We do get update notifications in many linux distros as well. I guess the difference is how aggressive the windows updates are. Its like having a gun to the head if at all there give a choice in the first place. The fact that windows is still kicking around with these shitty ux practices says how low the desktop or laptop market must mean to companies these days.
The major difference is Linux can update in the background, with out much effect on working performance. Linux also doesn't force you to update, or block shutdown/boot events to perform an update. Its simply a much better experience.
Not specific to tesla but I guess the answer is in your question. Most likely all the current self driving efforts across board will fail till we have smart roads. A road that can help a vehicle self drive will ensure the complexity of self driving is reduced. And of course that might mean these roads will have to be human driver, pedestrian free.
Clearly, placing any country's energy security in the hands of ever changing climate (less winds and high cloud cover) or at the feet of dictators has to factor in some where.
There are a number of issues:
1) Short term, the faster we avoid CO2 the better. If SLAs make that more complex, then it is a net loss. Long term, the situation will be different because cheap gains will be gone.
2) Europe has mostly privatized energy. Who is suppose to set the SLA?
3) Nuclear plants need to be refueled. Does the SLA include a couple of months downtime every few years? That would suggest that the SLA is uniquely tailored to nuclear. 100% uptime? How is nuclear going to deal with that?
4) Power consumption varies over the day. A constant load again favors nuclear. A load that can handle daily and seasonal variation would be quite bad for nuclear.
Basically what we need is flexible electricity production. On their own, nuclear, solar and wind are all equally bad at flexible electricity production. So the questions are:
- how do we get cheap storage
- how do we minimize the amount of storage we need
> Power consumption varies over the day. A constant load again favors nuclear. A load that can handle daily and seasonal variation would be quite bad for nuclear.
Load following nuclear power stations are a thing.
--- start quote ---
The minimum requirements for the manoeuvrability capabilities of modern reactors are defined by the utilities requirements that are based on the requirements of the grid operators. For example, according to the current version of the European Utilities Requirements (EUR) the NPP must at least be capable of daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100 % of its rated power Pr, with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% of Pr per minute
Most of the modern designs implement even higher manoeuvrability capabilities, with the possibility of planned and unplanned load-following in a wide power range and with ramps of 5% Pr per minute
Technically that is true. Economically, that means that if a nuclear power plant runs for significant amount of time at 50%, the price of electricity will almost double.
Its not like the job is very appealing in current environment. The risk of either dying on job or getting imprisoned due to domestic disturbance calls gone wrong is very high. Not to mention, a lot of cops not showing up situation seem to be in line with the demands of general public who instead want to mental health workers to show up for handling a variety of scenarios.
Do other jobs of comparable death rates have higher pay? My understanding is that there are a number of jobs with higher death rates which aren't typically thought of as like, super "in the line of danger" jobs.
Are those stats wrong? or maybe misleading by focusing on the wrong slice of the population? Or something like that?
Or is the compensation for those jobs more than it is for police officers?
Very well put. Not just tall/short but physical beauty in general tends to push or pull people with it in a particular direction (be it career/friendships/relationships). To think of it in another way, they are as much trapped with it as the person with bad looks whether they want it or not.
For many good looking people, its a big problem when the short span of these once awesome physical attributes start to reach its eventual decline. They don't have any self confidence and self worth not tied to their looks. And from then on a its a life long fight to keep looking the same through cosmetics or surgery.
It sounds like quackery but I tried it for a couple months and comfortably went down .5(or is it "up" -.5?) and stopped going up every year. I stopped because the constantly switching strengths, self testing and having to remind myself to take breaks and look far away was more than I had the mental bandwidth for at the time. The "marketing" website reads like snake oil sleazery but what worked for me was the community wiki. Id spend hours correlating what was in the wiki with what he was hinting it at in his "hear my pitch for 10 minutes before I get to the point" videos until I got the hang of the routine, which was basically:
Have two pairs of glasses, one of them about half strength(self test for the exact number) for computer and close up work or in-home. Use your full strength glasses for important tasks like driving. Every 20-30 minutes take a break and look into the distance(works well with Pomodoro technique, if you do that), practice your blurring exercises.
Edit: at .5 adjustment I'm right at the edge of variance. It's possible to do nothing and have a slight improvement on your yearly optometrist visit because of secondary factors like change in environment or nutrition. I'm not a health expert so I can't say, but if anything that site helped me to do fewer things that strain my vision and a few things that made me more comfortable. Would I have fully cured if I kept going? Science says probably not, but I don't regret my effort.
Science is ever changing. After trying this out my self, I can say with confidence that current state of myopic management with glasses will be deemed as quackery on par with drinking crude oil to cure diseases in past centuries.
Near work imposed in schools and wearing glasses constantly is the reason for current myopia epidemic as can be evidenced by low myopia rates in schools following western curriculum that is more holistic in nature.
Its not a distribution. Its a dilution. The rich gets richer as they have most of their savings and capital in form that is not taxable and also set to rise with markets and real estate. The poor and middle class have much smaller percentage of income working for them and not usually have access to high growth opportunities.
> A financial device called Overnight, were you would convert your brazilian currency (had many names) into USD at night and then convert it back to BR on the next day
Who eats the loss from the fluctuations in this case? Any idea how the providers used to hedge against the risk.
I squinted, but I can’t see any way to draw a moral equivalence between the Chinese justice system and, say, the UK justice system. There’s a fundamental and massive difference in approach to the rule of law.
I initially was going to say that CCP really only cares about its own interests.
Then I thought about my own country's actions and policies for a moment before posting (Guantanamo, labor and privacy laws, the 'medical system', and 'education system').
My revised thought was that the main difference is in whether the country still even pretends to seek justice for its citizens.
I do think there are differences, especially in degree, but the general motivations and actions seem similar enough.
> My impression is that the CCP's idea of justice is whatever benefits the CCP.
Of course, there’s no separation of powers in China, the courts are not independent, they are part of the Communist Party of China. Nor is there a constitution that all court decisions must uphold. The only guidestar of the Chinese court system is to keep the CPC in power, and uphold laws passed by the CPC, nothing else.
> This doesn't differ too much from other nations except in degree and in their ability or willingness to hide that fact.
It differs from Constitutional republics where the court system is independent from political parties and mandated to ensure all laws passed by the legislative branch and actions taken by the executive branch do not violate the constitution, regardless which party is in power at the time.
Yes different political parties will try to pack the court when they can, but that pendulum swings back and forth over time. There’s a social contract with the citizenry that doesn’t exist in Communist countries - adhere to the constitution or be kicked out of power in future elections. You can see the evidence in how often power changes hands between parties.
> There’s a social contract with the citizenry that doesn’t exist in Communist countries - adhere to the constitution or be kicked out of power in future elections
I am thankful for that difference. That said, recent political events in the U.S. have shown how much of that 'contract' is just convention.
Nope. In China, if you have control of the company stamp, you have executive control over the company and can use it to enter legally binding contracts.
Essentially yes. It acts in lieu of a signature, and the company stamp is usually closely guarded by trusted executives.
It’s a problem when those executives go rogue and there are many cases of it causing problems for companies in China, both for foreign and domestic companies.
But then jury is out on whether there will ever be a bear market (or in other words will the central banks ever allow one). Also whether anything else (real estate, stocks or other assets) can survive it.
It's not a given that real estate has intrinsic value. Sure properties which are in high demand today will continue to do so tomorrow. But not all properties are like that. You can look at several foreclosed properties in 2008 bubble. Many continue to be in rundown state (both commercial and residential). Because the costs of renovation, taxes, utilities, insurances when included makes the property a losing proposition.
