mixdup

you're not entitled to an open platform. if the market determines one is not worthy, then it's not worthy. don't like it? start contributing to open source projects

that said, we've never been closer to Linux on the Desktop (TM) than we are right now, even if it's through dumb stuff like Omarchy. There's no risk today that you won't be able to, in 10 years, buy an x86 or ARM laptop and put some flavor of Linux on it for personal use

That they've put it behind Cloudflare doesn't mean it's "served by Cloudflare"

Maybe Cloudflare gives them a good rate, or is donating service, but it's also possible or even likely that IANA is just using Cloudflare as a vendor, and therefore is paying for all the traffic, which is why they don't want people relying on it or hammering it all the time

The only risk is that Apple hasn't announced it as being reliable or promised to keep it up or the format the same in any way. They could 100% pull it out from under everyone, with modifications in their OSes prepared for the change

a) I don't respect second amendment nutjobs. We don't have unlimited unfettered free speech rights, why are firearms special in that regard that they can't be regulated like my mouth can be?

b) there are plenty of options for completely open computing platforms. Apple has every right to build the platform they want to build, and you as a consumer have every right to go buy a Framework laptop and install Debian on it instead if you don't like it

I don't think "let's just stick with how things work in the actual firearms industry" is what I was going for or a sane position to take on just about anything

Because people will shoot themselves in the foot if you give them a shotgun. A big part of why the Mac as a platform blossomed in the late 2000s forward was because it was much less likely you'd get hacked by clicking the wrong link or just opening an email than it was on a Windows machine (among other reasons)

And, all of that said, Apple hasn't said anything about not letting people have full access to their disks. Just that you're going to have to be very intentional, click through a very scary warning, to do so. Happy to do that to prevent my mom or dad from accidentally opening up their machine to every hacker in Belarus or worse yet Facebook

I would argue that someone who would open a remote access port to the internet with no filtering is exactly the kind of person that Apple needs to protect from themselves

Yeah, it was neat that Claude found this, but Thompson showed an almost criminal lack of security awareness by having VNC/ARD open to the internet

>but how would it reduce the number of employees needed?

A standardized reactor design that doesn't need a bespoke training control room at every single site means fewer training staff. It means the same maintenance workers and compliance workers and everyone else can be utilized more because they can cover more facilities instead of just the single site they are certified on and work at

imagine how that number can be decreased as the plants are smaller, standardized, and more numerous. you can likely get a lot more efficiency out of the workforce when an engineer or operator can work across a dozen of these in a 200 mile radius instead of just one in the whole country. plus you need fewer training staff etc

Natural gas plants all have security, insurance, maintenance, and staffing. Of course there are different levels of those but those costs are not unique to nuclear plants

Doing it that way they couldn't charge a lease to the homeowners. By leasing the batteries to the homeowners they're offsetting some of the cost through that lease, but also the selling point for the homeowner is they (presumably) now have a backup in case of a full outage

Also, you're reducing demand on the grid by having them at people's homes, not just reducing the demand on the power plants. If the batteries were centralized you'd still need to move that massive amount of power over distribution and transmission lines, which is actually just as big a problem as needing to spin up a peaker plant. In many areas the bottleneck is transmission not generation

I mean it is, there is a project in Georgia for a new 1.4GW natural gas plant that has a $3.3 billion budget

But, the $5 billion here isn't purely an investment in 300 MW of capacity, it's an investment in starting up the nuclear reactor factory that can start churning these things out at $1-2 billion or whatever their goal may be

Also, have to take into consideration the overall operating costs. Nuclear costs significantly more up front but over time costs much less to operate (and is much more predictable) because you don't have to buy and burn natural gas forever

But that is literally why they want to get to assembly line levels of throughput. Dozens of identical reactors instead of dozens of bespoke reactors that can't use learnings from the last one

Also not said is the fact that going into more standardized designs you lower the operational cost because operations can be standardized. Today every single facility has different training from the next. Even at the same facility, if it's got new + old reactors, operators can't move between them without training on both

