But sometimes you gotta power through it, you just need to plan for it in advance, so you might feel frustrated, but know you are not mad for not stopping.
If you plan in advance that something will take a particular amount of effort, then you're not going to feel frustrated as long as it's within that amount of effort. You've already decided that the cost-benefit analysis is worth the cost.
You start feeling frustrated when it takes longer than what you've planned for. When it's not going according to plan. And you need to step back and say, OK now is it still worth it...?
Some things just can't be powered through. Frustration helps us realize that so that we don't waste more energy on things that don't seem accomplishable.
The feeling when you know you need to power through and just do something isn't frustration. Cleaning a dirty toilet isn't frustrating - it's unpleasant and unrewarding work that just needs to be done, but there is no feeling that it is substantially harder than it has to be. You may feel frustrated during the time period in which you are powering through a task, but that's almost always because you are frustrated that you are in a situation where you have to power through a task that probably could have been avoided, the task itself isn't frustrating.
There was similar outrage (if that's the right word) about a Matrix remaster that either added or removed a green color filter, and there's several other examples where they did a Thing with colour grading / filtering in a remaster.
To me, that just looks like what happens when I try to play HDR content on a system that doesn't know about HDR. (It looks like you're watching it through sunglasses.)
> I have an updated, I found out that T2 4K is an HDR movie that needs to be played with MadVR and enable HDR on the TV itself, now the colors are correct and I took a new screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/KTOn3Bw.jpg
> However when the TV is in HDR mode the 4K looks 100% correct, but when seeing the screenshot with HDR off then the screenshot looks still a bit wrong, here is a screenshot with correct colors: https://i.imgur.com/KTOn3Bw.jpg
I own the blu-ray of The Terminator 2, and briefly owned the 4k as well. The 4k looks like dogshit, with or without HDR enabled. This is largely due to the film using DNR to remove film grain, which they did for the 4k transfer was created for the 2017 3D release (film grain is bad in 3D I guess). The transfer is also much, much more blue.
In a battery with a liquid electrolyte, the interfacial layer between the electrode and the electrolyte is fractal in shape, created by a carefully engineered chemical reaction between the electolyte and the electrode to maximize the surface area. You can't really do that with any solid battery chemistry we are currently studying.
I think the issue is overblown. Most users who need high power also benefit from high energy, and you can always run more batteries in parallel.
It's the common problem with almost anything in physics or chemistry.
The Good Stuff has some horrible flaw that makes it incredibly dangerous.
When we invented refrigerators first, they used ammonia as a refrigerant which was awesome at moving heat around. It's still used industrially but people die from ammonia leaks. Then they swapped it for freon, which was just about as good at moving heat around, but rotted holes in the ozone layer. So they got replaced with R-134 which wasn't as bad for the ozone layer (but still not great), slightly more toxic, and still quite nasty stuff to handle.
At present the best bet for refrigerants turns out to be good old propane, which if anything is a little too good at moving heat around (and your evaporator will freeze if you're not careful), reasonably non-toxic (don't breathe it in, but unlike ammonia a tiny amount in a room won't dissolve your lungs), and its only real downside is that it burns. People are worried about using C3 or C5 (pentane) refrigerant in cars, but the worst that would happen is you'd release about a deodorant can's worth of the stuff into something that's already on fire and contains maybe 70 litres of petrol. Your petrol tank is a bomb, made of a leaky plastic bucket full of explosive. The aircon having a cupful of LPG in it is not your problem in an accident.
Thus it is with batteries.
It turns out that one of the best kinds of batteries you can make in terms of longevity, power density, and stability is a couple of bits of lead in a bucket of sulphuric acid. They work great. They're in production today, and will probably be forever. Your car has at least one (mine has three, a massive one up front for starting the engine and a couple of smaller ones in the back for running things like the radios and inverter when I'm stopped).
However, lead compounds are pretty nasty, sulphuric acid is pretty nasty, they're heavy, they will stop working if you leave them discharged, and in general people would like something smaller, less corrosive, and less dependent on digging up vast areas of China to pull poisonous dust out of the ground.
So we have NiCads (oh dear, cadmium, one of the nastiest poisonous metals because it's poisonous all by itself - it doesn't need to be complexed to something organic to get in you), then NiMH (cheaper, non-toxic, and more-or-less a drop-in replacement for NiCads in any given application). Then we've got the various rechargeable lithium batteries which can do exciting things when damaged.
But for high power density, low cost, and and high current applications where you don't have to worry about carrying them or tipping them over, you're going to be stuck with lead in a bucket of acid for a while I suspect.
> They're in production today, and will probably be forever.
I suspect their days are numbered, because they have become _far_ more expensive to dispose of, and that's only going one direction.
> But for high power density, low cost, and and high current applications where you don't have to worry about carrying them or tipping them over, you're going to be stuck with lead in a bucket of acid for a while I suspect.
You'd think, but they _haven't_ seen a lot of use in, say, grid-scale applications.
> I suspect their days are numbered, because they have become _far_ more expensive to dispose of, and that's only going one direction.
They're insanely easy to recycle. You melt lead, you recast it into new plates. Sulphuric acid is very easy to make, and we need to make a lot of it as part of the process of making fertilisers.
> You'd think, but they _haven't_ seen a lot of use in, say, grid-scale applications.
Every telephone exchange you have ever dialled through is powered by massive lead-acid battery, with cells about the size of a decent microwave oven.
> You'd think, but they _haven't_ seen a lot of use in, say, grid-scale applications
Their power density is integer multiples worse than Li-Ion no matter what you look at. Not to mention numerous other problems. So it's not surprising at all.
> Their power density is integer multiples worse than Li-Ion no matter what you look at. Not to mention numerous other problems. So it's not surprising at all.
Yes, but you can use them in areas where you can't use Li-Ion.
If you live by nettle you’ll should learn to identify plantago (plantain) and yarrow. Both are used for herbal poultices and grow in the same biomes. Grab one, bruise it a bit and rub it on the insulted area.
How is it not? Other than extremely anthropocentrically?
There are at least 200 billion trillion stars in the universe that we are aware of. That is a number beyond our comprehension. Stars generate elements. Elements form molecules. Life is built on some of these molecules.
I would say the statistical argument is the null argument. To invalidate it you should instead need to come up with a reason why in a billion trillion structurally relevant constructions we must be the only one where life emerges.
In fact in this case, it's not the known limitation of floating point numbers to blame: this Calculator application gives you the ability (submenu under View > Decimal Places) to choose a precision between 0 to 15 decimal places, and it will do rounding beyond that point. I think the default is 8.
The original screenshot shows a number with 13 decimal places, and if you set it at or above 13, then the calculation will come out correct.
The application doesn't really go out of its way to communicate this to the user. For the most part maybe it doesn't matter, but "user entering more decimal places than they'll get back" might be one thing an application might usefully highlight.
Sorry, but this annoys me. The claim might be false if I had made it after seeing your screenshot. But you don't know what I've seen in my life up to that point. The claim that all calculators are infallible would be false, but that's not the claim I made.
When a personal experience is cited, a valid counterargument would be "your experience is not representative," not "you are incorrect about your own experience."
Well if you haven't seen enough calculators to see one that can't add, a very common issue with floating point arithmetic on computers, you shouldn't offer your experience as an argument for anything other than that you haven't seen enough calculators.
Well, to make the claim you actually made, which is that you haven't seen a single calculator that was wrong, anywhere from zero to all of them. It's just that the "zero" end of that spectrum doesn't really tell us anything about calculators.
reply