jtaillon

I think a lot of people would be into this. If you're willing to, you should totally do it! You might get some good contributions from the community, too.

Do you have/do you plan to open source this anywhere? I'd be really interested in checking it out!

What a strange take. It reads as "nothing is worth improving on if it cannot 100% completely replace the thing that we're trying to get rid of". If we can reduce our dependence (say 50%) on a power source that has huge negative externalities, isn't that a worthwhile effort?

This article (and the included video) has a bit more detail for those interested in the mechanics of how they accomplished the move (like me!): https://www.archdaily.com/973183/the-building-that-moved-how...

Yes, in the same way a Cuisinart blender is a "monopoly" since I can only buy a Cuisinart blender from Cuisinart

No one's preventing anyone from building a better solution and making it available to consumers. Not a monopoly

Ok, then the government should be doing it and investing to meet current and future demand. A private company (in a non-regulated market) can't be forced to do so.

Should they? Why should one private company be forced to build infrastructure for other companies that are intentionally dragging their heels? GM doesn't run gas stations

It would be great if they could be altruistic to let anyone use them, but altruism isn't really a good path to profits in our society

Tesla has not "monopolized" charging stations in any reasonable understanding of the word. They spent somewhere south of $1B to built their own infrastructure. Any other company could have done that, but they chose to drag their heels instead. Even still, they could _still_ do that (and maybe EA will be that network). Electricity is pretty much everywhere, and there's definitely room for lots more long distance chargers. I don't understand how anyone could think what Tesla has done with it's supercharger network is a bad thing....

What do electron fumes smell like? :)

The thing is, they're not "ludicrously expensive". Sure, Teslas and Porsches and Jaguars are, but you can also get a late-model used Nissan Leaf for under 10k, or a brand new Kia Niro for ~30k after tax credit. That's well within the bell curve of what people spend on ICE cars, used or not. A Leaf might not meet your needs, but it's not like there aren't other options out there. If you factor in longer-term costs like fuel cost, maintenance, and wear-and-tear, the equation tilts even further towards EV.

Not to say they shouldn't be cheaper, but they'll definitely get there. We're pretty close to price-parity as is (just not tons of options).

Yes, see this plot from IEA: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-l...

This is as of 2018, and one would expect that the grid will continue to get cleaner as time goes on, which means the BEV options will get cleaner as well.

In this case, "in and out of focus" is actually variations in the amplitude of the probability function for the electron density projected onto a single plane (to a first approximation). Sometimes the wave functions of all the electrons interfere constructively, so you see a bright spot, and sometimes deconstructively, so you see dark. Depending on the orientation of things, this results in the images of "atoms" that you see in the picture. As the crystal changes shape and size, the interference patterns change, which partially explains why it disappears and reappears a few times. There's a bit more going on than that, but the physics of what's happening in a TEM image is really neat.

Maybe, if you're unlucky. In all likelihood, you'll be asymptomatic and spreading it to a bunch of other people without realizing it (which is most of the reason we're in this mess). Then those people do the same, get sick, and/or die.

That's pretty much correct. Single-atom imaging is possible using aberration-corrected scanning TEM, but the beam doses used will typically obliterate anything organic through radiolysis or ionization damage (although there are emerging ways around that using some interesting compressive sensing techniques).

Most "atomic resolution" EM images you see are actually images of columns of atoms, since the imaging mode is transmission, so necessarily the image is summed through the plane of the sample (so atomic resolution is only in the perpendicular plane).

The techniques used in this paper get around the dose issue by taking many images of very many presumably identical proteins (called dose fractionation) at very low dose. Computer algorithms are then used to stitch together a 3D model based on the low-dose individual images. Making it really cold also helps things from breaking down under the beam.

Not OP, but I built this, and have been pretty happy with it for the cost: https://alphacolin.com/ikea-standing-desk-for-22-dollars/

Same for me (same build and OS)

How do you manage the audio for your games? Do you use the newer audio sharing setup, or have you rigged something up in OBS, etc?

Surprisingly, this isn't really true (as far as noise is concerned). Noise pollution travels far, and if you're using sensitive equipment, you can easily pick up the noise of planes flying nearby at 30,000 ft.

CH is passed on! CH is no more! CH has ceased to be! CH has expired and gone to meet 'is maker!

Or it turns Jeff Bezos into the richest man in the world... Anecdata can go both ways!

Is that true for homeowner's insurance? As far as I know, the 20% rule is for private mortgage insurance (PMI), which pays to the lender if you fail to make your payments. Basically an added payment because with a low down-payment, you're seen as an extra risk of default that must be insured separately.

Moissanite is also synthetic (typically grown via a chemical vapor deposition process). It's not carbon (like diamonds), but made of SiC, a material long used for abrasives and more recently for high-power electronics and LEDs. The 4H-SiC polymorph is actually extraordinarily rare in nature, even moreso than diamonds!

We chose moissanites as the primary stones in my wife's engagement rings and everyone talks about how pretty it is. It's a bit more "firey" or "sparkly" than a regular diamond (because of more birefringence), but I guarantee no one outside a very highly trained jeweler would know the difference (if that's important to you). It's worth it to spend the money on the higher quality ones though, since just like diamonds, the inexpensive ones will have yellowish or greenish tints. Even still, they're at least an order of magnitude cheaper than similar diamonds ($600 vs. $6,500 at my quick search for ~1 carat).

