I tell myself and other people if you have it saved in your browser are you okay if bad people know that password. Also it makes it easy for people in authority to get to that password with a simple court order.
Most average people are not sure of password managers because the idea of losing the god password and losing access to EVERYTHING is terrifying, and there is mathematically no way to recover your secrets. Most normal people have lost a password before, so that's something they think about.
Also for most normal people, an unencrypted note on their desktop with plaintext passwords that are DIFFERENT FOR EVERY SITE is STILL more secure than the SOP of using one strong password for everything. For that to be compromised, someone needs to be able to run code on my local machine, in which case, they can just install a keylogger, so encrypted passwords are no increase in security. I genuinely don't care if App1 on my computer can fiddle with App2's bits, because I chose to run App1 and App2, they are trusted.
These fear-mongers that make everyone hate needs to stop. Multi-millionaires that give their own agenda and anything else is anti-this or stupid needs to stop.
You also probably say you hate "Cancel Culture" while cancelling things including coke.
btw, there has been a pretty nice effort of reimplementing the tidyverse in julia with https://github.com/TidierOrg/Tidier.jl and it seems to be quite nice to work with, if you were missing that from R at least
It's the financial piece. The poor again get screwed with higher prices because they will never have solar panels. So electric company was charging more to the poor to pay for this. Just like they do for food and for gas. Just like poor voluntarily pay the education tax for the rich.
Agreed that monopolies need to be regulated by the state. In PA my electricity went up over 300% in the first 6 years it was deregulated, and the company's profits were record quaters from 2008 - 2017.
> The alternative is publicly-owned utilities, like munis or coops.
You mean, like Silicon Valley Power (Santa Clara) or Los Angeles Department of Water and Power?
Both of which charge a fraction of PG&E does, and have more reliable power, and offer better customer service (SVP's website is around 1000x better than PG&E's), and more transparent billing, and more assistance to needy customers.
Yes. Other California, US examples are SMUD (Sacramento), TID (Turlock), MID (Modesto), IID (Imperial Valley), Redding, and Needles. Generally all have lower rates than PG&E, SCE, or SDG&E.
It's a big deal but its decades away. To do this they need to repeatably do it every few seconds. Right now they can do it once per week.
BIG CAVIET: The energy to power the laser is greater than the return. The return in energy is just greater than the energy the laser put in. So net loss. We need more efficient lasers and be able to make this repeatable and reliable. We are not closer except theory is being proven.
I have been reading these comments like yours for days. I am not picking on you. But the research program isn't being funded to build more efficient lasers. Those already exist. The lasers at the NIF are decades old and haven't been updated because it isn't the point of the research.
I'm baffled by the comments on this topic in particular. Do people just spout off in the comments now despite no background in the field? I don't really recall a time in the past where this was so prevalent on HN. I used to be able to trust that some industry expert would be in the comments section fact checking headlines and adding nuance, but now I see far too many contradictions, strange takes, and obvious red flags (see: "BIG CAVIET").
This always happens when physics is discussed on Hacker News (it is the only topic on which I consider myself an expert). In particular, there are some really weird takes on Quantum Information, in both directions.
I was a research librarian in an academic setting. So, I can do research and have an informed opinion. Now if I was to dispute the information then sure I need to have a masters or PhD in the field to have reasons why the vast majority is wrong. I cannot find a single article from an academic background stating that current laser technology will work. Nor do I see anyone that doesn't say decades away.
We are definitely closer. Achieving ignition and scientific break even is a necessary step before we decide to build a demonstration power plant facility.
Lawrence Livermore national lab was working on this problem (under the LIFE project, including developing much more efficient solid state lasers, etc) but was correctly chastised for it being a waste of money because they had not yet achieved ignition or break even. The engineering challenges to make a commercial power plant can distract from the task of actually achieving break even and ignition. (And they still need to increase the gain to about 25-50 to get enough energy out to make useful electricity without heroic efficiency efforts… although since they have achieved ignition in a repeatable way, this should be doable.)
You have to understand. I got a PhD in this field. For years, scientists in droves stopped applying for grants saying they were actually doing fusion because funding sources just lost faith in the effort. ICF requires a lot more investment in capital to run than MCF generally, it seems. These scientists moved on to study things like novel radiation and ion beam sources (which similar laser-plasma interactions provide) but they stopped going for fusion specifically because the government just lost faith in the effort. Now, the pendulum will swing.
The answer is yes, we can use more efficient lasers. If you ever are lucky enough to get a tour of NIF, they have a cute little exhibit where they show you if they redesigned NIF with modern technology, they could fit the three football field machine into something the size of a table. That display itself is likely 10 years old by now, and laser science has advanced even beyond it. Now that NIF has proven it's possible, I imagine there will finally be money in fusion again (ICF specifically, if I were in MCF I'd be worried sick now) and someone somewhere will make the newer NIF that won't be just taking 300MJ in and 2MJ out.
