I gave up a few years ago and decided that I was willing to deal with any drawbacks of buying and playing games on consoles rather than dealing with Windows. I only have so much time to sit down and enjoy myself and I would rather not fiddle if I just want to play a game. It turns out that you can buy a PS5 and a Switch for less than the price of a decent midrange gaming rig.
Insurance companies are best incentivized and informed to make themselves a requirement, take your money, and then resist all efforts to actually pay you when you need them.
I live 2 hours away from the mountains of North Carolina. I grew up in the foothills. You have no idea what you are talking about. People aren’t rebuilding here, “over and over.” This was a climate disaster full stop. If we as a species don’t get our shit together and stop poisoning our planet this will keep happening.
HN has a lot of people suggesting regulations and laws as a solution to almost everything in existence. It doesn't surprise me that same thought pattern also shows itself in emulator takedown discussions like this one.
Haha, I totally hear you. But but, we didn't really build the raft consensus layer from scratch. We used an existing robust library for that: https://github.com/baidu/braft
Ah, sure: I did not consider Redis at all. My goal in the Explore phase was to keep the data in the same process as my code, and replacing MySQL with any other database doesn't really help here. This was a developer-productivity goal, not a performance goal.
Redis is best as an in-memory cache, not a database. Having used it in production for roughly a decade, I don't trust it's on-disk capabilities (AOF/RDB etc) as either solid or reliable (or even performant) in an emergency scenario, especially with DR or DB migration in mind.
FWIW, how I read the article it was just an implementation of the original Redis, but with some other language (and this types) than Tcl.
Redis is/was basically just Tcl-typed which are persisted to disk using snapshots (Tcl commands) and append-only Tcl commands, that had a network protocol for non-Tcl applications to talk to
No I haven’t because it’s quite complicated. Databases are very much a solved problem. Unfortunately, this architecture is going to be nigh impossible to hire for and when it goes absolutely sideways recovery will be difficult.
Compared to installing, configuring and maintaining an installation of Redis, this absolutely is complicated. Do you think this is less complicated than using Redis?
In what way is setting up redis or writing a program yourself P hard? What’s the input that leads to polynomial time? And what kind of metric is that? If setting up redis takes me one day or I can write a software myself in a month, does it matter if both are P hard?
And if you have an hourly wage over $1, I am very sure that redis is cheaper at the end of the day than programming your own software and using that.
Polynomial time means that both are deterministic. The diffreence between the two only comes down to how much has to type and copy and paste, provided that the person is well aware and experienced to do both. And the total time for either is negligible, while Raft saves you more money long termin infra costs.
The argument that im fighting agaist is that when someone says its more complex, what they mean is that they dont have experience in doing that. From a business perspective, this is something to consider when hiring from.an average pool, since you point about salary is correct, but the assumption that every single engineer fits this criteria is not correct.
The greater Houston area is over 8000 sq miles, it’s larger than New Jersey. I count 17 Targets in the north west quadrant alone. You're gonna have to be more specific about where in Houston does or does not have a shoplifting problem.
I have a gas range, gas water heater, gas logs, and gas backup heat. My gas bill is around $15 a month. My home has proper ventilation to the outside and I have no intention of converting a cheap gas bill into a high electric bill.
Fortunately, I live in one of the few countries which don't subsidize gas (Sweden). When I visit the continent and see a gas stove, it feels like going to a museum. Induction stoves are so much better.
We should let people decide what sort of stove is best for themselves rather than pushing one from the top down. Also, most people who are pressed to prematurely replace their stove will choose the cheapest option, which if pushed away from gas would be resistive electric not induction.
If there’s a negative externality to the fuel it should be priced-in, which is really all carbon tax is intended to do. You can still use gas but you have to pay for the environmental cost upfront. The carbon footprint of electricity usage would be taxed as well, but if it’s overall more efficient it would have a lower carbon tax.
Even electrical resistance heating is more carbon efficient than burning gas at home. This doesn’t even require a high-renewable grid - it produces less CO2 burning gas for electricity to run an electric stove than it does burning gas at home due to the efficiency of a modern gas power plant and the dreadful waste heat of a gas burner.
