone process it. Any money they make will probably end up spent on paying fines.

It is non starter, specially their "you can't ask us to delete it". The most severe category of infractions of GDPR are exactly datasubject rights violations. Those are deemed more serious, then say failures of data breach and security. Since those infractions violate the corner stone data subject rights, which again are extension or specific application of the fundamental human right of right to privacy.

DPA will just say "if your organization/business/operation model is based on carte balance refusal to offer right of deletion while operating on legal basis of consent, your operations model is fundamentally incompatible with the laws of EU. More simply put, it is fundamentally illegal for you to operate in EU. Shutdown your operation immediately and permanently."

Also there is no free consent, if it cannot be withdrawn. Again part which is "I withdraw my consent for you to possess and process my information, I want nothing to do with you anymore. Delete everything". There is no free consent without the possibility to have ones data deleted. You can't claim legal basis of consent and then say that consent includes consenting to have ones data never deleted. Infact judge would invalidate such consent even from the data subjects side. You can't consent to relinguis core data subject rights. Those are mandatory minimal terms, legal right. You have them, want it you or not and cannot relinquish them.one can choose to never apply those right one has, but it doesn't remove them still existing or one giving them up.

This will get banned, since their operating model is fundamentally incompatible. That or they have to change their model to a compatible one. Which would mean re-engineering their whole operating concept and technology.

Well mostly the flaw is people assigning the test abilities it was never intended. Like testing intelligence. Turing outright as first thing in the paper presenting "imitation game" noted moving away from testing intelligence, since he didn't know to do that. Even on the realm of "testing intelligent kind of behavior" well more like human like behavior and human being here proxy for intelligent, it was mostly an academic research idea. Not a concrete test meant to be some milestone.

If the meaning of the words ‘machine’ and ‘think’ are to be found by examining how they are commonly useit is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, ‘Can machines think?’ is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.

Turing wanted a way to step away from stuff like "thinking" and "intelligence" directly and then proposed "imitation game" mostly to the rest of the academia as way to develop computer systemics more towards "intelligent behavior". It was mostly like "hey we need some goal to have as a goal to have something to move towards with these intelligence things. This isn't intelligence, but it might be usefull goal or tool for development work". Since without some goal/project/aim to have project don't advance. So it was "how about we try to develop a thing, that can beat this imitation game. Wouldn't that be good stepping stone. Then we can move to the actual serious stuff. Just an idea".

However since this academic "thinking out aloud spitballing ideas" was uttered by the Alan Turing, it became the Turing Test and everyone started taking it way too seriously. Specially outside academia. Who yes did play the imitation game with their programs as it was intended as research and development tool.

exemplified by for example this little exerpt of "not trying to do anything too complete and ground breaking here":

In any case there is no intention to investigate here the theory of the game, and it will be assumed that the best strategy is to try to provide answers that would naturally be given by a man

It is pretty literally "I had a thought". Turin makes no claims of machine beating the game having any significance other than "machine beat this game I came up with, neat". There is no argument of if machine beats imitation game, then X or then it means Y is reached.

Rest of the paper is actually about objections to the core idea of "it could ever be possible for machine to think" and even as such said imitation game is kinda lead in or introduction to Turing's treatise various objections of various "it would be impossible for machine to think" arguments. Starting with theological argument of "only human soul can think. Hence no animal or machine can think." .... since it was 1950's.

Katsos ei kongressi kuulemiseen mitään järkiperäistä syytä tai todisteita tarvita. Ei tarvita muuta, kuin riittävän monen kongressin jäsenen tahto pitää kuuleminen jostain asiasta. Kyseessä on täysin poliittinen prosessi, eikä teknokraattinen tai hallinnollinen. Tätä avustaa Yhdysvaltain kongressissa oleva tietty kuppikunta ufo salaliittoteoreetikoita. Jälleen kongressiedustajalle ei ole järkevyys tai älykkyys vaatimuksia, vain vaatimus saada ääniä.

