9,899 karma · joined January 1, 2022
Why Infiniband ("IB")? If it's for RDMA, that is possible with certain Ethernet cards/chipsets as well. Certainly Mellanox, but Broadcom:
* https://techdocs.broadcom.com/us/en/storage-and-ethernet-con...
and Intel as well:
* https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000...
Link level flow control or priority flow control needs to be supported on the switch ports as well.
Strictly speaking, Apple can claim to ship a UNIX® operating system:
I think most people are getting 512 for running Chrome with a bunch of tabs open. /s
Is it because BYD is more reliable or 'just' cheaper?
There are a number of folks for who H/T would be their first pick if not for (a) waitlists and/or (b) price considerations. And there a lot of folks who don't necessarily care if the car will last 10 or 15(+) years because they'll replace it earlier that that, so as long as it's 'good enough' it's fine.
Curious to know how many of these sales are 'corporate purchases' for fleets versus 'personal purchases'. Given a choice, would most people prefer a Lenovo/PC or an Apple product? How many have Lenovo/PC IT-managed work machines and also (choose to) purchase a PC for personal use versus choosing an Apple?
Do any of these competitors build "machines that can last" as much as Toyota and Honda? Does any other manufacturer have a longevity reputation of either of these two? What are the depreciation schedules of competitors (AIUI, T/H hold their value pretty well)?
So do Toyota and Honda, and their sales seems be pretty steady.
They do:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAriLDgpnY8
As mentioned in the video they're usually used in commercial settings. Also:
> One Way Cylinder Keying: Allows for the issuance of one key that can ONLY lock, one key that can ONLY unlock and one key that can BOTH lock and unlock the cylinder. Perfect for applications where one key holder should only have authorization to lock, while another should only have authorization to open and yet another can have the authorization to perform both functions. One way keyed products are supplied with 2 nylon head cut keys per product and 1 key order card per product.
* https://mangionelocksmiths.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Mu...
* Excerpt: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-...
* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/41085118-unauthorized...
Because originally it was not really that much of an analogy: we only had what is now called "'symmetrical' encryption", but was just "encryption" back in the day (dating back to even Caesar perhaps). So the 'key idea' made complete sense: don't lose the one thing that could unlock things.
It was only more recently (in the relative, historical sense (~1970s)) that public and private "keys" became a thing, and the differentiation between symmetrical and asymmetrical encryption was made/invented.
See perhaps Article 217 of TFEU:
> The Union may conclude with one or more third countries or international organisations agreements establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedure.
* https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/art_217/oj/en...
An article going into it:
> Association is already an established form of EU external relations. The Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement with Morocco entered into force on March 1, 2000. The EU–Ukraine Association Agreement entered fully into force on September 1, 2017. Their substantive commitments and institutional structures differ, reflecting the relationships negotiated by the respective parties (Council of the European Union, 2000; European External Action Service, 2017).
> Article 217 does not prescribe a uniform degree of integration. Depending on its provisions, an association agreement may establish economic commitments, regulatory cooperation, joint institutions, and procedures for implementing shared objectives. The associated country's rights arise from the agreement rather than from a standardized legal status conferred by Article 217 itself.
* https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/canada-eu-associate-mem... §3
I was confused for a little while:
Perhaps do not be so literal: Airdrop, SMS/MMS/RCS, WhatsApp, Signal, etc:
I've been not-reading articles since the early days of Slashdot.
Some data seems to conflict with this:
> A 1993 study in the Netherlands examined collision experience at 181 intersections converted to roundabouts. Pedestrian collisions (all injury severities) dropped 73% and pedestrian casualties dropped 89%.
> Evaluations in Sweden concluded that single-lane roundabouts are very safe for pedestrians, at about a 78% reduction in injuries, and that multi-lane roundabouts are about as safe as other intersections.
> A 2002 study of collision experience at the roundabouts in Park City, Vail, West Vail and Avon, Colorado, showed 2 pedestrian crashes prior to the roundabouts operating with over 164 million vehicle movements, compared to 1 pedestrian crash with roundabouts experiencing over 282 million vehicle movements.
* https://www.tac-atc.ca/wp-content/uploads/weber.pdf
> With the installation of a roundabout, this study finds that the before-after analysis results in a 40% decrease in all severity injury crashes for all roadway users, a 70% decrease in fatal and serious injury crashes for bikes and pedestrians, and a 15% decrease in total pedestrian bike and pedestrian crashes.
I don't think anyone is claiming that roundabouts work in every and all situations: design handbooks often say they're good 'up to X vehicles per hour/day'.[1] But that does not mean they do not work, or not useful, for <X.
Intersections are an engineering problem, and there is a hardly ever an engineering solution that works everywhere and always. There is usually a spectrum of solutions for the various situations that are faced.
[1] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/00067/... § 1.6.1, 3.3.1
But collisions overall are down, and severe crashes down 80%:
* https://tirf.ca/blog/fact-vs-fiction-roundabouts/
> They work where each direction has an approximately equal amount of traffic. However, usually, one direction (north/south, say) has a larger share of the traffic.
While it would slightly defeat the purpose in some ways, roundabouts with traffic lights are a thing:
* https://www.traindrivinginstructor.co.uk/roundabouts-with-tr...