Oh stop it. I encourage you to go for a test drive and try it out yourself. It works (in the conditions they claim it does), and it makes driving long distances or in stop-and-go traffic significantly easier. Dumb people will do dumb things, but if it were not for Tesla pushing the envelope, the car industry as a whole would be stuck in 2005.

I thought this was a pretty well known practice.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto...

From my (admittedly limited) understanding, they would trespass on peoples farms and test their crops to see if they had any features similar to their GMO seed products (which could be present just due to the fact that your neighbors' farms use Monsanto seed, and pollen isn't exactly easy to control). According to the report cited in the article "Monsanto brought some 142 patent infringement suits against 410 farmers and 56 small businesses in more than 27 states." I'm sure some of that may be valid patent protection, but it's hard to defend yourself when a company as large as Monsanto decides it wants to challenge you in the legal system, and I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I think the issue here is that the Georgia courts cite these annotations in their opinions, meaning that they effectively have the weight of law. If there is no de facto difference between an annotation and a law, why can one be copyrighted and hidden behind a paywall while the other cannot?

This is a separate from the (also unbelievable, to me) issue that a paid private corporation writes these annotations that are then referenced with the force of law by the courts.

Yup, who make money the more you engage with or watch their advertisers. It turns out anger/rage seems to be the best way to do that. People (on the whole) don't consume political media to be challenged in their views... they get a dopamine hit from hearing that their view is correct and continue in a spiral hating the other side of whatever issue is at hand.

Totally agree.

Off topic, but I never realized until a couple years back just how racist South of the Border is as an idea in general. SC isn't even close enough to Mexico for it to make sense... Also, I'm not sure how they stay in business. Every time I've driven by, it's been completely empty.

> Plenty of people make road trips. Growing up all we did was drive, often times 15 hours, for vacation.

Same here. I also grew up taking long road trips with my family, and took plenty of long trips when I had an ICE vehicle, and now take plenty of long trips in my EV, which is my point. It is eminently possible and practical to do road trips in an EV with access to the super charger network. That is the only point I was trying to make. The parent's comment was that road trips are more conveniently done in a gasoline vehicle than in a modern (Tesla) EV. I've driven the Model 3 up and down the east coast twice now (both by myself and with human/canine accompaniment), and do not feel as though I'm sacrificing any convenience when compared to previously doing so in an ICE.

> This is rather tone deaf. Not surprised. A car designed and priced for rich people, attracts rich people.

Ad hominem, not necessary, and not correct. You have no idea or right to assume my financial situation or what I may have or have not sacrificed to purchase a given vehicle. I'm simply relating my personal experience and it appears it does not agree with your preconceived notions about EV ownership.

I do not think it's that outrageous nor tone deaf to say that if minimizing time spent traveling is the most important thing, you will optimize that equation by paying to fly instead of driving. Some people enjoy spending the time on the road with their family, just enjoy driving, or want to (or need to) save money on airfare, and will drive instead of fly.

> But the value isn't there yet, for me to switch from ICE.

And that's fine. I'm not a sales person, and I'm not trying to convince you to buy a Tesla. We obviously have different value propositions and that's fine (such as the relative importance of "eco-friendliness"). I commented because I genuinely hope for a faster national transition to EVs for the sake of our air quality, energy security, and foreign policy. I become bothered when people who have no hands-on experience with EVs bemoan their shortcomings, so as a driver in a very happy EV-only household, I feel the need to help educate people that there are very few sacrifices to be made by switching. I believe that the vast majority of people don't realize that they could switch to an EV today and it would not significantly impact their daily lives, except they would have to plug their car in at night like their phone, and wouldn't have to go to gas stations ever again.

> gas is cheap anyway

To an individual consumer, yes, but as a society (as evidenced by your exact statement), we haven't even begun to account for the externalities of our fossil fuel-based economy, and I hope (perhaps idealistically) that we will soon.

Disclosure: I'm a Tesla owner;

I don't understand the point of this argument. Yes, in a ICE vehicle you can reach your destination marginally faster (we're talking about an hour on an 11-hour trip up the I-95 corridor, in my experience), but is that actually an important factor? For 99.9% of trips that are within a couple hundred miles of home, travel time is the same. If time is such an important factor on a long road trip, you should probably just be flying instead. I would venture that the number of people that want to drive > 5 hours, and have a requirement to do so "as fast as humanly possible" is pretty small. In that regard, the Model 3 is a BEV that requires practically zero compromises for both day-to-day and long road trip travelling, which is primarily due to the money and effort Tesla has spent on building the SC network. For that reason, I would not consider another EV besides Tesla until other manufacturers (or whoever) puts their money where their mouths are and builds out a fast-charging infrastructure that enables such long-distance travel.

And is being the top 20 some sort of required metric for being a "valid" car manufacturer? I'm growing increasingly tired of these arguments that because they're so far behind the "established" players that they'll never be successful or worth supporting. A company can be successful and valuable while not being the absolute leader. It's a bit disingenuous to put them down for not making as many cars as conglomerates that have been around for ~100 years...