Nobody wants energy stored for months. Whatever storage is used needs to get through temporary decreases in efficiency. In places that use solar, that means from one afternoon to the next morning. In places that use wind, it means until the wind picks up. We're talking storage on the order of tens of hours at the most.
Connections
Puzzle #383
π¨π¨π¨π¨
π©π©π©π©
πͺπͺπͺπͺ
π¦π¦π¦π¦
spoiler
I actually found purple first, but there were 5 possible words in that category until I eliminated one via green
Not could, will. These days it's considered unethical not to debrief explaining any deceptive elements of the study. It can also be valuable because the people conducting the study can use it as a chance to find out if the participants knew about the deception, in case that knowledge might have affected the results.
Does this actually work?
The fantastic thing about renewables is how much they lend themselves to a less centralised model. Solar collector? Sure, why notβ½ Rooftop solar on people's houses? You bet! Geothermal? If local conditions are favourable to it, absolutely!
Instead of a small number of massive power plants that only governments or really large corporations can operate individuals can generate the power for themselves, or companies can offset their costs by generating a little power, or cities can operate a smaller plant to power what operations in their city aren't handled by other means. It's not a one-size-fits-all approach.
This contrasts with nuclear. SMRs could theoretically do the same thing, but haven't yet proven viable. And traditional plants just put out way too much power. They're one-size-fits-all by definition, and only have the ability to operate alongside other modes with the other modes filling in a small amount around the edges.
- Tor, from Old English torr, meaning hill.
- Pen, from Celtic *penn, meaning hill.
- How, from Danish hoh, meaning hill.
- Hill, from English hill, meaning hill.
Unfortunately, it's not actually a real official name for a hill, though it could be...
fwiw I recommend stopping watching this once he starts talking about the hostile comments. It's just pointless drama. But the first 13 minutes are good.
YouTube Video
Click to view this content.
tetrapods are fish
I like this particularly because it allows you to tell people that whales are fish, which is generally going to get a much stronger response than if you said "people are fish". Because in the latter, they know you're up to something weird, but in the former they're not sure if you might just be wrong.
Nuclear doesnβt mean anti-renewable, both can exist.
Not easily, for the reasons explained in my reply to @Frokke@lemmings.world.
The people who I talk to who are pro nuclear seem very well informed
I doubt it, because the science itself is against nuclear. Evidence says it would be too expensive and take too long to deliver compared to renewables.
You can't cut the red tape. The red tape is why we're able to say nuclear is safe.
the weird part is most people do think nuclear fusion plants are a good thing and can solve stuff. But they have almost all of the downsides nuclear fission plants have in terms of red tape, complexity and cost
Huh? Nuclear fusion doesn't have any downsides or upsides. Because it doesn't exist. We've never been able to generate net power with fusion. (No, not even that story from a couple of years ago, which only counted as 'input' a small fraction of the total energy used overall. It was a good development, but just one small step on the long journey to it being practical.)
Being anti-nuclear was a poor stance to have 20, 30 years ago. At that time, renewables weren't cost effective enough to be a big portion of our energy generation mix, and we should have been building alternatives to fossil fuels since back then if not earlier. But today, all the analysis tells us that renewables are far cheaper and more effective than nuclear. Today, being pro-nuclear is the wrong stance to take. It's the anti-science stance, which is why it has seen a recent rise among right-wing political parties and media organisations.
First, no, that's not what I said. If you're only going to be arguing in bad faith like that this will be the last time I engage with you.
Second, baseload power is in fact a myth. And it becomes even worse when you consider the fact that nuclear doesn't scale up and down in response to demand very well. In places with large amounts of rooftop solar and other distributed renewables, nuclear is especially bad, because you can't just tell everyone who has their own generation to stop doing that, but you also don't want to be generating more than is used.
Third, even if you did consider it necessary to have baseload "until we have adequate storage", the extremely long timelines it takes to get from today to using renewables in places that don't already have it, spending money designing and building nuclear would just delay the building of that storage, and it would still end up coming online too late.
I used to be a fan of nuclear. In 2010 I'd have said yeah, we should do it. But every time I've looked into it over the last 10 years especially, I've had to reckon with the simple fact that all the data tells us we shouldn't be building nuclear; it's just an inferior option to renewables.
Do you think Goodwin could treat the burns himself?
Safe, sure. Efficient? Not even close.
It's far, far more expensive than renewable energy. It also takes far, far longer to build a plant. Too long to meet 2030 targets even if you started building today. And in most western democracies you wouldn't even be able to get anything done by 2040 if you also add in political processes, consultation, and design of the plant.
There's a reason the current biggest proponents of nuclear energy are people and parties who previously were open climate change deniers. Deciding to go to nuclear will give fossil fuel companies maximum time to keep doing their thing. Companies which made their existence on the back of fossil fuels, like mining companies and plant operators also love it, because it doesn't require much of a change from their current business model.