I live in Sweden as well, I used to live in the Netherlands. The former is close to gas-free while the Netherlands is (or was) one of the most gas-dependent countries in Europe owing to the discovery and exploitation of large gas reserves in the north of the country and the North Sea. I have used gas, resistive electric, halogen electric, induction electric as well as wood stoves for cooking. I wrote a sizeable comment on the virtues and vices of induction earlier in this thread and found out one of its parents had been killed, most likely due to its author's clearly stated preference for cooking on gas. This is what I wrote on the subject in reply to a comment very similar (but much shorter) than yours which simply proclaimed induction to be 'superior':
That all depends on what you're cooking. I have used just about all types of cooking contraptions there are ranging from an open fire through a pit fire, several types of "cultivated" fires (wood-fired stoves, BBQs etc), propane/butane/methane gas burners of various types, coil/cast_iron/ceramic/halogen electric and induction stoves. I normally cook on a wood-fired stove seeing how as I live on a farm in the Swedish countryside with plenty of forest on my doorstep which I also use to heat the house and whose branches I cut up for the stove. I do have one of those cast-iron resistance heated electric ranges next to the wood-fired stove but I only use it as a parking lot for pans etc. I also have a few single-hob induction plates around which I sometimes use outside when we're not supposed to light fires due to extreme drought etc. When I lived in the Netherlands I bought a "gas-free" house which meant I had to use electricity for cooking. Induction was supposed to be the bees knees so I built myself a range with an induction cooker on top and a hot-air oven underneath it. The thing worked fine for some types of cooking but it royally sucked for e.g. stir-fry cooking using a wok. Even the flat-bottom version I got did not come close to the real thing on a gas stove or wood fire.
Now, more than 20 years later I regularly use my mother's new induction stove when I visit her in the Netherlands. That thing still sucks for stir-frying, no matter which pan I use. There is just not enough power to be had on a residential induction cooker to reach the quick heat needed to make a good nasi goreng (i.e. Indonesian-Dutch fried rice). On the wood-fired stove here at home I use a Chinese wok which hangs directly in the fire and as such is close to perfect. The sad part of this is that my mother's previous range had a special wok burner which, while not as capable as the wood-fired stove, at least made it possible to quickly reach a good heat and keep it. Alas, she felt she needed to go with the flow and had that range swapped out for an anaemic induction cooker which is supposed to be able to run 2 plates at max power (~2 kW) at the same time but does not even seem to be capable of that without dropping one of them a notch down.
If you're comparing commercial induction cookers to gas stoves the comparison might hold. There are special induction plates for using a round-bottomed wok which may also lead to better results. Those are not what most people will get at home when they replace their "dangerous" gas range though.
Induction's pro's are its reaction speed, cleanliness, electrical efficiency and sometimes price (single-hob plates at e.g. IKEA are dirt-cheap) but that is about it. Its cons are the lack of power in most residential ranges, the lack of fine-grained control, the sensitivity of the ceramic top plate - it gets scratched easily when you have an 'active' cooking style as well is liable to break when confronted with heavy cast-iron skillets in the hands of inexperienced users, this is true for all ceramic cookers and not specific to induction - and the power electronics (I have repaired two induction cookers already, one of them (a commercial single-hob plate) had a blown out capacitor (literally - loads of black smoke blew out off the thing), the other (Siemens) suffered from a whole bank of broken power transistors (RJH60T4 IGBTs). Finally, confusingly in the light of my remark about single-hob plates being cheap, its often high price. Induction still seems to be priced as a "luxury" good while in reality it is fairly cheap to produce, the only relatively expensive part being the power electronics (where "expensive" means "a few tens of euro's for the requisite transistors and capacitors as well as the copper induction coils).
Depends. When the electricity comes from a gas power plant, it is way more efficient, to use the heat of the gas directly, instead of heating water and steam, running through a turbine, transmit lossy overland, convert to household power -> turn the electricity into heat again.
But when you have renewable sources, it is a different story. I believe you have mostly nuclear power in sweden?
(And the above even generously assumes the generation is not CHP which would make induction look better still, and ignores the extra energy needed for chilling your house)
The low efficiency of transferring heat from gas to the cooking vessel kills the odds for the gas range in the competition, most of energy goes to heating air instead of the kettle.
