30 years away from it (reduced from the original 100 years they provided only 5 years ago)

More like estimates on this are completely unreliable. As in that 100 years could have as well been 1000 years. It was pretty much “until an unpredictable technological paradigm shift happens”. “100 years in future” is “when we have warp drives and star gates” of estimates. Pretty “when we have advanced to next level of advancement and technology, whenever it happens. 100 years should be good minimum of this not being taken as an actual year number estimate”.

30 years is “we see maybe a potential path to this via hypothetical developments of technology in horizon”. It’s the classical “Fusion is always 30 years away”. Until one time it isn’t, but that 30 year loop can go on indefinitely, if the hypothetical don’t turn to reality. Since you know we thought “maybe that will work, once we put out mind in to it”. Oh it didn’t, on to chasing next path.

I only know of one project, that has 100 year estimate, that is real. That is the Onkalo deep repository of spent fuel in Finland. It has estimate of spending 100 years being filled and is to be sealed in 2120’s and that is an actual date. Since all the tech is known, the sealing process is known, it just happens to take a century to fill the repository bit by bit. Finland is kinda stable country and radiation hazard such long term, that whatever government is to be there in 2120’s, they will most likely seal the repository.

Unless “we invent warp drives” happens before that and some new process of actually efficiently and very safely getting rid of the waste is found in some process. (and no that doesn’t include current recycling methods. Since those aren’t that good to get rid of this large amount and with small enough risk of side harms. Surprise, this was studied by Finland as alternative and it was simply decided “recycling is not good enough, simple enough, efficient enough and safe enough yet. Bury it in bedrock tomb”).

Well it could also be a lever or a switch.

Newer ever take Klarnas word for anything. They are the fine and Dandy company whose business model involved by routine fishing for customers bank authorization credentials.

However this isn’t about your anecdotal experience. This is about what level of service they can guarantee as minimum and overall to meet the conditions of the subsidy.

I would also note this isn’t reinstatement matter. FCC refused to give them the subsidy in the first place with this decision. What SpaceX are trying to spin as reneg on previous decision is them making the short list of companies to be considered. Well, getting short listed is not same as being selected fully.

They passed the criterion for the short list check, but the final authorization and selection included more wide and more through checking on the promises of companies to meet criterion and SpaceX failed the more through final round of scrutiny before being awarded the subsidy.

Government having awarded bad money previously isn’t fixed by following up bad awards with more bad awards. SpaceX exactly failed since previously money was handed out too losely and FCC has tightened the scrutiny on subsidy awards to not follow up bad money with more bad money.

Nobody is prevented from buying Starlink, this just means Starlink isn’t getting subsidized with tax payer money.

Specially in say foggy conditions and little bit distance. At which point you won’t clearly maybe differentiate individual elements and more like that’s the rear and “block of light in middle, left and right”. At which point it all little blending one might infact be under impression “the light intensity lowered at the rear, huh, not braking then, did they have they parking break dragging they released or something… ohhhjj shuiiiiiit no it is braking hard”.

My two cents from here north of Europe and land of snow, rain, fog and occasional white out conditions.

He is successful enough, old enough and made enough money, that he can just retire. Threatening him is an empty threat. He is 60 and probably given his long career earned more than he can spend in rest of his life, unless he goes super yacht and private jet crazy.

The whole show was a come back from retirement essentially. A voluntary indulgence on his part. Surely lucrative indulgence, but indulgence still. Apple needed him, he didn’t need Apple.

Most of the crew probably will leave for other project with a letter of recommendation from John in their pocket.

Also I would add inflation went up, prices jumped. Meaning not so much free spending cash any more. People might have previously had the cash to update phone, just for sake of update even without it being necessary. Now days? People have way more important things they have to spend more money on.

Ahemmm just pure “they be crafty”… Like did UAW keep their twitter X account just so they thought “Will Elon be stupid enough to revoke us”. Since it is clear sign of anti-union behavior by CEO of a car company by concrete act and well car company CEO can’t exactly do that with atleast potentially getting in trouble. It won’t suffice alone, but combine it with other actions by Tesla and UAW can argue “Tesla as company all the way to the CEO shows a consistent pattern of anti-union activity of actively hindering our union drives. That is supposed to be illegal”.

Atleast I think UAW doesn’t mind at all the publicity, this will cause for them “Automaker CEO revoked us, since all business is too conglomerized to too few hands and control way too much of the business”

Tehnyt again if that follow others behavior is drive faster, that also leads to accidents. Not many with the other frustrated drivers, but with say wildlife. People not being aboe to stop in time more often dye to the increased speed and thus increased braking distance.

