59 karma · joined July 21, 2023
The cited paper in Wikipedia might be accurate and the author is just expecting "at rest" to mean awake but mostly idle. I'd wager that during sleep, we use less than 100W. For the sake of argument if you take out 8 hours (asleep time) from a 24 hour period, you end up with a rate of ~0.8681 grams per second, much closer to 1g/s. Anyway, just a little fun with numbers.
> In 2021, analysts estimated there were 100 million units in use.[1]
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210212163703/https://www.techr...
This has been the exact opposite of my experience.
source: vegan for 14 years, vegetarian for 2 years prior to that, carnist for the initial 22 years. :)
Does this not undercut everything going on here. Like, what?
The absolute choice quote here. Tattoo it on your forehead.
They have 5 electric leaf blowers available right now. You mentioned you already bought one, but perhaps you could share this info with some of your friends or neighbors to save them the cost. :)
> Me, in 2015: [Uber's price] is reasonable, seems less than a standard taxi.
We already know how this story progresses.
And this is where I stop reading. You cannot make such a descriptive statement without some sort of corroborating evidence other than your intuition/anecdotes.
Yes, that's correct.
Some of those reactions on that spectrum would lead to greater human flourishing and well-being, others of those reactions would lead to the opposite. Now think about the reaction they actually _did_ have. Where on the aforementioned spectrum would their actual reaction fall?
Zooming out, how have they reacted to similar circumstances in the past when their own internal research or data indicated a negative impact on people?
The continued "outrage" is that they've exhibited a recurrent pattern across myriad occurrences.
No, it's not. Not even close.
That is, the flakiness isn't due to HA updates breaking connections or an unstable server, but rather manufacturers designing closed and/or brittle systems. Try as they might, the HA authors and surrounding community can only do so much for such devices.
Also, I believe the word you're looking for is 'wary' (as in, to be skeptical or suspicious), not 'weary' (as in, to be tired). :)
> This is a variation of the classic river-crossing puzzle, but with an added complexity - the lion that will eat both the wolf and the goat. Let me work through this step by step: The constraints:
> Goat + Cabbage alone = Goat eats cabbage > Wolf + Goat alone = Wolf eats goat > Lion + Wolf alone = Lion eats wolf > Lion + Goat alone = Lion eats goat
> The solution:
> First trip: Man takes the goat across Left behind: Cabbage, Wolf, Lion (safe - wolf won't eat cabbage, lion won't eat wolf if goat isn't there)
> Second trip: Man returns alone, then takes the wolf across Brings the goat back to prevent wolf from eating it Left behind: Cabbage, Goat, Lion
> Third trip: Man takes the lion across, leaves it with the wolf Left behind: Cabbage, Goat (safe - goat won't eat cabbage if separated properly)
> Fourth trip: Man returns alone, takes the cabbage across Left behind: Goat (alone and safe)
> Fifth trip: Man returns alone, takes the goat across Wait, let me reconsider this more carefully. Actually, there's a fundamental problem: if the lion will eat either the wolf OR the goat when left alone with them, and we need to get all items across, we can never safely leave the lion with either animal.
> The puzzle as stated appears to have no solution, because the lion creates an impossible constraint - it cannot be left alone with either the wolf or the goat on either side of the river, making it impossible to transport all items safely.
It got it right, eventually which is impressive. However, it's ability to retain proper context is still a problem (it took the goat on the first trip, then thinks the goat is still on the same side of the river as the other things.