I disagree. We publish the full name of the victims, disclosing their privacy and the one of their families, but we don’t disclose the full name of the criminals.
I am looking for a low power at idle (5-10 watts) server that could activate/deactivate gpu at will as a GPU takes a lot of extra watts at idle. The use case is that the server keeps running for NAS/home server stuff and can activate a gui environment at will (Wayland seat) for gaming. Bonus points for the software able to handle multiple people (seats) for small desktop use cases.
A small ARM SBC makes sense. Give me hardware encoding for AV1 and take my money.
In the Netherlands we are renewing our "Afsluitdijk" which is a dyke that now gets 75000 special concrete blocks specifically designed to protect against wave s similarly as proposed here.
These cables can run much hotter and so have better capacity. BUT there is a big downside. Because they run so hot (you can grill a burger on them with ease), there will be a lot more resistance resulting in net losses.
Also fun, because they can run so hot when rain hits it literally sizzles and cooks resulting in extra noise.
"Max.allowable continuous operating temp: 175 C", and shows a current capacity plot from 55C to 175C. That's 350 F, definitely enough to grill burger.
Also, I was curious about power loss - for that one cable I found, it's 0.25816 Ω/km @ 660 amp, which comes out to 181 kilowatt of loss (150 average US homes) per mile of the line (and probably double that for second wire). That's a lot of loss!
Something that everyone is going to need to get used to is that with carbon-free, cost-free primary inputs the emphasis on efficiency that we have historically known is going to disappear. It fundamentally does not matter if something that we need to make the system work loses a few percent of the energy.
That's not new at all - we already accept ICE's losing a ton of energy as heat, we accepted incandescent light bulbs losing a ton of energy as heat, etc.
It's more like we have to resist calls for everything to use the minimum amount of energy possible when the relevant thing really is minimising externalities.
It does when the grid is running on batteries for extended periods of time. I guess it just comes down to what is cheaper between x% more batteries and y% larger conductors.
Colocating batteries with panels should be more cost effective as they can avoid the DC-AC-DC conversion while using half as many inverters as 2 separate installations.
Medicare + Medicaid has been prohibited from assisting negotiation of drug price between pharmacy + drug company for a few decades. That is set to change in the future id my understanding.
I have private health care insurance so my insurance company would try negotiate the price down.
I agree with other commenters saying basically, drug companies all around the world do R&D, are happy to sell drugs at cost in England or Somalia, but will aim to make money in US selling drugs with a healthy profit margin here.
> Medicare + Medicaid has been prohibited from assisting negotiation of drug price between pharmacy + drug company for a few decades. That is set to change in the future id my understanding
> so my insurance company would try negotiate the price down.
Do they have any incentives to do that though? If their profits are fixed at a specific % wouldn’t they be incentivized to spend as much as possible so that they could increase premiums (as long as all other companies play along)?
You’re talking about something theoretical. I’m telling you what actually happens.
Insurance companies lose business when their premiums are unnecessarily high. In the long run, all their prices go up, but those who manage rising costs better (and provide better service and all that other stuff), grow their businesses.
I think you're being theoretical. Insurers can only increase profits by inflating medical costs.
"Insurers are supposed to spend 80% of every dollar on care and only 20% on administrative costs. However, instead of lowering premiums, the insurance companies have been incentivized to increase costs so that they can make more money."
I am not sure what else to tell you. Companies switch insurance providers for cost all the time. I've benefitted from it several times and seen first-hand how competitive the selection/sales process can be. If an insurer thought they could coast on high prices, losing accounts would change their behavior quickly, like in any company.
As an industry, insurers all benefit from aggregate rising medical costs because of the percentage rule you mentioned, but that's not the same as what an individual insurer will do.
If you're arguing as a proxy for wanting public health to be allowed to enter the industry as a price negotiator, I'm in complete agreement.
Apparently they do not switch often enough to get US medical costs down to the level of other industrialized nations. But that metric it is hardly an efficient market.
Yes, price competition only goes so far when the underlying thing being sold is expensive and buyers don't have enough power to squeeze suppliers. Hence the CMS comment. Also, switching costs aren't zero (new cards, employee education, etc.), and is be re-evaluated only annually.
The question in this subthread is: do insurers have an incentive to negotiate pharma prices down. The answer is they do have an incentive and they do negotiate prices down.
There's nothing theoretical about price competition. Large self-insured employers and other group buyers are very price sensitive. If a company offered Aetna health plans to their employees this year they would happily switch to Humana next year to save a few dollars. There are sophisticated analytics tools available now which let those customers predict future costs under various options.
This needs far more attention. Combi boiler installers tend to massively oversize the CV. But with heat-pumps you need to be far more accurate. And it does not make sense to design for a temperature that occurs only a couple of days in the year. You can just have the backup heater kick in which is far more efficient for a couple of days than having a heavier heatpump for the rest of the year that can not modulate back as much as a smaller heatpump.
> than having a heavier heatpump for the rest of the year that can not modulate back as much as a smaller heatpump.
Aren't basically all modern heatpump variable speed, and thus can modulate back?
That said, I totally agree with your overall point about right-sizing your heat pump, but it is more about saving money on the unit rather than worrying about cycle times.
Modern heatpumps can modulate, though it isn't 100%. I recommend people consider two smaller heat pumps in many cases - it costs more upfront but can modulate down more and if one system breaks the other can handle everything most days of the year (some rooms will be a bit uncomfortable)
They apparently can't back down completely. The Elon inspired ceo really wants that installation counting in there. It's despicable. You don't pay car companies extra fees if the car gets additional/new drivers. You get the revenue on the initial sale. If this is not enough you need to increase margins and make a better compelling product.
Apparently there will be proprietary software that is going to count installations (.....) but for now according to Bloomberg unity customers need to self report.
reply