Esimerkiksi Demokraattien pitkä-aikainen Senaatin Demokraatti-senaattorien ryhmänjohtaja Harry Reid (kuoli pari vuotta sitten) oli ihan täysi UFO hörhö. Mikä oli osoittain syynä jo aikaisemmin käynnissä olleisiin UFO-kuulemisiin ja määrärahoituksiin asettaa se tai tämä liittovaltionvirasto tutkimaan asiaa. Hän kun oli pitkäaikainen Senaatin enemmistön johtaja ja asia oli hänen henkilökohtainen lemmikkiprojektinsa.

Nyt hän ei enää ole elävien kirjoissa asiaa ajamassa, mutta manttelinperijöitä nähtävästi löytyy.

Todisteet: Joku (jota en halua nimetä) joka todella tietää näistä asioista yhdysvaltain tiedustelun sisällä kertoi minulle, että se on totta. Minä luotan sen kaverin sanaan. Niin ja tiedustelun johto on ilkeitä pässipäitä, kun ne eivät antaneet minulle tietoja joihinkin salaisiin asiakirjoihin, joita pyysin.

also upon being able to attack external screen one probably could attach external keyboard and mouse. use those then to operate the device. Depends on exact phone of course, but often android phones accept external keyboard and mice.

Recall, an official recall, is a safety issue notice really. Its a legally defined thing in motor vehicle code. If manufacturer finds a defect, issue or feature affecting driving safety they have to notify safety authorities and get a recall issued. It doesn't have to have anything to do with, whether the product goes back to service garage or not.

Important point: Not every Tesla OTA update triggers a NHTSA (or other national road safety agency) official recall. Tesla has updated their cars plenty without recall notice. Only safety related issues get recall issued along with the OTA update.

Thus it is meaningfully, that they have so many software related (and thus OTA fixed) safety recalls. Each of those times is Hey, NHTSA, gonna have to admit, our software has a safety oopsie on it. Here is the paperwork, could you please issue us the official recall campaign number. Yeah software team already developed fix for it, it's all in the paperwork. We issue recall notice for drivers to check for the OTA to have gone through properly, that is all they need to do.

No maker wants to have safety recalls. It's bad PR. Makers have been fined plenty times for failing to properly inform agencies. One of the most famous is the Takata airbags. Where Takata got fined millions by first knowing and not telling their airbags had extra spicy unstable propellant exploding way too violently. Plus after firstly admitting to it lying to for example NHTSA about the vast extend of the problem.

So it matters, that even on "just a software issue" recalls are issued. The main point is public is properly informed. Lot of time it's resolved without great calamity. However this was exactly the lesson learned. Don't let makers hide issued, make them admit immediately so public knows and can take appropriate mitigation, before someone gets hurt. Also makes makers fix things quickly. Otherwise other priorities might override, since What they don't know can't hurt our reputation, like this is marginal issue. We can take little more time with this. Oh it takes 6 months to design fix with that small team. No worries. After all, no one knows. We have time. Except during that slow roll someone bumps into that "marginal issue" and gets hurt. Having to publicly admit immediately puts fire under their hind quarters. "Whole design department, stop what you are doing. We have safety recall issue. It went just public. Everyday company sits without being able to say No worries, we have solution we take flack. This is now priority number 1. This must be resolved yesterday, says the company board. Whatever parts or equipment you need, order it. Whomever you need to call, call them."

Oh you aren't getting it for free. You just pay for it to T-mobile, instead of directly to Netflix. Never yet heard of a company, that offers actual freebies. You just pay for it in the price of the other thing you are paying them for.

Buy glasses, get second pair for free... .... ... you pay price of two for one pair and aren't just very well aware how cheap eye glasses are to make these days.

Yes... but would Tesla be so open about "yeah this update was about a safety flaw in the cars control software". Since that is what OP was saying on my reading. Yeah the OTA might fix the things, but all you might get from unscrupulous car maker is "we did feature improvements on the drive train algorhitmics". Said improvement being "we removed feature called critical bug from the software". However the last part they wouldn't tell you. Well now they have to.

Since the Recall is not about the database really or the name. It is about the underlying law and regulation, that demands car makers to notify safety authorities upon finding a safety flaw or issue with their vehicle and to not lie about it. Withholding such discovery under recall laws is illegal and to make a point companies have been punished under that statute. So not like it is a solution looking for problem. Oh there was a problem. It is only natural. No maker wants to admit bad stuff about their product, if they can avoid it. However safety recall notice regulations says "own up immediately upon finding an issue or face penalties."