Other people are already developing the lasers. We have NIF-class lasers now with over 20% efficiency, compared to the <1% efficiency of NIF's lasers. We also have petawatt lasers that can fire once per second.
Not these exact ones. And one of the important things required is scale: can you think of anything that requires tens of megawatts of average pulsed laser energy which ISN’T military? (And the military has very different requirements for wavelength, etc.) And those other efforts can also seek their own funding (there’s not a lot of money in fusion research).
If you’re in a budget constrained environment and you’re not already 100% certain this approach is the right one for future power plants, you focus on achieving the energy gain needed for such a power plant first, and the first step of that is ignition (ie where the heat of the reaction sustains some more of the reaction, not just external heat) and scientific breakeven. Once you’ve shown scientific breakeven and ignition, that’s when it makes sense to start investing a bit in the other balance of plant items.
But the bulk of the effort should still be in increasing the energy gain by leveraging ignition, IMHO.
> We are not closer except theory is being proven.
I think by most definitions that means, "closer". Proof of concept is a huge deal.
POC doesn't mean it will be viable, even once they manage to make it net-positive. Let's say they get the lasers to be more efficient - there are other inefficiencies in the system further upstream you have to account for.
So, yes, there is a long way to go still, and there's no way to be sure it will be economically viable at the end of it. As an example - look at algae biofuel. That was a working example, not just proof of concept but working at scale - but it couldn't compete on price with petroleum when it was below 4-5 dollars or so.
We won't know until we get there. But the promise it holds (easily obtainable fuel, which won't blight the land if the plant fails) is worth the investment.
Everything you stated is based on emotional stances and conclusions. Medicine doesn't work that way. This was a pretty good study with a very large sample size.
The cohort included 486 149 people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were not admitted to hospital, matched with a control group of 1.9 million people with no recorded evidence of coronavirus infection.
> People who tested positive for the virus reported at least one of 62 symptoms more frequently 12 weeks after initial infection with SARS-CoV-2 than those who had not contracted the virus.
It was also a self reported. Self reporting for something like this is probably going to be useless.
In fact what might be more interesting is using this as an opportunity to study med student syndrome.
EDIT: Looking at the quote again, less troubling than the self reporting part is the 62 symptoms, I mean how many of you know how much hair loss you've had over the past year vs 12 weeks. They did have a considerable control group, but I also know there are plenty of ways to massage data.
But seriously 62 different possible symptoms? This seems like a very wide list of possible symptoms cast over a very wide net of people.
Still, it's an observational study with no reasonable, plausible mechanism of action presented. Worst of all, the study participant were in no way blinded: they knew, from testing, that they contracted a virus that was the constant focus of fear and uncertainty and pushed by media, quite literally 24/7, for months.
> Still, it's an observational study with no reasonable, plausible mechanism of action presented.
Anything that supports the narrative is absolutely fine. Doesn't matter if the methodology is crap, the data is crap... none of it matters. Pointing any flaw out makes you a horrible person.
Now if you publish any kind of research that goes against the narrative suddenly every single flaw, no matter how irrelevant, comes into play. I don't think you can ever publish research that goes against the narrative and not have it somehow "discredited" by "experts".
I trust absolutely none of the research that has been conducted over the last 2.5 years. It's all garbage. Too much emotion and incentive is involved in making things follow the narrative.
And for people that downvote this... ever been on the other side? Ever been a critic of our covid policies? You get yelled at, called absolutely horrible things, and wished horrible death upon you. Your career can fall apart, relationships can dissolve, friends will stop talking to you. It's miserable. Yet, here we are... on the other side. It's not like we chose this... The science, data and morals just happen to be on our side (according to us (which history will almost certainly support)).
> I trust absolutely none of the research that has been conducted over the last 2.5 years. It's all garbage. Too much emotion and incentive is involved in making things follow the narrative.
Glad I am not the only one with this level of skepticism. I say that implicating both sides of the debate. Every study I read seems filled with overt examples of confirmation bias.
People have switched to Resolve due to it having a BETER workflow then FCP or Premier. Personally I jumped on the bandwagon due to Linux. The big difference maker for Resolve was when it became an editor. It was THE STANDARD for color correction for over a decade.
I’m a bit mystified at the reaction to this comment.
Describe what you want to a drafts person, get the regulatory stuff done (via the draft person or architect), hit the Google machine and talk to contractors. It’s painful when you have no idea what you are doing, which is why the all inclusive price is attractive (and high).
I use a 84 keyboard. It is basically a laptop keyboard layout and it works great for me. It has del, backspace, esc and 4 arrows. It shares the function keys with media keys but I have it using function keys as its default and works great as a layout. I don't know why it just isn't the most popular layout.