This one may be $5 billion, but the next one will probably be (made up number) $3 billion, and the next one $1 billion

Part of the point of these projects in particular is to get the machine spinning. Once it's running you start getting some of the economies of scale

The plateau doesn't have to be perfectly flat, but it's not a straight line upward anymore either (kind of like our work on transistors, where we've kind of hit the bounds of speed in clock cycles but are improving on miniaturization and power efficiency)

Not that they've hit it but that they are approaching it. The time to panic and steer the narrative is before you hit the iceberg, not after

Another piece of evidence on the pile that the sudden panic and desire to "slow down" is because they're hitting the plateau on capability

Which, honestly, is fine. A lot of juice to squeeze in efficiency and even if models got zero more capable, making the capability that is already here cheaper is a huge win for everyone (except Nvidia)

it depends on how the regulations are written. not every single cost gets to go into the guaranteed return on equity. Probably plenty of examples where it is, but also there are definitely a lot of examples where that's not true. Given how militant most utilities are at preventing theft, either parent comment OP is just being cynical or there is something very off about the situation there vs. most places

every step in the chain loses power. You lose power just in the power lines. Every trip through a transformer adds some more loss

Reducing the number of transformers, raising the high side of system voltage, and increasing conductor sizes are all ways to reduce the transmission losses. of course each of those requires investments so that's why it can be variable and also something to brag about

I mean this is the case universally, even if the losses aren't in a specific line item the cost of generating that power has to be covered overall

There's usually an incentive to solve this though because this shrinkage, in retail terms, would be handled at the cost of power generated (without any profit margin) whereas if it was sold to a paying customer it'd have a margin built in. If the Greek utilities are allowed to make a profit on that losses line item, that is insane

The Government has full time lawyers on salary, they generally don't pay by the hour for things like that

But, he didn't dispute it at the time indicating the meeting of the minds was for the 4 year, not 4 quarter, schedule. Now, is that iron clad? no, but it goes to show this is not nearly open and shut because it's more "deliberately" wrong than a misplaced decimal

Maybe I'm missing something but there seems to be a gap between "figure out the REAL hostname" and "we no longer have to worry about the stream never showing up on YouTube"

I think it was, because that serves as the cautionary tale that tv/movies are determined not to repeat (illustrated early by their refusal to get into bed with Apple as much as the music labels did)

The consumer isn't the side that got screwed in the music industry, the screws got put to the artists in that industry instead

>We are back to cable pricing

People expecting that the content companies were going to just accept lower revenue forever and not eventually get back to cable pricing were fooling themselves

In fact, the content companies are planning on making more money than they did under cable because since they're selling direct to the consumer, there's no DirecTV/Comcast/Charter middleman taking a slice anymore

Of course they'll sell through those intermediaries and take a cut but it will be much less than the cable companies were getting before, and will just go into the marketing cost bucket

It matters in that it's impossible to reliably and efficiently coordinate routes across that many agencies. Even if a rider can go from South San Jose to Oakland to Petaluma in a single trip on a single fare transferring as they go, okay it's an optimal payment experience but the routing and interlocking between systems surely isn't

Which is a problem in and of itself, at least theoretically. I don't live in SF, but I do live in a highly balkanized area (Atlanta) where the proliferation of local governments is a weight around the neck of the region overall

It's the case for most government jobs (which in the US most education roles are for government institutions--whether it be traditional K-12 schools or universities). The law in most states and at the federal level require opening jobs to the general public to prevent favoritism, encourage diversity, discourage corruption, etc. It usually just results in having a job posting that is filled before it's posted as they will have an internal candidate, and the rest is for show

Source of truth from this one is I've worked in public higher ed in two states in the US and gone through this process personally

> So you should apply to old job postings?

Yes. I recently got a job (IT infrastructure engineer with a non-tech company) on a posting that was 6 months old. they had filled it, and at the same time got approval for a second headcount so they never pulled it down