1,824 karma · joined March 6, 2023
Instant hot reloading? Runtime introspection into apps, and into strucutre of the apps, direct view into what the app sends over the network etc.? Open up development tools in your favorite browser, you'll be surprised :)
No one is even close.
- Instant hot reload of application
- Inspect app/page structure in runtime
- Runtime debugging
- Monitor all network requests
- Tools to monitor time spent in functions, painting, redrawing...
- Runtime changes instantly applied
...
There are over 100 issues (aka bugs) in the spec though. Uncovered by these guys: https://youtu.be/zi0rHwfiX1Q?t=1150 (starting at 19:10, includes examples)
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603?hl=en
When you open Gmail, you'll see ads that were selected to show you the most useful and relevant ads. The process of selecting and showing personalized ads in Gmail is fully automated. These ads are shown to you based on your online activity while you're signed into Google. We will not scan or read your Gmail messages to show you ads.
...
To opt-out of the use of personal information for personalized Gmail ads, go to the Ads Settings page
--- end quote ---
They literally train their datasets on people's personal data.
This is what it looks like on mobile. A tiny "sponsored" text is the only thing that distinguishes ads from search results: https://imgur.com/a/WOk4NdR
It's deliberately designed this way compared to what it once was https://atechnocratblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/history-...
To deny this is quite bizarre
Prominently? Bold text?
Here's how they repeatedly made ads indistinguishable from search results: https://atechnocratblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/color-fade-...
Or this: https://twitter.com/garybernhardt/status/1648496387640938496
To quote from the above, here's what they said in the beginning: "we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers"
And yet Google is the largest online advertiser in the world. And yet, GMail used to (I don't know if it still does) push ads into people's inboxes.
I have as much belief in their PII controls as in their "Don't be evil" motto.
Reminds of early-mid-00s and Delphi components. The standard components were fine, but lacked many important features (including Unicode!), so you'd hunt/shop around for third-party components.
Is it?
> that we know the overbuild requirement well enough for a variety of possible solutions
Here's a quiet night from a few days ago. 0 solar production. https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396
--- start quote ---
Germany's 66.5 GW of installed wind is only producing as much as the 3 reactors that turned off last night used to produce.
400% expansion of wind would only provide half present need!
--- end quote ---
> Yes.
And the source for that claim is?
> The fact I can say the same for the uranium mines needed for sufficient nuclear power, isn't an argument against nuclear power.
You're trying to confuse fuel requirements with grid storage requirements. One we have. Other we don't, and almost no one talks about the cost and the requirements. See the quote and link above.
> Because until we decide we want to electrify transport (it's mainly about that not about PV vs. Wind vs. Hydro), there hasn't been demand for that many battery factories.
What does electric transport have to do with an absolute requirement for renewable energy sources to be backed up with grid-scale energy sources?
> But in both cases, we know what to do, and how to do it.
Ah yes. It's that emotionally charged magical thinking again. If we pretend that problems don't exist, they don't exist.
Meanwhile, renewable energy is:
- intermittent
- is extremely slow to ramp up
For both cases you need to have grid-scale energy storage to handle demand. And overbuild renewable storage in for cases when (not if) generation drops.
And yet, no one talks about the cumulative costs for that (and the fact that we literally don't have storage on that scale).
And yet, everyone is clapping each other on the back that hey, there's this Morocco-UK project that is 100% cheaper than nuclear be cause estimations have said so, and so much faster to build than nuclear even though even estimations say it'll take 10 years.
Do I trust them to be as diligent in their product?
And yeah, what gives GDPR bad rep is exactly these kinds of dark patterns and other forms of malicious compliance by non-caring companies.
The banner should have a Reject All option, preferably as default action.
Also relevant: https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come
You'd be surprised how many people miss that runtime drives this. I've seen many discussions where people claimed "you can implement all this is a library" :)
> it would be absurd to build a compiler and runtime system for, eg., Elixir that is not able to execute GenServers.
Well, Akka did it on top of JVM: https://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/typed/fault-tolerance.... Can't say about its limitations though.
On a personal note this is one of the things I disliked about emacs, too: its configs are non-deterministic :) You find a nice config somewhere, or do the same changes,... and your emacs still looks and behaves differently.
It's a part of the semantics of the runtime:
- an actor is all but guaranteed to not bring down the runtime
- an actor is all but guaranteed to never affect other actors
- runtime knows how put processes to sleep until the message they listen to arrives. This means all functions are re-entrant. Well, any process is put to sleep after a cretain number of reductions so that no process takes away time from other processes.
- runtime all but guarantees that process errors are a) isolated and b) propagated. That is when a process dies all other processes that monitor it are guaranteed to receive a notification. That's why supervision hierarchies in Erlang are possible
There are some more-or-less objective criteria we can apply. From "how many actions it takes to achieve something" to accessibility.
... use LiveView :)
We do. Moreover, we need to overbuild those sources by yet nknown amounts because they are intermittent.
> This holds even when you apply the most generous assumptions when comparing them. And non-nuclear renewables are getting cheaper every day, something that just isn't happening to nuclear.
Are they getting cheaper enough? Including all the required overbuilding and all the (yet non-existent) grid-scale storage that is required for renewable energy?