So if one way has heavier traffic (at times), things could be signalized to allow (e.g.) that one direction primarily some of the time and the other three directions the rest.
> Finally, they're also (mostly) worse for cyclists and pedestrians.
Some data seems to conflict with this:
> A 1993 study in the Netherlands examined collision experience at 181 intersections converted to roundabouts. Pedestrian collisions (all injury severities) dropped 73% and pedestrian casualties dropped 89%.
> Evaluations in Sweden concluded that single-lane roundabouts are very safe for pedestrians, at about a 78% reduction in injuries, and that multi-lane roundabouts are about as safe as other intersections.
> A 2002 study of collision experience at the roundabouts in Park City, Vail, West Vail and Avon, Colorado, showed 2 pedestrian crashes prior to the roundabouts operating with over 164 million vehicle movements, compared to 1 pedestrian crash with roundabouts experiencing over 282 million vehicle movements.
* https://www.tac-atc.ca/wp-content/uploads/weber.pdf
> With the installation of a roundabout, this study finds that the before-after analysis results in a 40% decrease in all severity injury crashes for all roadway users, a 70% decrease in fatal and serious injury crashes for bikes and pedestrians, and a 15% decrease in total pedestrian bike and pedestrian crashes.
Unless you use a friend's iPhone, or an iPhone you 'rented' for 5 minutes for $20 from someone on Craigslist or Facebook Marketplace to take a picture on and then Airdrop to you.
Which output specifically? To take one example, the Dijon mustard coming out of France is mostly from Canadian mustard seeds:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijon_mustard#2022_shortage_in...
Time is an illusion. (Lunchtime especially so.)
"Chart 1- History of Residual Stranded Debt & Unfunded Liability of OEFC" seems to show a decreasing number:
* https://www.breckenhill.com/blogg.php
There is of course a lot of political history (OPC, LPC, etc) that makes the whole situation messy.
> A new framework was created where this stranded debt was paid off as a forced separate line item on everyone’s bills.
The Debt Retirement Charge was $0.007 or 0.7¢ per kWh.
I did find this (potential?) $100B number on Ontario nuclear energy:
* https://archive.is/https://www.thestar.com/politics/provinci...
but if you take that number and 'ammortize' it over the average 40-year life span of reactors, it comes to $2.5B/year (in capex), which is about ~1% of the provincial budget. I'm not sure how much raw GW capacity that would add, or how many GWh would be generated annually, to do the math on the per-kWh (capex?) cost.
The article goes over the pros and cons of various points in the energy mix debate.
The debt from nuclear construction was being paid off then, just like it is being paid off right now: OEFC holds the debt and has revenue to pay it off. An article from someone who is not a fan of nuclear, but is also not a fan of Harris's non-sense:
> Harris claimed Hydro was so badly in debt as to be bankrupt. This claim was proven false by the final Ontario Hydro financial report in March of 1999 which showed that $1 billion of Hydro’s debt had been paid down and was on track to be paid off in 20 years. At the time critics said: “wouldn’t we all like to have a 20-year mortgage on our home because then you have an asset that serves you well!”
Even speaking with passengers has been shown to increase traffic incidents:
* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13698...
* https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3141/1899-15
* https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
It's a debate spectrum / sliding scale on how society wants to go, but at the very least one should be aware of the risk factors and be mindful of where your attention is.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq1ksVVeRWI
* https://historyforatheists.com/2025/04/interview-dr-ada-palm...
Other interesting interviews: the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth with Bart Ehrman and also Thomas Schmidt (using Josephus' Testimonium), the date of Christmas with Philipp Nothaft, 'pagan origins' of Easter with Andrew Henry (Religion for Breakfast channel), Tom Holland. Good weblog posts too.
Also on the Toldinstone channel:
* https://fao-on.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Nuclear-Refurb...
Until a few years ago it was cheaper than methane/natural gas:
* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2023...
At least when it comes to refurbishment, the independent (reports to provincial parliament) FAO found:
> Overall, despite near-term Nuclear Price increases, the Plan is projected to provide ratepayers with a long-term supply of relatively low-cost, low emissions electricity.
* https://fao-on.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Nuclear-Refurb...
Their projections go to 2064.
New-nuclear is worthy of discussion, but given we have stood up supply chains via the refurbishment process, there's a lot of knowledge out there. My current largest complaint with the new-nuclear plans is the SMRs.
It was broken up into "constituent" components in 1998, and the a lot of the nuclear plant construction financing debt didn't fit neatly into any one of them, so a separate legal entity was created: Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC).
Ratepayers pay their electrical bills, the money goes to local utilities and entities like OPG and Hydro One, which in turn pay OEFC.
The claim that it was bankrupt was a line used by Mike Harris et co to justify privatization.
Ontario Hydro did not go bankrupt.
It was broken up into "constituent" components in 1998, and the a lot of the nuclear plant construction financing debt didn't fit neatly into any one of them, so a separate legal entity was created: Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC).
Ratepayers pay their electrical bills, the money goes to local utilities and entities like OPG and Hydro One, which in turn pay OEFC.
The claim that it was bankrupt was a line used by Mike Harris et co to justify privatization.