If they’re forced to vote on it, at least we’ll know which politicians have a spine and which have a padded wallet.
They call it jailbreak because this is an issue of freedom
I support your position and the right to repair, but that’s not the origin of the term jailbreak in the context of computing.
The term jailbreaking predates its modern understanding relating to smartphones, and dates back to the introduction of “protected modes” in early 80s CPU designs such as the intel 80286.
With the introduction of protected mode it became possible for programs to run in isolated memory spaces where they are unable to impact other programs running on the same CPU. These programs were said to be running “in a jail” that limited their access to the rest of the computer. A software exploit that allowed a program running inside the “jail” to gain root access / run code outside of protected mode was a “jailbreak”.
The first “jailbreak” for iOS allowed users to run software applications outside of protected modes and instead run in the kernel.
But as is common for the English language, jailbreak became to be synonymous with freedom from manufacture imposed limits and now has this additional definition.
This also leads to stupid rules like you can’t change your password more than once a day, to prevent someone from changing their password 5 times and then changing it back to what it was before.
Which is good because mars will be about the only inhabitable planet in the solar system if Trump has another term.
In most jurisdictions, tripling renewables doesn’t get us to a place where we’re generating more electricity than we can instantaneously use. The few places where it is possible can usually export excess electricity to neighbouring jurisdictions that still rely heavily on fossil fuels.
We still have a depressingly long way to go before we’re at the point of renewables generating “excess” energy that needs to be stored.
It was a UPS I bought on Amazon.
It arrived damaged in the box, almost certainly because the driver dropped it.
My experience with Amazon customer service was umm… fun.
- click the request return button.
This item is not returnable.
- call customer service
Them: “This item is not returnable”
Me “it arrived damaged”
Them: “We’ll send you an email, reply to it with evidence of damage”
- reply to email sending pictures with close up of the damage
Please send the email from the same address associated with the Amazon account
- resend reply from my other email
The pictures you sent are in the wrong format please resend as jpeg or pdf
- convert the images and resend
The pictures you sent do not show the entire product
- take new pictures from farther away
Please send pictures that clearly show the damage
😡
It is, but lead based chemistries tend to wear out and need replacing a lot sooner than lithium ion.
You’re core idea is correct though, there’s a lot of battery techs that are cheaper / better when size and weight are irrelevant.
Whoever wrote that article is playing fast and loose with the definition of exponential.
Here’s the actual data of global electricity source on a log scale for the past ~15 years
Notice that the line for both wind and solar is inflecting to the right. If it was exponential it would be straight.
The time between each doubling of output is increasing.
It’s close, but not enough to be exponential growth.
It was exponential for a while but it’s slowing down in the last decade or two.
Such bullsh*t.
“Dear Doctors… You should perform abortions when it’s medically necessary… oh and if we don’t agree it was medically necessary (yet) you lose your license and possibly face criminal charges. - Sincerely Florida”
It’s not an exponential curve. It’s slower than that.
It’s more than linear; we are adding more capacity each year than the year before. But added capacity per year as a percentage of the previous years total is a decreasing.
If it was exponential the growth would be a straight(ish) line when plotted on a logarithmic scale… it’s not. On a log scale the line inflects.
Such an incredibly misleading article.
1 GW of nuclear capacity generates several times more electricity than 1 GW of PV capacity.
Nuclear power plants run at almost full capacity pretty much 24/7/365. With the occasional shutdown every few years for maintenance and to replace the fuel rods.
PVs only generate electricity during the day, and only hit their maximum capacity under ideal conditions. The average output of PVs is 15-25% of their capacity.
Globally we generate more electricity from nuclear than we do from all PVs together.
At the typical sizes we’re building them you need dozens of PV farms to match the energy output of a single nuclear reactor.
Yea basically. Creative accounting abuses of RECs are rampant. There’s no tangible product or service delivered when you buy a REC so there’s nothing stopping a bad actor from selling the same “REC” to more than one buyer.
But more importantly, RECs don't work to reduce GHG emissions even if they’re purchased and sold in good faith. RECs don’t change anything, that’s the problem. They don’t reduce electricity usage, or change the grid mix. All RECs do is give a company the ability to claim that it was magically someone else’s electricity that resulted in fossil fuels being burned and not their’s. Companies that buy RECs are paying to shift the blame onto companies that didn’t.
Back when solar and wind was more expensive than fossil fuels it may have made sense to offer companies the option of paying extra to get “green” power that otherwise wouldn’t have made financial sense. But now that wind and solar are cheaper than coal and nat gas, utility providers will buy all available green power regardless of RECs.
The bottleneck to building more renewable power isn’t money. Companies paying for RECs aren’t making that happen any faster, they’re just Greenwashing their ESG reporting.
RECs and similar market based methods for Scope 2 accounting are complete bullshit and need to be removed from the GHG protocol.
It’s not driving a transition to renewables just literally just giving companies permission to claim their emissions are lower without actually changing anything.
In high school one of my classmates was named Benjamin Dover.
Also had a classmate named Ma Deek.
I read in a firefighter’s thread that the trick is to use a low pressure spray directly on the battery compartment. (It was a thread about Tesla cars not semis though so that might not apply)
The reason was you can’t actually put the fire out, it’s self oxidizing (it can literally burn underwater) so you basically need to wait till it burns itself out. Fortunately batteries only hold something like 1/10th the energy of gasoline and can’t release that energy as quickly so a fine light spray is enough to keep it from getting hot enough to catch anything else on fire including batteries in the surrounding battery modules.
Takes a long time, like hours to get it to a point they can move the vehicle and literally a couple weeks before the reaction completely fizzles out. They have special lots they tow them to where the car can fizzle itself out without damaging anything surrounding it.
I can understand debating whether an intersex or transgender athlete should be allowed to compete in the women’s division at the Olympic / world championship level.
But ffs do we really need to make a federal case about it in high school sports?
This isn’t about athletic performance.
We call it the “Mens” category, but for all intents and purposes it is the same as an “open to all genders” category.
Female athletes don’t compete in it because they’re physically not strong enough to even qualify to compete in it at the world level. The gender they identify as or were assigned at birth is irrelevant. There’s no genetic testing requirement to compete at the men’s level.
In almost every sport, the world record performance from a women isn’t even good enough to meet the minimum bar for quality to compete in the men’s competitions at the world level.
Even sports like diving where you’re judged more than measured, the male athletes strength makes it possible for them to do things the female athletes simply can’t.
There was a time when they only was open to all competition, adding a protected women’s only category was to make it fair for women. And then we started calling the open category the men’s category.
We could call it the open category and the low-T category instead, and it would have the exact same participants in each.
I got a 2400 baud modem and thought it was so cool that I didn’t need to use an acoustic coupler
The fastest a woman has ever run the 100m dash is 10.49 seconds.
The Olympic qualifying time, that all runners needed to beat to even complete in men’s 100m dash this year was 10.00 seconds.
If we didn’t have a women’s division, there couldn’t be women in sports.