(But we shouldn't generate electricity from gas of course, fossils need to be left in the ground to avert worst of the climate disaster)
You are ignoring the cost of laying millions of miles of natural gas pipes to each and every home. And the leaks through all these pipes, which is 9%.
Electricity is the first utility and all homes have it. Of course, you can be off grid and have no utilities, just have solar+batteries, electrification works perfectly in that scenario.
"I have a gas range, gas water heater, gas logs, and gas backup heat."
With the electricity equivalent.
Makes sense when all is powered by green energy, but it does not makes sense to switch all that and power it with electricity from coal. Then the CO2 costs are higher.
The idea that energy bills need to be higher is sure to be a political winner. I encourage any politician who believes in that idea to openly run for office on it rather than trying to hide it and do it once they're already in office.
You say you're in South Carolina which is 30% coal generation, not "mostly", and which is set to plummet rapidly over the next few years as several of the increasingly uneconomical coal plants are shut down.
The target is really industry. If no one has to pay the cost of emissions no one has any incentive to change.
Look to the oil crisis of the 70s for examples - it was a bad time but the cost of fuel spurred a surge in sale of small cars because fuel efficiency finally mattered. On another front it spurred the cycling culture of the Netherlands - they didn’t take up cycling and build infrastructure to support it out of altruism, they did it because their fuel supply was nearly cut off entirely.
Innovation only happens when there is a reason to innovate. If carbon emissions don’t cost the emitter anything then there’s no reason to invest in ways to emit less.
If the costs can be passed on, then there is potentially no incentive to innovate, either. It might also still be more cost efficient to innovate less to reduce costs than to actually innovate to reduce costs. Predicting where these things go is quite tricky.
But if the costs can be passed on then that’s a means for emitters to differentiate on cost. If manufacturer A emits more and passes the tax onto the consumer, manufacturer B can undercut on them on price if they’re more efficient.
Right now there’s minimal financial benefit to being more carbon efficient. If anything it’s disincentivised because efficiency is itself costly, so it’s cheaper to just emit.
But only if undercutting isn't too expensive/pays back fast enough. The issue is that from a revenue perspective things always look simple, from a profit perspective it gets more complicated, especially if things have switching costs/limited fungibility, are oligopolies and other structured markets. It might work like you outline but I would not be surprised if there are a lot of unexpected or undesirable results, too.
Impose a law that forbids the constructions of new fossil fuel power plants, and any existing plants must be decommissioned when their current planned operational life-time has expired.
Either the market will start to invest in non-fossil fueled alternatives when demand exceed supply, or people will elect governments that step in and invest in non-fossil fueled alternatives. Either way, the coal, oil and gas plant can not continue to be part of the European energy grid.
Yeah, it will totally be $16 to reflect the minimal carbon used for the utilities GP mentioned.
I don’t think a carbon tax is economically efficient, but I’m starting to think it is emotionally efficient to just let people do all the minimal little things that I don’t think warrant discussion (paper straws, dishwashers, gas logs).
Do you really believe it's more likely that gas companies are paying people to say they want a gas stove on HN than someone genuinely believing it? I've met some many normal people in real life that say the same thing about gas stoves, including family members that have nothing to do with any Big Gas plots.
Could you elaborate a bit on this. There seems to be a genuine group of people who are against burning fossil fuels. Burning natural gas causes health issues in cities, create water pollution that kills lakes, rivers, and ocean, and it causes global warming. Fossil fuels are also a major contributing to geopolitical instability in Europe, with all the recent wars having major aspects of fossil fuel politics in them.
It sucks for individuals that removing fossil fuels in Europe will have a negative impacts economically in the short term until either nuclear or alternative solutions can replace existing fossil fueled infrastructure. Replacing existing infrastructure is always costly, and core infrastructure is even more expensive. That said, the current wars and current problems from fossil fuels also cost a lot of money. The longer we wait on upgrading existing infrastructure the more it will cost in the long term.
I guess the internet might be a more interesting place if everything you read goes through the lens of a conspiracy theory, so who am I to tell you that these are likely just people with different opinions to you. I don't know either obviously, but I choose to live life using a different lens than that. Maybe I'm wrong and naive but feels more relaxed!
I'm sure it is more relaxed. I remember when conspiracy theories were kinda fun but mostly harmless BS.
