He did not say he made it himself. In this case you can objectively compare. But if you get it from a friend from a friend, chances are it got truffle aroma mixed in, with good intentions, without knowing it is artificial but nonetheless.
I agree with his sentiment.
My thesis in 2011 was on fuel cell technology. It is either inefficient, or too complicated, expensive and dangerous.
Basically all you need to focus on is, hydrogen is the first element on the table of elements, it is extremely reactive and volatile. When you diffuse the properties by binding it, then it becomes inefficient. When you try to use it in a reactive form, it is a nightmare.
The fact this technology has now existed in a bubble for almost two decades without any progress, points in the direction the whole industry and research behind it is fraudulent.
There are some niche applications, maybe, but that's about it.
I disagree with his sentiment. Note that I in general have rather favorable views of Musk and his achievements in complex technical and business areas.
When one says that fuel cell technology is inefficient, I'd like to hear reasons for that. Efficiency could be talked about in comparison with other schemes, or in comparison with theoretical limits, or maybe even in comparison with laboratory state of the art or reasonable expected future engineering limits. When somebody just says it's inefficient, it sounds like an unsupported argument.
Same goes for complexity, cost or safety of fuel cell technology. Modern electric batteries, for example, are rather complex, in my opinion, devices, so to accuse fuel cells in complexity there should be presented arguments.
Regarding cost, I'd like to see the numbers. Both more regular batteries and fuel cells have many decades of applications, and we know that technology costs tend to lower with perfecting the processes, so where are the numbers? Also, in addition to numbers, I'd like to see the explanation of changes in the past and explanation of projection of changes in the future.
Next, regarding safety. Frankly, I was surprised when I saw hydrogen cars, on the grounds of safety, and then I learned which decisions were made to keep safety reasonably high. That means we can probably improve safety with some clever ideas.
I'd like to see a comprehensive comparison with all known pro and contra. Good investigation, which is aimed at finding the actual truth, so to speak, should involve all reasonable objections, so no proponent or critic of the technology may point to his arguments as missed in the analysis.
A similar analysis I feel is lacking in proposing nuclear power solutions - partial - to climate crisis. Too often somebody accuses governments in being too slow with deployments of nuclear power plant technology, but omits the concerns which critics of nuclear power point to. So sides keep talking past each other, accusing the other in irrationality.
Coming back to hydrogen - yes, I agree that hydrogen is reactive and volatile, but we still have more than half a century of working with it in industrial quantities. Yes, binding hydrogen with something reduces efficiency - but e.g. both CH4 and NH3 are used or were used as fuels in some applications, so it's not clear that NH3 couldn't be used again.
So, maybe - maybe - hydrogen technology loses today to electric batteries. Even discounting some unique advantages of hydrogen, like energy per unit of mass, it's not clear neither how much, nor if it could be improved in the future.
Musk's estimations look understandable, but not obviously true. We have many variants of both technologies we're comparing here. The mentions of "fool cells" - which, by the way, were used in Apollo flights to the Moon half a century ago - badly want justification, which we don't see much around us these days.
They take platinum, and we don't have enough. Sure there are a lot of platinum-free alternative's on the horizon, but they have been saying the same thing for decades. Until the day that we figure out how to make a catalyst out of nanotubes, I'm afraid fuel cells will never compete with batteries on a large scale.
They are useful in come niche situations though, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Helios_Prototype
This looks bad. Well, the writing was on the wall since the device scanning plans.
I hope Apple loses a hefty sum of money for a clear wakeup call.
They need to make a decision now, double down on the commitment to protect the users privacy, or go the Google way and lose the privacy concious customers, which I could imagine could be quite many.
It actually seems fairly clear by this point that Apple does not actually give a shit about privacy except as a marketing tool to use in their fight against Google.
They have also shown a willingness to actively work with authoritarian regimes like the CCP to actively remove privacy protections and build out an extremely sketchy supply chain.
I agree that the supply chain security is a problem for Americans like those in the lawsuit. From the perspective of China however, Apple is a foreign company. The US has concerns with tiktok being Chinese owned. China has equally valid concerns with Apple being US based and wants control over its Chinese operations. I dont agree with how the Chinese run their country, but its also not my business. My business is the NSA spying on my family through iCloud backups.
Does the NSA have a reason to be spying on you or do you have a reason to think they would be doing that? I can’t tell if this is some hypothetical thing or a real concern.
Loose them to who? To Google? We need antitrust to break the bundling of Operating Systems and services. The fact that the US government went after Microsoft for setting Internet Explorer as the default but lets Apple ban sideloading entirely shows how political and not economic these problems are.
Despite the congratulatory press, that law allows Apple to make the final determination of what software is and is not allowed to run on your computer or phone. So no, it doesnt force them to let you run whatever software you want.
It sounds like apple can still stop you from running software “for security”. Hard to tell from the wording what it really means
>in order to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not undermine end users’ security, it should be possible for the gatekeeper to implement strictly necessary and proportionate measures
Work assignment does not equal ability.
A phd can be assigned lowly management work, lets say tracking stuff, creating excel sheets and powerpoint presentations. That decision is made by the company and department.
Does that mean they should not be compensated for the skills they posess? Surely not.
Lets not even start with the metrics used to gauge someone's results. If they even exist, they are consistently useless.
Ability doesn't equal value to the company. If you have Einstein in and all he does is sweep your floors, you pay him a floor sweeper's wage. You pay for value.
No I agree, but if you hire Einstein for Physics lectures, but for whatever reason let him mop the floors, you still take into account his abilities.
Fellow floor moppers might say "Einstein mops slower and worse then me, I want more than his salary", but that would not attribute abilities and that it is not his first choice to mop floors, the company made that strange decision.
Ability and opportunity also doesn't equal output - There are plenty of 'high ability' people that will do the bare minimum, and plenty of 'lower ability' people that will push, work hard and deliver more.
Agreed. Yet it seems insanely hard to measure output...
If the bare minimum gets the job done the same as the overachiever grinding as if their life depended on it, fair judgement would rate the output the same, right?
Absolutely, assuming the inputs were the same (ie that you don’t have to chase the ‘bare minimum employee and don’t have to give more support to the ‘grinding’ one).
Personally i’ll take the grinding person any day though, they tend to be much easier to manage.
There is a ceiling - the company pays what it thinks it can get away with, you accept pay according to what you can get. It's almost never according to the monetary value you provide.
Facebook (Meta), as well as Google, are truly evil companies in my view.
I cannot muster much empathy for the layoffs. They work for a moral bankrupt company whose impact on the internet, or even the whole world, is extremely negative.
Data stealing and selling, addicting gambling patterns, monopoly building, selling information space to the highest bidders. The list goes on and on.
Also the impact on the internet and communication tech cannot be overstated, facebook and Google set the precedent and brought down moral barriers. Nowadays, every other company tries to copy them and mine your data to make money off it.
Unlike Google, Facebook did not even start with the good intentions a la "Don't be evil.", to bring value to the world.
Zuckerberg, right after facebook took off, allegedly said that famous quote about the users and their willingness to trust him and his companies to be "dumbfucks" for doing it. I agree. But to add, not the person trusting is the problem, the person abusing that trust is. That's basically the main business model of facebook as well as Google and some others. Manipulating users to share more, making users addicted, abusing trust, constantly spying on you and selling your secrets.
The world is better off if Facebook will go down is my opinion.
Family and partners are just one of the numerous, totally valid reasons. Just taking time for private life is more then enough reason, no need to specify or differentiate. You should go home at 5pm and have a cool private life even without family or being married!
At least for men, I feel we need to distance ourselfes from the paradigm of being valued only as disposable providers.
