More like gained in translation, if the formalization fixed a possible problem.
16,324 karma · joined February 26, 2018
Somehow you have to argue either that society itself is bad, or that math is somehow different from all these other human activities.
I think the obvious fact that people prefer to live in places with large commercial organizations shows they don't really care about that, at least to the point of foregoing the benefits these organizations bring.
Cilia form that are tilted toward the tail of the embryo. The chirality of the protein motors driving them causes them to turn clockwise, which creates a leftward flow of water.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1180515/
https://hms.harvard.edu/news/telling-left-right-organ-develo...
Not any recent ones in the west. Claimed FOAK costs on slides are not to be trusted.
It would be VASTLY easier than using neutrinos.
(1) Putting a telescope in space
(2) Focusing and detecting very high energy neutrinos
This is especially the case when photons will have, what, 15 orders of magnitude less energy than the neutrinos?
We've relinquished control over just about everything we use or consume. We can't compete with larger enterprises for production of food, clothing, machinery, medicine, energy, services. Mathematics is just the latest thing to be industrialized.
What keeps large companies under control is competition with other large companies. This competition causes the surplus value they produce to flow to consumers, not be hoarded via monopoly prices. Do we see strong moats that are going to cause monopoly in AI? I don't see it, and in particular I don't see it persisting if it exists transiently.
Nuclear fans have a blindness to this situation, which occurs all the time with nuclear ideas. They get proposed, people run the numbers, and the project stalls. This appears to be happening with SMRs in Canada, for example.
I had been expecting this since updates became irregular.
Perhaps this will force those solving these problems to produce something worthy of arxiv submission. Or maybe someone will produce a knock off site that continues to track these problems.
I don't think when all is said and done SMRs will be anywhere close to the cost of energy from this kind of geothermal.
Today, that massive construction is occurring in China, at least for the moment. But even China is installing renewables and storage at a much larger rate than they are building nuclear plants.
But at high latitudes, this would require either unaffordable amounts of batteries, or so much solar that enormous amounts of it is being wasted during the summer. So why not store instead of waste that excess?
The alternative for those high latitude areas would be wind, which is available in winter. But then you have to deal with how you cover the rare dark-calm extended periods in winter, so you still need a backup supply (like e-fuels in turbines), or else batteries cheap enough to cover those (maybe a couple of weeks). Iron-air batteries might be good for that.
I'm guessing the 400 C is just because they have customers who only need that. They should be able to get to 600 C pretty easily; that's the temperature limit for cheap steel before creep becomes important. They don't want to use firebricks since the scheme depends on the storage medium being extremely cheap, which means dirt (maybe $1-2/ton if sourced locally). Seasonal storage requires extremely low cost storage media.
So... ok? Why exactly would this be an issue? Is there some reason to consider just renewables without storage? That would be like trying to argue nuclear is useless because it also needs transmission.