That was before the last 7-10 years, where government and media played whack-a-mole with emerging information, dismissing everything as conspiracy theory or misinformation.
And it worked ... for a while.
Problem is, now there's a record, a significant recent history of these things that were described as such for months and years until it was no longer tenable to deny and deflect.
Meanwhile, we've seen exactly how organized and cynical the "misinformation" campaigns run by NGOs and other stakeholder groups can be.
Yeah I get it, I just decided to care little about what I read online and give it as much credence as if I overhear a random conversation in a café. Even if they're doing some psyop its not like I'd change my life based on random hearsay. Thanks for the replies, it was easy to be defensive and I was really curious. Have a great holiday season!
I assure you that I am just a normal software engineer that happens to live in South Carolina. This is a matter of practicality for me. If induction became more practical for my family, I would make the switch. The incentives just don’t add up yet where I live.
Since you mentioned that you have backup heating, I assume you don’t live in a very cold climate, in which case a heat pump for your backup heat and water heater is your most efficient lowest cost option, not a gas system.
Part of your gas bill is just paying the gas company for a line. Your bill would be around $10 even if you use 0 gas. So basically having two different bills costs you extra money already.
Then there’s the fact that you can get a solar system and generate your own electricity, which you can’t do with gas. Solar systems can have a payoff period in the 5-10 year range which is very reasonable. If you pair it with an electric car you’re almost never paying a utility or oil company for your fuel needs.
I’m not saying you should run out and retrofit your whole home because that would never pay itself off, but in your climate I would never touch gas in a new build.
People pitching induction always mention that they boil water faster, and it's true. But in my experience with induction, which I admit is not a lot, it seems like that is the only thing it's better at.
Induction is really nice in terms of speed and responsiveness but it's harder to do the tiny adjustments that you can do with gas because the induction is digital rather than analog.
Totally agree, thank you for the balanced response. Most builders where I live install gas by default. I may have considered induction if I was building from scratch, but it’s really not worth it for us right now. Especially knowing the sources of our electricity at the moment.
If somebody installs something that requires a fee and extra connection when building with something semi-permanent like house appliances, kind of makes me think there is some sort of kickback scheme for them to do so.
Having gas appliances where I live is seen as a liability, as you have yet another maintenance item, and it contributes negatively to indoor air, so you have to have much more care regarding air handling in your areas where it is used. (unsurprisingly, demand for gas and gas appliances has plummeted ever since Russia started with their fuckery so people have been converting in droves as well.)
> I assume you don’t live in a very cold climate, in which case a heat pump for your backup heat
Like OP, I also live in South Carolina. My primary heat is a modern, efficient electric heat pump. When it’s cold enough outside that the heat pump is no longer more efficient than gas (maybe 8-12 weeks/yr where I am), the system switches fuel sources and runs a natural gas furnace instead.
Heating up water quickly is almost never a use case. It is not on the critical path for optimizations either. Unless you subsist on boiling noodles when you’re late for a meeting.
Making spaghetti/tortellini/noodles, coffee, malt-o-meal, oatmeal, etc seems common enough for most to not be a "almost never use case". At least on stoves I've seen.
> Heating up water quickly is almost never a use case.
It'd be helpful for my household for hot water for coffee and tea, and it'd also help us for heating up some extra water for grits or risotto when they need more.
Also, isn't boiling water just the measurable outcome of the test but what matters is that the pot is coming to temp sooner? Pots and pans heating up more quickly is helpful all the time.
Its like having a car with outrageous acceleration. In the case of a car you are wildly careening all over the road doing cruisin usa wheelies backflips barrelrolls and all. In a pan it means scorched butter and half cooked bacon compared to burnt bacon on the same pan.
Electric kettles are great for heating water quickly.
Pans coming to temp sooner would be useful if the gap was measured in large units of time but it isn’t. I care more about the properties of the pan and fire more. For instance cast iron pan is used to hold a lot of heat but isn’t very reactive. A copper pan can heat up quickly but more importantly it can change temps quickly. This is known as reactivity.
For instance maybe I want to sear a pork chop on high heat and then drop the burner and toss in butter and herbs. I need reaction (in this case the pan cooling quickly) for this basic technique or else I have burned my butter.