That is why bendy narrow roads have slower speed limit. It is function of what is the predicted reaction time, the amount of sight distance one had.

Can’t cheat physics, the more speeding there is, the longer the braking distances, the more often it isn’t anymore a near miss due to braking in time and instead a full on collision.

So sure one is more synch, but every is in synch with less reaction time available, when the unavoidable chaos factor raises its head. Chaos factor like wild live (who are not obligated nor obliged to follow traffic rules) or say someone bursting a tire leading to sudden change in speed and control.

Actually yes. Though not the business owners really. Instead it was society and strategic planners. It is matter of supply security, not of profit maximization. Which is why incentives and penalties were involved.

Also presumably lacking the cheapest of cheap labor, production automation would be increased. In low cost production countries like China, they don’t always use hordes of cheap labour due to not being able to automate. Rather it is cheaper to use lot of wage slaves operating manual machines, than to pay for the more expensive specialized automated production machinery. Specially on short term. On long term the automated machines probably amortize themselves and then start to make gains over the wage slaving, but well that takes time and one thing quarter report stock market capitalism hates is having to wait for anything. They will take less profits overall over decade, if they can get more profits this quarter or this year.

Is it rational? Well no obviously rational business expecting to be around for decade would take the long term bigger overall profits. It’s literally more money earned for the company as long as one plans for the company to be around at the end of the decade. However companies are not managed by rational machines, but instead by these things called CEOs. CEOs, despite their claims, are often anything but rational. CEO’s with personal motives, CEO’s with emotional quirks, CEO’s with inbuilt expectations, CEO’s with in-built assumptions, often wrong assumptions, CEO’s with incentive packages that often are not really that thought through. Stock holders looking to incentivize short time stock gain over long term business profitability.

It’s interesting because by strictly following traffic rules you might infact be a danger to others but by driving like humans you’re also breaking the law.

Well the others should also stop breaking the law, then things are safe again. One doesn’t solve the illegal murder problem by making murder legal. If someone is danger to someone else by driving legally, then source of problem is other persons behaviour. Since legal rules don’t include stuff like “be obnoxious and hindering to others”.

The other drivers must drive like expecting possibly the others involved driving by the rules. Leaving enough room, incase the car in front in fact does stop at the stop sign. Since they might have to emergency stop anyway. If one isn’t distant enough to leave room for stop sign stopping, one certainly doesn’t have the safe distance to anticipate as they should the car in front at any moment having to do emergency stop due to developing sudden situation. One must always leave avoidance distance.

Drive by the speed limit and not little over? It is the speeding over takers fault they are speeding over taker, took a dangerous over take when they shouldn’t due to being “annoyed” by someone driving by the speed limit and thus causing a crash.

There is very very few cases where driving by the rules is the cause of danger. Other drivers being fool hardy, emotional idiots is the source of danger. Fault will and should land with the fool hardy idiot.

As NTHSA said with making Tesla remove the “california stop” aka rolling the stop singing without stopping, others breaking the law don’t make it legal for you. In fact said arbitrary cultural behavior, which some follow and some don’t is a source of danger due to uncertainty it causes.

edit: So in long term the car is safer by following rules, since it induces others to drive legally and predictably. Specially since machines don’t use human non verbal hints and so on. Thus the only sensible route for a driving machine, instead of driving human is to strictly follow traffic rules. Since it makes it a predictable player. Unlike with humans other humans have no way to culturally gauge how a “driving machine would behave”, if it doesn’t behave by the one publicly known precedent it could be expected to behave… Driving by the rules to the letter. Which does include the simple rule of “if you can you must try to avoid collision, even on having right of way”. No amount of “but the rules say”, overrules that basic rule in the rules “every driver has obligation to try to avoid collision or minimize collision upon not being able to avoid collision.” So there well be no “cyborg car bowling down a pedestrian or other car, because technically the other person was breaking the law. The car had right of way”.

Well… Iceland has ocean warmth due to gulf stream and is a literal vulcanic Island. Heck Island doesn’t have heating problems, they just capture heat from the hot springs created by the vulcanism.

As such Iceland is kinda misleading as is Greenland. Iceland has less ice than greenland. Though Iceland is not green, more like black given all the volcanic basalt.

That is refrigerant dependent. For example R744 (plain old CO2) works well efficiently down to -4F, -20C and down to -40C/-40F just with some efficiency drop.

Main issue is CO2 needs a constant high pressure heat pump system, since it needs to be highly pressurised to be fluid at all. In ambient it sublimates (goes straight between gas and solid aka dry ice).