Again this isn't about "Tesla bad". Since most of the "you hid safety flaws" is the big old legacy conglomerates. However for this system to work no one is above the law. Everyone has to own up to their safety issues, including Tesla. Might they also be equally open without the law? Well we would need alternate universe to find out. Since Tesla has operated all it's existence under safety notice laws. So we don't know how they would behave, if they had a choice. Given example of legacy auto... probably not so well. big business gonna big business.

Then again Tesla has caused new safety issues with the easy updating. Though it isn't really about the update method, but their software culture. Some of the recalls are about bugs that weren't on the original factory software. Rather Tesla created need for safety recall by sending over OTA update, that had bug or misbehaviour on the new update software. Then causing them to have to update, the update with now recall flagged OTA to fix the safety issue they created by uploading flawed software update to the car.

Which I would assume won't happen with others, since they test the software to death before deploying it. Since it's a service visit. So it's far cheaper to spend extra couple million on software testing, than finance yet another round of service visits to update with fix a flawed software update.

No they shouldn't. since not every OTA update gets a recall. Only safety related issues cause recalls. What OTA recall means is software or algorhitm related to the drive train, driving or related systems had a safety related issue.

It is normal, that now that there is more software control, there is more software related recalls. The point isn't to track how many times the car went to shop to be worked on. The point is to track how many times and how severe safety related issues there is. Just because the solution was simple to end user OTA update doesn't mean the underlying safety issue wasn't severe.

Before you had to go to garage to fix sticking accelerator cable. Now you have to update the power delivery mapping algorhitm, since it had a bug qnd didn't properly cut the torque from the motor on accelerator lift. Both are uncommanded acceleration application issues. Equally severe and very serious safety issues. One just needs physical work, other software fixing.

That they have to update the software so often regarding safety says to me their safety verification procedure isn't robust.

Also not like Tesla is the only one. Others also have had to update their software for bugs or ill behavior. Just not as often. I would hazard due to more conservative software updating.

Bunch of the recalls for Tesla have been caused by them updating software, introducing a bug and then having to pretty soon after safety recall for the update fixing that bug. If they had scrutineered the software more closely, they would have avoided the safety recall. Since the deployed software would be bug free on the first deployment.

Remember on modern EV, single bug in control software can send front and rear tires spinning in opposite directions. On 4 motor torque vectoring the software can send the car into uncontrolled tank spin with one side pulling forward and other backward.

The simple truth is the driveline control software is safety critical component of modern car and thus should absolutely earn safety notices on having problems. Mind you recall is archaic name for safety notice, but that is the name in legislations and use. On many other fields also there is archaic legacy terms in use and people learn to deal with it.

Yeah. Unless he has evidence... Yeah, don't go around spewing that kind of stuff. How about going with "looks like middle-aged man having midlife crisis and currently in the "gym rat" phase of it"... little dig in there, but you know more realistic. Yeah he is little funny with the shirtless sports posing, so throw some shade over it. However it in no way implies cheating on his wife. Don't know if he is, don't know if he isn't, but getting the middle life crisis hobby of "jiu-jitsu" doesn't tell anything about that.

As said I think him getting in shape, sports and posing is way more about just bulk standard mid-life crisis. "Oh I'm getting little old. When did that midsection and belly got so wide. I should start a sports hobby to get in shape and avoid cardiovascular disease". Some people get a motorbike to catch the lost youth. Others become gym rats/sports nuts to try to catch back their lost youth body.

Again which really wouldn't be that interesting except billionaire and also him apparently getting so hooked on it, that he started competing in tournaments.

Doesn't also remove anything from his horrible record of business ethics. He has absolutely horrible business ethics as most of these silicon valley billionaires in the advertising/social media sphere. Comes with the territory. One doesn't start a targeted advertising social media business, if one values the ethics of peoples right to privacy.

Well that is a good way for a diplomat to lose their job. Publicly criticizing the head diplomat of the country. Whether or not the criticism is valid is beside the point. One doesn't go around publicly criticizing the head of state. Now absolutely behind closed doors tell him You should be little more careful, that last public statement might not have been in the best possible tone.