By jove you've got it! I must make haste and alert the Director of this ingenuous new strategum at once!
is it only a Perth thing to do icecream in winter
I dunno about Perth, but it's definitely not a me thing. Damn place is cold enough this time of year without consuming pure coldness.
That said, I'm big on cookies and cream or mango swirl. But not for the next 4 and a bit months.
Hmm. I recalled a story from 2 or 3 months ago about them having laid off the Flutter and Dart team. Looking at it more closely it looks like the story was actually just that they had laid off some staff from that team.
Personally I don't have as much of an issue with when they're poking fun at him per se, but when they denegrate or damage things he has clearly worked hard on and put a lot of passion into, that's crossing a line for me. It becomes incredibly mean-spirited.
There are two examples in this compilation video. One at the linked time, and another at 6:33. Especially with how happy he is to see Leslie in the second clip until she destroys his art. It's honestly heart-breaking. The pie to the face that came a little bit before that was also hard to watch and really felt mean. Dunno if that's because of how cold and calculated it was (vs the more usual off-the-cuff comments), or because it was a physical act rather than verbal, or something else. But I didn't like it.
Oh wow thank you. This is genuinely excellent and immensely helpful. I think this bit:
A treadmill will only push an aircraft or whatever else along, with an acceleration that is equal to, or lower, than the rolling resistance. If you try to accelerate the plane faster, itβll βslipβ
As well as this video that I found where a pilot explains how under specific but unrealistic conditions you could construct a treadmill that does indeed prevent an aeroplane from taking off,
Really helped solidify my understanding of the problem. So you end up with a situation where the wheels are going to be slipping, just like the slippage created when your hand pushes a toy car on a treadmill.
Thanks!
Connections
Puzzle #382
π¨π¨π¨π¨
π©π©π©π©
π¦π¦π¦π¦
πͺπͺπͺπͺ
it wasnβt like they were debunking flat earth or something
Though you could do that. And with equipment and a type of experiment that would make sense on their show. The experiment conducted at the very end of the documentary Behind the Curve is perfect. Great big lasers, a simple and easy-to-visualise pass condition. If they had wanted to, they absolutely could have done it.
Transcription
a four-panel comic.
The first panel shows a boy brushing his teeth. In the background are framed photos of a white dog, a weird fox-like creature, and Rick Astley from the music video for Never Gonna Give You Up, as well as usual bathroom things. He wears a yellow shirt with "LOL" written on it. Above him is a bubble with the words "Normie Gary" in it.
The second panel shows the same scene, but the boy is gone, leaving behind his toothbrush and a spot of toothpaste. Where he stood are white puffs of smoke, with the word "POOF". The bubble saying "Normie Gary" is slightly larger.
The third panel shows the boy with a confused expression on his face, dribbling spit. He is surrounded by white clouds, and in the background are blurry flames. "NORMIE GARY" is repeated, much larger, now a speech bubble with three tails coming off of it. In the same direction as that bubble's tails are three other speech bubbles each with a single tail, reading "?!", "!!!" and "!?!".
The fourth panel shows the boy sitting surrounded by three demon-like creatures with red skin, cloven hoofs, and horns. They each have a speech bubble. The first reads "It... It worked???" The second: "AAAAAH!" And the final "WHAT THE FU" (before it gets cut off by the edge of the frame with only the leftmost edge of what might be a "C" visible). The boy looks even more confused than in the previous panel, mouth agape, surrounded by question marks.
Plan today's NYT Connections game by dragging the words into groups
Most of my photography has been of relatively stationary subjects, where I just use single-servo AF and either focus & recompose or move the single focus point to where in the frame I want the subject, or largely-individual sports like triathlon. But I've struggled getting sharp shots in team sports photography with a large number of moving people in frame.
If I try using continuous autofocus, it often focuses on the wrong subject or the background or seemingly nothing at all. If I try falling back on the techniques that work in other contexts, I usually just can't get the shot off at the right time.
I don't really understand the different autofocus options on my camera. I was mostly using what it calls "3D", but I also briefly tried "group-area". I don't really understand how group-area differs from d9 or even 3D. And my camera's manual doesn't clear things up for me. I spent a little while in manual autofocus with a fairly closed aperture, by using autofocus and then switching to manual and leaving it untouched; but this only worked when play stayed roughly the same distance from the camera for a while, so didn't really scale well.
Separate from the focus question, I spent the afternoon shooting at 1/1600. I'm not completely sure if this is fast enough, and maybe some of the blur in my photos is actually better explained by camera shake (shooting at 200 mm on a 1.5x crop sensor) or movement of the subjects. I suspect it's probably not relevant, but I thought I'd mention it just in case.
What's the best advice for how to get sharp shots in team sports photography?
(Included photo is a SOOC jpeg of a set play on the opposite side of the field from where I was...a situation that minimised my chance of focus problems.)
I believe there are many such examples, but the particular one Iβm thinking of right now is the Cold Spot haunt which states that a character is clumsy 1 if they critically fail. When would they stop being clumsy 1?
YouTube Video
Click to view this content.