> So fine, build some nuclear around the edges. Baseload is great!
Indeed. Baseload is great. And when talking about renewables their proponents almost never talk about it. Or about daily power fluctuations. About requirement spikes etc. Because we just have to believe that there's some magical solution just around the corner.
And yeah, that revolution you're talking about is definitely not going to happen precisely of the emotionally-charged discourse. And we don't really need a tech. revolution for nuclear. We're already pretty capable of building them quickly, given the political will.
The great renewable project project we're talking about? It started in 2018. On top of that "As of November 2021, [cable production] production is planned to start in 2024, and it will take four years to produce the cables required by the project." [1] Expected to be completed by 2030. [2]
So, about 10 years or more. On par with some nuclear stations. Expect costs overruns to be just as on par.
Meanwhile in China. Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant. Construction of each reactor is about 6 years. Total nameplate capacity is now 6GW. Estimated cost of construction: 16 bln USD.
> So let's please get on with making that happen quickly, because every month we burn fossil fuels brings more future devastation.
Meanwhile Germany shut down its nuclear plants and replaced them with fossil fuels. Additionally 13% of the country is given over to corn to create biofuel which is also burned.
It's hard to be passionate about these moronic things. Especially since the renewable revolution needs to bring in probably as much of a technological revolution to become truly scalable (e.g. grid storage required at these scales is literally nowhere to be found).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xlinks_Morocco-UK_Power_Projec...
--- start quote ---
Most nuclear power plants incurred time overruns, due to both engineering issues and public opposition. Considering the long development times of such plants and the large amount of capital required, these time overruns likely caused large increases in interest charges and contributed significantly to the large levels of overruns seen [29]. Moreover, as Table 3 indicates, the most severe cost overruns for nuclear power were confined to the United States and the 1980s, it is likely that they were significantly influenced by the nuclear power accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. These accidents resulted in “regulatory ratcheting” where safety requirements were significantly altered in the middle of construction periods, with meaningful impacts on equipment needs, construction designs, labor, and materials.
--- end quote ---
After nearly 30 years of FUD and underinvestment I'm not surprised these projects now take longer. There's regulatory capture, political issues etc. It's possible that they now require safety levels way beyond any reason (Fukushima, commissioned in 1971, and hit by an earthquake and a tsunami at or exceding its safety baseline resulted in 1 death directly attributable to the accident).
Unfortunately, there are very few good-faith discussions around nuclear power, it's always emotionaly charged and manipulative. That's why you end up in situations like Germany: https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396
Somehow this estimation is taken at face value, and yet:
> Hinkley Point C is a 3.2 GWe nuclear plant and is currently estimated at 32.7 GBP
This is taken at actual value. Even though original cost was estimated at 12.4 bn GBP. A lot of cost and budget overruns for nuclear plants are purely political, amidst a rising ocean of FUD.
Meanwhile, https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projec...
--- start quote ---
Ernst & Young (EY) has found that an average power and utility megaproject is delivered 35% over budget and two years behind schedule
Of the megaprojects surveyed, 64% were delayed and 57% were over budge. Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,
--- end quote ---
So that estimated 16bn GBP is very likely to be significantly over 25bn GBP by the time it's completed.
Edit.
More:
https://percepto.co/solar-construction-delays-budget-overrun...
"Data shows the avg. 50MW PV construction project delays cost $2M. The average solar construction project is delayed by about 20% with the consequences hovering around $2M in costs."
https://www.qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/...
"we assessed the construction costs affiliated with 401 electricity infrastructure projects worldwide. We found that these projects collectively involved $820 billion worth of investment, and represented more than 325,000 MW of installed capacity and 8500 km of transmission lines. Taken together, these projects incurred $388 billion in cost overruns, equivalent to a mean cost escalation of $968 million per project, or a 66.3 percent overrun per project."
And so on.
Odd that someone who keeps reeating falsifiable untruths about nuclear couldn't be bothered to provide their sources even when repeatedly asked
> https://energycentral.com/sites/default/files/styles/og_meta...
This is a graph with no context and no explanation. And of course it doesn't include things like the need to overbuild and projected costs of storage.
> Meanwhile, Hinkley point C
Meanwhile if you selectively look at a single nuclear plant built in conditions which the FUD you spread around has been the norm for the past three decades, sure.
> $100 billion would be a bargain.
Of course you continue to ignore everything from what I write but what makes your FUD look plausible and good. Of course it won't be 100 billion because there's literally no way you could build that many PHS (and not at that cost). You'd know that if you actually read the links I provided, and not cherry-picked whatever you want from my words.
I have no interest to continue talking to someone who argues in bad faith.
Adieu.
https://energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/18663/h...
--- start quote ---
Additional Costs for Load-following Nuclear Power Plants. Experiences from Swedish, Finnish, German, and French nuclear power plants
The conclusion from this report is that with a well-prepared load-following, there are very few additional costs...
It is concluded that if the load-following is planned and the regulation is done within determined levels specific for the plant there is no hindrance or addi- tional costs for load-following.
<Summarising: the actual cost is minimal, but may affect the resulting MWh price because nuclear power plants have high fixed costs and low variable costs.>
--- end quote ---