Let's see if we can fix that.
Found this article: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-captured-co2-worth that suggests it's about twice as expensive. Though it seems that's the credit that the government pays, not the cost.
676 karma · joined May 17, 2017
Found this article: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-captured-co2-worth that suggests it's about twice as expensive. Though it seems that's the credit that the government pays, not the cost.
Probably have to be an earth-exchange system to deal with temperatures lower than 40°F, given that heating my house in winter is the use case.
So... If the article is correct, and electric energy costs 77% more than natural gas, then yes. Natural gas is still cheaper when factoring in emissions.
1 - https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-ca...
2 - https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2019.006...
You work with youtube to deliver a box of files to people's houses free of charge, with the expectation that folks will view every file in the box. Do you think it's reasonable to believe or expect that folks won't throw the annoying ones over their shoulder?
My personal solution to this is that I subscribe to a few patreons. I do want creators I appreciate to be paid and get to create more good things. I'm not willing to tolerate annoyance, and I'm not willing to play the cable tv game.
I read an article about how Ticketmaster has a kickback scheme with artists, where artists price their tickets low, ticketmaster charges big fees, and kicks them back to the artists, so ticketmaster is a hired bad guy and the artists looks good.
I get that you might not want to get a CDN for your content, and manage your users' ux yourself. But when you pick youtube to distribute your stuff, you getting dinged when folks circumvent youtube's annoyance engine is just collateral damage, and you're going to have to accept some percentage of folks doing that in exchange for utilizing YT and mentally checking out.
In addition, I have a very hard time feeling like I'm screwing you when all I'm doing is requesting a webpage, and instructing my browser to render half of the delivered information. If they sold gasoline for $1 off but you had to watch a bunch of ads on their little screen, are you 'screwing' them by sitting in your car while they play?
I don't even feel bad about the hypothetical future where I pay some third party site that scrapes youtube and resells their stuff ad-free for less than a youtube premium subscription, because it puts a practical limit on youtube's ability to inflate the cost. The higher the cost, the more lucrative it is to sell a slightly cheaper alternative. I may pay for YT premium, but I'll always support the existence of a competing black market because of the pressure it exerts.
When it becomes not viable, I suppose I and everyone else will do something else, but for now I sleep well at night.
Good luck with your videos.
I don't disagree with YT attempting to show me ads, but I have control of my computer, and if I can direct my computer not to show them to me, I will.
I simply won't tolerate ads for any reason. I find the experience user hostile. So I'm always going to adopt some path that delivers me content without ads. And in choosing which path to adopt, I will always choose the least costly. Right now that's free. If in the future google successfully blocks in-browser ad blockers, I will either pay for YT premium or a third party service that downloads and delivers the content without ads, whichever is cheaper.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/20/child-abu...
2) Russian language Magic: The Gathering Cards
3) Bitcoin
4) $100
5) 2014
6) Coinbase, iirc. Maybe some Russian bitcoin to ruble website intermediate.
7) Laggy and so I did the transaction twice and wound up with $100 leftover of 2014 bitcoin that I forgot about then sold in 2021.
8) I wouldn't hold crypto for any significant amount of time, but I would use it if it made sense, say, to move money in or out of a country with financial regulations I don't care about, like Sri Lanka.
9) Any crypto that gains widespread adoption will inevitably meet its doom as a result of that very adoption, and the plain reason is that at the end of the year, income in the form of that crypto will need taxes to be paid on it, which will necessitate selling off of that asset for whatever currency the taxes are paid in. For this reason, demand for fiat currency will always exceed demand for crypto.
Crypto with a conserved amount is by definition a greater fool asset, and cannot be regarded as a store of value.
In spite of the above, it is useful insofar as it's capable of moving money from one location to another. That is utility that people pay for on the order of half a percent. Crypto's value relative to its useful work in this capacity is therefore on the order of (0.5% * {$,£,¥})/fee. A complication of the common claim of bitcoin's limited supply is that bitcoin doesn't have a monopoly on this utility, which means it doesn't have a monopoly on it's sole source of value, which means it's not effectively scarce.
This doesn't take into account the value of information work performed for a fee in the form of, say, smart contracts. When we can write and have the cloud execute something like a webserver, then the cryptocurrency has a value equal to (value of information work performance)/(gas fee). This is what I'm most optimistic about, as I would love to have a decentralized, anonymous webserver I can run by feeding quarters into the slot. It'll be the immediate downfall of crypto again, though, because the literal first use for it will be to host objectionable material.
For the most part, though, use crypto to move money from A to B, and quit caring what a given token is worth. If bitcoin is $1M, you shouldn't care, because if you want to move $20,000, then you're buying and selling 0.02 of a bitcoin instead of 0.8 of a bitcoin as quickly as possible. The only reason you care about the token's value is the product of value * transaction fee.
If a class of 30 physics students all get an A, the value is in comparing their A to a B from another year or university.
Who cares what the stupid law says.
In the military, you're always training a replacement, and come 65 (or 68), you're retiring, regardless of your capacity.
You must be the only one not worried about buying hardware from a company that's synonymous with blatant privacy violations.
(Meta is owned by https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a19490586/mark-zucker...)
If both VMs are on the same host, is there any way to essentially achieve RDMA? VM1 says to VM2, "It's in memory at this location", and VM2 just reads directly from that memory location without a copy by the CPU?
I'm no expert, obviously, but I fail to see why VM to VM memory operations should be slower than RAM sans some latency increase due to setting up the operation.
The only argument is whether their information was scraped off the internet legally, and the supreme court has weighed in that scraping information that's publicly available is legal.
If you put a picture on the internet free and clear, I can save the picture to my hard drive, and I can use it in any way whatsoever sans reproduce it.
The only question is if making an AI that can reproduce it is in fact the same as reproducing it. I think the question is a very simple 'no', but we'll have to see.
It doesn't make the AI an infringing work. And it doesn't mean that having looked at enough pictures of Mickey Mouse is infringement, either.
The only instance of infringement is the output.
They're carefully watching and cataloging any communications technology they can't compromise.