It’s also been used for hundreds of years, it’s not a post-internet concept.

It might be a youtube title, or it might be quoted Greek or Latin text. Or various other uses in between.

Yeah, the switch has an entire core locked off and everything is downclocked to improve battery life and control temperatures. No doubt this emulation gives everything more clock cycles (and perhaps an extra core?). Probably very short on battery and possibly very hot too.

Same could have been said about electricity not that long ago. Now that renewables are building steam the switch to electricity is revealed as perfectly logical, why not the same for hydrogen?

Hydrogen is a harder sell, thanks to the poorer density, cost of storage, and the poor efficiency of production. But given the variable production of renewables all but guarantees we’ll end up with vast amounts of excess power we can’t store, we will need a fuel we can make from electricity that we can use, and hydrogen is one of the contenders for that task. Whether it’ll be the winner is more doubtful, but something will be, we certainly will never build enough batteries to avoid giving away cheap power for things like this, and there are still things that benefit from higher density fuels that aren’t going away (planes). Accusing people of being “worse than deniers” just because they’re looking a little into the future and betting on something that might turn out to be Betamax is a little presumptuous.

Hydrogen today is a fossil fuel. But hydrogen has a very obvious method of green production, the only problem is cost of power to produce it (thus why it’s all fossil fuels right now) but the inevitability of variable power sources like solar and wind in the future guarantees excesses of cheap power, so cost of power today is not going to be the same barrier tomorrow that it is today.

As for the fossil fuel industries plan to use hydrogen to maintain business as usual in a post fossil fuels era, I really don’t care if they manage to use their machines as long as they stop using fossil fuels, so that’s fine with me.

Edit: to be clear, I’m not supporting a hydrogen based economy, since that makes no sense, hydrogen is a storage medium for energy, not a production source. There have been people pushing it as a magical solution to all things, that is stupid. As a small piece of the puzzle it could fit, if we don’t find a better chemistry for high density storage of energy with simple conversion from electricity, which is as yet an unsolved problem.

Militaries are typically tasked with protecting more than themselves. If someone invaded Britain then the military wouldn’t have to wait until the invaders had shot a soldier to start defending the country.

A better question is whether they are attacking US and UK citizens/ equipment.

As dumb as this comment is, you’ve just guaranteed that I’ll never forget the name of this problem, so thanks for that

I assure you we’re not, and we seem to disagree pretty fundamentally, possibly you’re confused by the fact I replied to my own comment, but I assure you that was just because I was a bit drunk and couldn’t find the edit button

Just to add, I think the reason bankruptcy needs to exist is to ensure there is no burden on the government enforcing inefficient debt collection. It’s not about fairness or second chances, those are just happy side effects. But if someone’s business model relies on government enforced punishment to function it’s a wasteful model from the governments perspective. Allowing people to go bankrupt means nobody will benefit from this model of debt collection, and thus saves the courts and government to focus on more beneficial contract law involving large amounts of wealth, rather than millions of pittances that cost the government more than they earn the loan sharks.

Trying to control the lives of millions of people because they were too stupid with their finances is a very inefficient solution to the problem (also unpalatable). I think the far simpler option is to simply stop protecting anyone giving bad debt. The government has less work to do, people learn to be smart in what debt they offer, because if they start offering people the moon for punishing but distant costs, they’ll get nothing.

Your solution relies on every human being smart. Mine doesn’t care how smart people are, it ensures the problem is self correcting. Much neater, much less societal harm. Who actually cares about “punishing stupid debtors” when you can instead just not have any stupid debtors.

Don’t loan what they can’t afford to repay. Easy. Not everyone was stupid enough to offer debt up to people’s eyeballs, and many weren’t “fortunate” enough to even try.

Stupid games cause stupid prizes, for everyone involved. Bankruptcy exists for a reason and it was foolish to ever allow any debt to bypass it. Humans always have and always will act in their immediate best interests with a hopeful view of the future, and the best way to accommodate normal behaviour is to balance discouraging it (by encouraging the specialists in debt to refuse bad debt by punishing them with unrepaid loans) and ensuring the people caught in the system can still be functional in society since that is better for them, society, and everyone except the idiots who loaned them money they were never paying back.

I agree with you and Alexa, but you can always say “five past six” to avoid the [zer]o if it’s bothering you.

I remember on a German exchange at school the German student could not handle “oh” sounds in phone numbers at all. So it might be tricky for non native speakers (though I think they made more of a fuss from anger at how stupid English is than out of genuine confusion…)

Neither am I, but yes, probably it would be spun that way.

Possibly I was voicing my wish for a karmic result, rather than a politically pragmatic decision.

Otoh, if they tell him to keep quiet and he doesn’t (is he even capable of shutting up? His own lawyers have never stopped him flapping his jaw so far), that makes things much easier: contempt of court is a simple matter to resolve.

There will always be people like that. There will also always be places where trains are impractical.

A little radiation never hurt anyone who maintains their Mach 2 velocity. Just never land and you’re fine.

That’s unlikely to change for long distance flights.

For short flights small electric planes are becoming viable already, and they will continue towards medium flights over time.

But theres no serious concepts for a battery that could compete for long flights.

That’s not to say that planes are doomed to be fossil dependent forever. But the likely solution will be a renewable high density fuel, possibly hydrogen or something easier to carry.

It’ll be less efficient than batteries on a energy in to work out basis, but once the cost of carrying the weight is considered, that will always swing way in the favour of high density fuels regardless of battery efficiency (for long distance).

The EFF is probably competitive there. But clearly they’re both on the same side of most issues, so not really a competition.

Hi.

Firstly, you seem to be wanting to get an answer to your programming question, that’s not what you should be doing, it’s bad practice.

Instead, let me make some assumptions about what you’re trying to do, and suggest that isn’t a worthy cause. Instead you should enjoy this totally useless reply.

Remember to accept this answer and close your question or I shall return to berate you again!