There's a lot of inconvenient truths one needs to accept if they want to advocate for widespread nuclear energy. Specifically, there are very real nuclear proliferation concerns which cannot be ignored. Alternative clean energy sources, which are safe on the global scale, can made widely available with proper investment. That should be the future.
> Specifically, there are very real nuclear proliferation concerns which cannot be ignored.
The countries with the #1 and #2 sized nuclear arsenals are currently at war. A war that, as far as I can tell, is continuing to escalate.
The countries ranked #2 and #3 (China has been busy building them) are preparing for war with each other.
We're seeing ongoing evidence around the world that nuclear weapons are the only thing that can deter a big player from launching an invasion of a country.
We could plausibly be looking at the opening stages of WWIII and while there is a lot of concern it isn't enough to jolt people out of their normal routines and the political impacts have been relatively muted. The situation is so bad right now I'm not sure what the proliferation concerns are supposed to be. It is already just a matter of time until something goes terribly wrong. How much is prosperity energy generation supposed to make the situation? If anything it might stabilise the military situation.
This research is nearly two years old and I haven't found any consumer devices specifically made for this purpose yet, unfortunately. I'm sort of wary of buying random LEDs advertised as 670nm on Amazon and then shining it directly into my eyes. Regardless, it's very exciting research.
> With a paucity of affordable deep red-light eye-therapies available, Professor Jeffery has been working for no commercial gain with Planet Lighting UK, a small company in Wales and others, with the aim of producing 670nm infra-red eye ware at an affordable cost, in contrast to some other LED devices designed to improve vision available in the US for over $20,000."
My wife asked for a red light for Christmas, specifically from Vital Red Light [1]. Turns out the red light is 660nm, with additional near IR LEDs around 850nm. I was skeptical of it's effect, but am a believer now. The best way to describe it is it feels like laying in the sun on a beach, but without getting sweaty or sunburnt.
I can highly recommend this seller of IR products and also their educational resources/blog for insight into good ways to measure these types of products even if you decide to buy elsewhere, https://gembared.com/blogs/musings
An example of the level of rigor you can find in their blog:
"Several studies and guidelines have stated that a NIR exposure intensity to the eye of up to 10mW/cm^2 has no risk of cataract formation especially for long-term chronic (daily) exposure over 1000 seconds (16.67 min). [3][4][6] The ICNIRP notes that higher intensities than 10mW/cm^2 are safe for shorter time periods or in cold environments.
They specifically note the guidelines are set to avoid cataractogenesis (formation of cataracts):
"To avoid thermal injury of the cornea and possible delayed effects on the lens of the eye (cataractogenesis), infrared radiation (770 nm - 3 m) should be limited to 100 W/m^2 (10 mW/cm^2) for lengthy exposures ( >1,000 s), and to 1.8 t^3/4 W/cm^2 for shorter exposure durations" [4]
To be clear these guidelines are intended to include incoherent (non-laser) exposures to near-infrared light including incandescent bulbs, infrared heaters, industrial furnaces, and LEDs. And this calculation is for Cornea and Lens safety only and they have other calculations for different wavelength ranges and different parts of the eye.
For shorter exposure times less than 1000 seconds, they give us this formula such that higher intensities can be tolerated according to the guideline.
E < 1.8 (t) ^-3/4 (W/m^2)
From this calculation we can find that 100mW/cm^2 can be tolerated for up to 47 seconds before potential damage could occur according to the ICNIRP.
Other researchers have noted that 100mW/cm^2 of NIR would not cause significant temperature increase in the eyes to cause damage, but the ICNIRP comments that such a high intensity from an incoherent source is impractical because it would felt as “painfully warm” on the face. [3] [5]
Good thing nobody makes “painfully warm” intensity panels that emit >100mW/cm^2 at 6 inches away. However, feeling too much heat on the face is a good warning to move further away, and we are reassured by this data that we don’t immediately get damage from such a high exposure."
I’ve used https://higherdose.com/products/higherdose-red-light-face-ma... for awhile now and while it is slightly lower in RED nm it does the job. Usually a 10 or 20 minute session after a shower. The bonus is you get to look like doctor doom or the man in the iron mask.
Enough red light seems to get in your eyes with this mask, but it isn’t as directed as other products.
I've seen many results with it in general. Eyesight was one I wasn't really aware of until recently. I do notice nuance in colors more than before. But I can't really say it's a night or day difference. Blacks are blacker, browns show hue better, etc.
After you do a 10 minute session for example and look at a monitor, you see significant contrasts for awhile until your eyes re-adjust. I like to think that it is doing something and is why I keep doing it outside the mood/skin/etc benefits.
Returning a 429 would not just to hope that the Go proxy would obey the response, but rather it would significantly reduce the workload the server has to do when it gets a request it doesn't want to serve.
I disagree. Go provides a low-runtime way of writing programs, like C, without having to resort to managing memory and threads super carefully. No VM, no interpreter, fairly straightforward to imagine what the compiler is doing.
You can do the same work in Java but you can't statically link the JVM. You can sort of do these in Python, but the compiler story is murky at best, and the language isn't as type safe.
No, Go literally doesn't have a VM or an interpreter. VMs and interpreters are runtimes, but not all runtimes are VMs or interpreters. Go executes native code.
Any language that performs work not directly specified by the user has a runtime. Go's runtime is minimal and concerned with two important aspects of the language: scheduler, and garbage collection.
Yes, I understand. I was responding to someone who was arguing that it was inaccurate to say that Go lacked a VM or interpreter. Yes, Go has a runtime, but that doesn't imply that it has a VM or interpreter (it doesn't).