Like it is kinda funny how he got sacked criticizing head of state for what might be interpreted as alliance disunity. While showing national disunity by publicly criticizing his own head of state. Yeah. That gets you fired.

Amazon is a retailer, they can choose to sell or not sell whomever’s goods they want to.

Amazon is also platform operator. This is about Amazon being the direct seller on the selling platform operated by this company called Amazon vs third party seller selling Apple products on the platform operated by this company called Amazon.

Meaning stuff like Amazon placing their own direct sell offer higher on results or as said how prominently they featured advertising by their party sellers.

This is the danger of trying to operate both as the retailer and as the platform operator on same market place. Competition authority will very carefully scrutinise ones operating of the market platform on benefit of ones retail sales.

Direct single party retail webshops don't have this problem. Neither do pure marketplace platform, where they just run the marketplace and don't offer any first party product sales.

They could choose to not do third party sellers and be pure first party retailer. However then their selection would be smaller. Since third party sellers cover much of the niches not lucrative enough for amazon itself to cover. Then Amazon wouldn't be the "buy everything" store, which would also hurt their retail business. Since the default move wouldn't be "well lets first look on amazon, they have everything there".

Amazon is trying to have their cake and eat it too. Competition authority is saying "hold on there now, you either eat it or keep it. No cheating and double dipping." If you are to be both market place and retailer, there needs to be firewall between those two divisions and fair dealing with the other retailers on your marketplace.

traditional grocery stores won’t put in any effort to provide it

At least where I live here in Finland, traditional retail chains are very much in the shopping delivery business. Exactly including using their vast retail stores network as their base of deliveries. However again their stores are actual stores.

The dark stores would have had choices. For example don't run a purely dark store. Run it as combined delivery base and retail store. The walk in retail might be minority of the business, but then they could say "no, we also have walk in customers. We aren't a dark store, the city mayor is free to walk in and come buy a bottle of cola from us."

Well they didn't ban the business model. They just ruled that a warehouse can't be classed as a store. Which is atleast to me fair sounding. Since should customer not be able to walk into that establishment and buy stuff, it isn't a store. It is delivery warehouse. Hence it shouldn't be allowed on zonings and placings only meant for stores. You shouldn't run commercial warehouse out of retail zoning. Since commercial warehousing is not a retail business. Retail implies customers are directly retail consumers, not other business partners.

Normal store could still partner with a delivery company. Issue is the delivery companies don't want to partner with normal stores, since then the store wants their cut. They want to directly rent a space and turn it into warehouse. Since that costs less per item, than paying to partner with a store. You could still operate the store as supply point. Just can't be just a delivery point.

It was companies own decision "we don't think this makes sense, if we can't pinch the last penny by running our own dark store. instead of say partnering with local retail chain".

Russia still get to maintain their main embassy at capital Helsinki. Just as Finland still has it's main Moscow embassy.

Also be careful with polarity. Here is an article with some basics of power jacks.

https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/connector-basics/power-connectors

Even if it was just pure anti-personnel clusters, we have evidence of that far back in 2022. So even then he would be lying. For example there is photo graphic evidence from the bomb disposal teams in Ukraine of 9N24 submunition. Which is soviet pure anti-personnel submunition for their cluster dispensers. It has no other purpose. It isn't even dual use dumb HEAT/FRAG submunition. 9N24 is pure fragmentations anti-personnel round with simple contact fuse. Hit's ground, the explosive core along the main cylinder shaped munition explodes and well the whole outside wall is lined with steel balls to be thrown in 360 all around.

Similarly 9N210 HE/FRAG munitions have been documented. Again useless against armored targets, only use case is against soft targets like humans. As have 9N235 again HE/FRAG sub munitions been documented.

All same purpose, just little different sized and exact design for different dispensers. Some those might theoretically have fuses with self destruct. However the whole point about cluster munitions being bad is fuses fail, including supposed self-destruct fuses. There is no such thing as 100% reliable fuse, even self destruct one.

My source: Armaments Research Services articles on the subject. I'm sure there is bunch of other more official sources also, including listing more individual incidents and attacks. ARES are just convenient source here, since they are interested the weapons technologies and types used in conflicts, so they have bunch of articles of "This specific type of submunitions has now been seen in Ukraine".