Main thing induction seems actually worse for is being able to lift the pan above cooking surface and differentially heat different parts of the pan, particularly useful for Chinese/wok cooking.
I guess you don’t cook? The main function of a stove is to work with your pans/etc to create the heat you desire. Different applications have different requirements. I may use a cast iron pan to store a lot of heat and release it over some time. I may have another where I want to change temperatures in the pan quickly, which is far more common for me.
For example I may use high heat to sear meat and then drop the heat to add butter and herbs and then use the pan drippings to make a sauce which requires intense heating to deglaze and flambé to enhance flavor and then reduce heat quickly to mount the sauce. Copper is the best material for this and it doesn’t work with induction. High quality steel just doesn’t perform.
You're downvoted because people who aren't enthusiasts just don't have the experience to understand.
It's like the EU ban[0] on lead paint. Fine artists said "wait but what about Flake white? It's a critical paint! Nothing else compares! We know how to use it safely!" And the response was "Just substitute Titanium white. It's brighter anyway!" But Ti is absolutely not a substitute. It's like telling sculptors to substitute plaster for marble.
[0]I can't recall if the ban was lifted. I live in the US.
EDIT: Don't take my word for it. Here's Michael Harding on the subject, he makes paints that are among the very very best available:
This point is making the opposite case that you think it is though: the artists are basically a tiny population that benefits from keeping lead paint legal while the larger population suffers.
To me, this sounds like an argument largely built around the idea that you don't want to learn how to use a new product. Many people have convinced themselves they can't adapt, and I think this follows from the marketing ploys described in the article.
When it heats it faster, there is less loss into the environment before all of it gets up to the required temperature. Efficiency gains is _always_ the desired optimization when you look at what new energy policies are trying to do.
Electric kettles are even quicker at heating up water and use less power to do so. They are also cheap and can last for decades if taken care of reasonably well.
While I can make no comment about your pots, cast iron, and many types of stainless steel are compatible, so any pots purchased recently should work. What I can say is it turns out all my pots worked and I didn't have to repurchase any when I got my induction stove. And it was worth it. Induction is better than gas!
You can purchase copper pots and pans right now and they won't work still, it's not the time of purchase but the material. Non-ferrous materials won't work with induction. Copper, aluminum, clay, stone, glass etc. won't work no matter when purchased.
A big point of the article seems to be that standard ventilation does not/did not adequately get rid of the nitrogen dioxide generated from a gas stove. Is your ventilation just really good, or is this not a concern for you?
Most people have no clue because you cannot see or smell it. So people tend to underestimate it. After all, they’ve been doing it for decades, so how bad could it really be? So, you’ll get feelings and intuition as replies if you ask this kind of question, not anything solid.
We are fucking terrible at risk analysis and management.
I have a fan with 5 speeds that sucks a lot of air. The stove is on an exterior wall and vents directly to the side of my house. I’m not really concerned about it.
Interesting, anecdotally, the builder of my town home was convinced by promo dollars to install a gas range, gas heat for a half the house, and a gas fireplace.
I pay approximately $33 a month in service fees, $1 for gas 9 months of the year, and $30 for gas 3 months (we've sort of embraced the fire as a way to make some use of the fees)
If you're doing the math, we're paying $360 a year in fees for $70 (5x the fees as the use)
Oh and the game of carbon credits a $6 a month fee that the gas company then gives us a promo credit for each month
Do you source your own gas? I live in Texas, fossil fuel and natural gas state, and gas bill is between $50 - $255/month. This is with barely any cooking.
How much friggin gas do you use? Do you own greenhouses or something? Is that your bill on the months where there is a surprise freeze and the whole state poops its pants? Something is obviously missing from your consumption figure.
Sounds like they should be held responsible for environmental harm, perhaps part of their their restitution could be installing a bunch of renewable energy sources (kind of like dieselgate). Seems awfully dumb to let them not do anything about it, but doesn't seem like a valuable counterargument to stay with a energy method that directly contributes to poorer health.
We have used it in production for over a year in a highly threaded environment, with multiple terabytes of data, and have had virtually no issues. The support is excellent, but it practically takes care of itself. The Postgres compatibility is very good, and we rarely run into compatibility issues. If you have a highly concurrent OLTP workload, I would suggest using CockroachDB.