I thought of Dart as a counterpoint, but if anything it's actually more proof. Dart kinda failed as a language in the browser because Google didn't really push it, and when they did it got pushback. Now that they've repurposed it for building mobile apps, it's surprisingly popular. Sure, not Go-levels of popular, but leaps and bounds more popular than if it were some scrappy OSS project. And it's in a similar camp to Go: reasonably uncontroversial (it's basically Java), large suite of libraries, backed by Google.
Google has never meaningfully "pushed" Go. From Google's perspective, Go is just a backend language that's a good fit for some internal Google applications. I don't think they care tremendously that other people use it, although they certainly don't mind. On the other hand, Google strategically wanted a robust frontend ecosystem (hence investing heavily in Dart and V8) because getting more applications off of PCs and onto the web meant more user data up to collect and more opportunity to serve ads.
In particular, I don't understand how Go is more Java-like than Dart.
Feature | Java | Dart | Go
-------------------+------+------+----
jit compilation | yes | yes | no
inheritance | yes | yes | no
classes | yes | yes | no
nominal subtyping | yes | yes | no
native binaries | no | no | yes
static artifact[0] | no | no | yes
static typing | yes | opt | no
value types | no | no | yes
What other features do Java and Go have in common that they don't also share with Dart?
[0]: For sanity's sake, we'll assume this means "are static artifacts common/default" and not "is it technically possible to produce a static artifact" because for some sufficiently broad definition of static artifact the answer can be yes for any language (e.g., Docker images).
Seiko 5 is probably the cheapest, worthwhile mechanical watch. You can always get cheap Chinese and Russian watches as well but they will be of lesser quality and reliability than the Seiko. So to answer your question directly - probably not. But I would recommend checking out Orient watches. They have a decent set of mechanical watches of all different styles, not much more expensive than the classic Seiko 5, but definitely a step up in quality. https://www.orientwatchusa.com/
Thickness is always going to be an issue with automatic watches. You can get thinner watches if they are manual wind since they don't have a rotor. Usually, the thinner they get, the more expensive they get though, so keep that in mind. You can get super thin manual wind watches but they will cost hundreds to thousands of dollars usually.
This is funny because Seiko has notoriously terrible quality control, from misaligned bezels and/or chapter rings to dodgy bracelets across their entire lineup, even the more expensive ones.
About Orient: they are pretty much poised to take the spot that Seiko has occupied for entry level mechanical watches, as Seiko themselves move further up market. I love the design of their Bambino and some of the OrientStar offerings but they have a few quirks I'm not fond of.
I definitely recommend also trying a hand-wound watch because the slimness is wonderful and the winding has a charm to itself as well. I have RSI issues so the lightness and slimness is certainly a big plus, combined with the fact that most vintage or vintage-inspired manual wind watches have small dials and cases too.
It seems to me that the the QC issues are largely cosmetic, but are mostly with the Prospex models (some of their priciest models!) and seem to have intensified in the last few years.
I've heard from watch geeks with friends in "the business" that Seiko is aware of the issue thanks to the negative online word-of-mouth these issues have generated, but I don't know how reliable that hearsay is. (Really, though, Seiko would have to be blind not to be aware of the issues...)
We'll see if Seiko is actually aware and if that actually results in an improvement. If so I suspect that it will take some time for results to be seen given the lag time between manufacture date and watches winding up in consumers' hands.
Agreed, but then again much of the point of wearing watches nowadays is cosmetic. Plus, their terrible hollow rolled-link bracelets and press-clasps aren't really cosmetic issues, just poor quality that they haven't bothered upgrading. The movements themselves though seem to still be solid, and they are a huge provider of movements (eg the NH35/36) to several microbrands.
> Seiko is aware of the issue
Yeah, it's weird. They not only seem to be aware of it, but also say they have "hand-checked" units sent out to reviewers or units that are purchased from boutiques if you ask specifically- only for them to have the same issues as always. Not sure what it will take. The Just One More Watch YouTube channel does a ton of Seiko reviews but he's been extremely jaded because of these issues.
At this point is probably anything they produce except Grand Seiko. Not sure why would they choose to ruin their reputation that way. Yes, SKX007 or 009 were cheap, but their Prospex line replacements aren't really.
I'm baffled by their choices as well. I'm no manufacturing expert but the misaligned chapter rings seem so comically easy for Seiko to avoid - why not design the case and chapter ring with a notch or something so it can't be misaligned? If that's not feasible, how is this stuff passing even a cursory QC inspection?
It's not like they're a public company being squeezed for profit at the cost of quality by a private equity firm or something. I have some faith they will right their ship but who knows.
QC does cost a lot because it's not also about checking but rebuilding your manufacturing to avoid it. So they probably prefer to close their eyes on it.
Analog vs digital! I feel similar to you. There's a certain feeling with analog/mechanical instruments that is hard to replicate.
That being said, I think there is something fascinating about eco-drive movements, or just plain quartz movements in general. In the eco-drive case, you're harnessing the raw energy of the sun! Right there on your wrist! And they're using piezoelectricity to accurately keep time!
It's so simple nowadays that we all take it for granted, but centuries of scientific improvements have gone into making that relatively inexpensive and accurate wristwatch accessible to everybody.
It is somewhat slower if you are looking up records by key. You still need an index to do that, and non-integer PKs such as UUIDs can be twice as large as the integer alternative, taking longer to search while requiring more memory.
That being said, in PostgreSQL, you are correct --- having a UUID (or something similar) as a PK is usually fine assuming you understand the implications. However I would absolutely avoid it in a DB like MySQL where PKs are clustered.
