We had some scandals here in Sweden also - mostly around military airports (perhaps normal airports also) that practice with putting out burning airplanes.
Yeah, never buy a house near a military base, especially one active during WW2 or later. If you do, don’t consume groundwater.
The military’s approach to dealing with waste in that era was essentially “dump it over there” or “burn it with fire”. Airbases are particularlye bad as the crap they spray on the wings for de-icing and the firefighting foam. Is everywhere and often is nasty stuff.
Is it mostly storage and memory affecting the results? (doesn't say what storage Ryzen uses).
I mean - I still have a hard time believing that a M1 can outperform a Ryzen 3900X if they benchmark something that uses the CPU 100% for a while - like raytracing.
Or do x86 just suck and we found out now when something else came out?
No, nuclear is not reneweable. The main sources of reneweable are wind, solar, bio mass, water. Depending on the source the exact numbers might vary for small differences in counting, but to see the overall development, look here: https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share_de.htm?source=ren-sha...
Fuel produced from anything farmed might be carbon neutral, but the process of farming itself has a huge impact on the environment. Also, we just have by far not enough farmland to come even close in supplying the traffic sector with fuels - while in many regions there still is a shortage of food. So with the exception of processing waste from food production, it is environmental-negative to use grown fuels. Solar cells are more than 10x more efficient per area used and can be mounted on top of roofs etc.
That is a very good point. We have quite a few applications, where we will need fuel for quite some time to come, let us reserve all the "reneweable" fuels for those applications. Electric cars are a thing, electric airplanes are unfortunately only at their very beginning.
True. But how much HVO100 can you personally produce?
Solar is easy to produce locally, even on your own roof. Also electric cars typically turn around 85% of the energy into forward motion. Because it's local there's minimal distribution costs. Additionally grid size installations are competing with coal, natural gas, and similar sources quite well on price.
Gas cars are around 15% efficient, and diesels are only slightly higher. Anything like gas has substantial costs in distribution, and of course you have to drive to/from gas stations (instead of just charging at home/work.
So even if HVO100 is 100% renewable, it's not going to be cost efficient, or energy efficient.... so why bother?
Sure a Prius can get as high as 38% (at the cost of two complete drive trains). But what about the average vehicle sold in 2018?
I suspect you'd be well below the 30% efficiency again. At least in the USA the Prius isn't particularly popular (except to trade in for a model 3). The demand is for the small crossover and SUV segments.
There's good reasons beside carbon to avoid running your car on what's pretty much liquid margarine. Arable land can't be spared for it on a global scale. And it fills the air with the usual medically inadvisable smut and gases.
Airplanes, on the other hand, that might be a good thing.
I’m not sure why the grid mix is relevant at this time.
electric car usage in the US is less than 1 million cars.
My point was that that the electricity can come from a variety of sources, including fossil fuels. Coal is dying. Natural gas is cheaper and much cleaner.
Most developers use multiple displays and two 27" or two 30" display means just as much (or even more) head movement - right?
At home I went from two 27" (1080p) to one 40" 4k and the workspace is not as wide (less head movement) and I get the extra vertical workspace (2k vertikal vs 1k vertical)
Yes, I have 2 displays too, but I don't treat the displays equally.
I spend a lot of time on my main left 25" 2560x1440 monitor and the second 21" 1080p monitor is used for things that I occasionally look at, or look at with intent to only look at that on its own. It's mainly operating as a separate workspace that is occasionally beneficial to have up with my primary workspace (but usually not).
With 1 big monitor, chances are you wouldn't want IRC (or whatever app) right next to your main workspace (ie. loaded to the right of your main coding environment) because it's too distracting.
You would typically dedicate 1 workspace for your main coding environment / etc., but now with a single 40" monitor you would feel compelled to keep things across the entire monitor because it would be weird to limit it to ~25" worth of windows while you keep the rest of the monitor empty, so you're stuck moving your head around like a maniac most of the time, instead of only occasionally when you want to shift focus to a 2nd monitor.
Oh wow! I knew I'd get an interesting reply. That helped me find some more info on the Travel StackExchange [1] & Fascinating Maps [2], if others are interested. I'm especially fascinated by Rückschlag, a single house & garden that is German territory within Belgium:
There's a fascinating YouTube series called "The Most Complex International Borders in the World" about enclaves and exclaves. [1] There are even some "counter-enclaves", e.g. a part of the Netherlands inside Belgium inside the Netherlands. [2]
>Reading the comments, many people seem unaware that Assange was indeed interviewed by Swedish prosecutors in London [1].
This is simply not true. The questions was asked by Ecuadorians and had to be approved beforehand. Swedish prosecutors where allowed in the room but could not talk to Assange. IE no follow up questions etc
To be fair, he was interviewed by the police in Stockholm, whereupon the investigation was terminated and he was told he could go home.
After a while, a senior prosecutor reopened the case for unexplained reasons, and asked him to fly back to Sweden on his own expenses so he could be interviewed a second time. When he offered to meat in London, but rejected coming to Sweden, she issued an European arrest warrant. I believe he was then interviewed by the British police and was held under custody, until he made the not so brilliant decision to seek asylum in the Embassy.
I've read the police investigation and while I don't want to diminish the alleged victims, I can understand why the (female) police told him to go home in the first place.
Simply put, and I'm basing this not on Assange's statement which was anyway consistent with everyone else's stories - behaving like a total wanker is not a crime, even if you happen to do that towards a politically active left wing feminist.
Everything else than the ass-hat bit in this story is a failure of the legal system in Sweden and it's a consequence of the government's self-image as infallible and that it's relatively unprotected from civil servants with personal agendas.
Do you have any sources for how the interview took place? And any indication that it was unfair? (I'm pretty sure Sweden would have refused to do it if they were unhappy with the process.)
I don't know who asked the questions, or what the procedure was, but I read the Swedish prosecutor's statement issued today and they do not mention the London interview being an issue.
Thanks. Your original comment took issue with the statement that Assange was indeed interviewed in London by Swedish prosecutors. You said "This is simply not true." The issue for you seems to be that that the questions being put to Assange weren't actually put to him by Swedish prosecutors directly. Even though they were the Swedish prosecutors' questions being put to him. That doesn't sound like a huge issue to me, and I don't see why it should discount the interview. Especially as the Swedish prosecutors themselves have not taken issue with this aspect of the interview. It seems this was procedure they agreed to.