However that is a solved issue. Working CO2 heatpumps are off the self commercially available these days. Just still little more expensive as I understand. However prices should come down with production economies of scale, upon CO2 taking over due to pollution, toxicity, flammability, green house considerations. He nastier chemicals weren’t used for being all the ways superior, but due to it being easier to make the heat pump units (be they running in heating or in cooling) due to lower pressure requirements.

Since CO2 and ammonia were the original refrigerants. Used in large ice production facilities early on, where their specific needs weren’t issue even for earlier technology. Large, purpose built, stationary industrial facility had no problem accommodating the needed massive pressures by just really massive and heavy pipework.

However these days the propeller head people developed micro channel tubing and heat exchangers to keep the high pressure CO2 in control.

Not really. Heat pump is not creating heat unlike resistive heater. It’s just transporting it. One must remember even though freezing temperatures are cold for humans, for physics and universe those are still relatively high temperature environment. After all 0 Celsius is 273 positive Kelvin degrees. So that is 273 Kelvin forth of heat to pump around. Well say in -30C, still 243 K worth of heat to pump around. So the issue isn’t is there heat, the issue is the practical mechanical and thermodynamic realities of he pumping. Which in practice comes down to can you find suitable refrigerants with suitable phase change characteristics to pump around.

Which for normal ambient temperatures on Earth is “yes”. Just usually matter of how high pressures one has to use and other nasty features of the materials. For example recently even just CO2 has been started to use more again, issue with it mostly being it has to operate at higher pressures than more traditionally used refrigerants. They just don’t call it CO2 in the bizz, it’s refrigerant fluid R744. That works down to -56.6 Celcius given its triple point temperature. So it won’t heat one in antarctic -80C winter, but for most of Earth even in cold climates -56.6 C is plenty. Problem just is it has to always work under high pressure, since in ambient pressures CO2 just sublimated from solid to gas. Pumping around solid blocks of dry ice isn’t very convient for continuous heat exchange process machine.

Which adds some cost to the pump components. On the other hand… CO2 is pretty darn harmless. As long as concentration locally isn’t too high, humans, animals and plants are perfectly used to handling the gas they exhale. It is non flammable, it is green house gas, but it is green house gas we naturally exhale. Some unit leaking it doesn’t change much, since usually CO2 for industrial use is extracted from waste product gas, that would end up in air anyway.

Plus on need be it can be distilled from air, it’s just energy intensive. Which is why “carbon capture” isn’t a bigger thing. We know how to do carbon capture. It’s just energy intensive and thus on climate impacting massive scale energy prohibitive.

Recall, an official recall, is a safety issue notice really. Its a legally defined thing in motor vehicle code. If manufacturer finds a defect, issue or feature affecting driving safety they have to notify safety authorities and get a recall issued. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with, whether the product goes back to service garage or not.

Important point: Not every Tesla OTA update triggers a NHTSA (or other national road safety agency) official recall. Tesla has updated their cars plenty without recall notice. Only safety related issues get recall issued along with the OTA update.

Thus it is meaningfully, that they have so many software related (and thus OTA fixed) safety recalls. Each of those times is Hey, NHTSA, gonna have to admit, our software has a safety oopsie on it. Here is the paperwork, could you please issue us the official recall campaign number. Yeah software team already developed fix for it, it’s all in the paperwork. We issue recall notice for drivers to check for the OTA to have gone through properly, that is all they need to do.

No maker wants to have safety recalls. It’s bad PR. Makers have been fined plenty times for failing to properly inform agencies. One of the most famous is the Takata airbags. Where Takata got fined millions by first knowing and not telling their airbags had extra spicy unstable propellant exploding way too violently. Plus after firstly admitting to it lying to for example NHTSA about the vast extend of the problem.

So it matters, that even on “just a software issue” recalls are issued. The main point is public is properly informed. Lot of time it’s resolved without great calamity. However this was exactly the lesson learned. Don’t let makers hide issued, make them admit immediately so public knows and can take appropriate mitigation, before someone gets hurt. Also makes makers fix things quickly. Otherwise other priorities might override, since What they don’t know can’t hurt our reputation, like this is marginal issue. We can take little more time with this. Oh it takes 6 months to design fix with that small team. No worries. After all, no one knows. We have time. Except during that slow roll someone bumps into that “marginal issue” and gets hurt. Having to publicly admit immediately puts fire under their hind quarters. “Whole design department, stop what you are doing. We have safety recall issue. It went just public. Everyday company sits without being able to say No worries, we have solution we take flack. This is now priority number 1. This must be resolved yesterday, says the company board. Whatever parts or equipment you need, order it. Whomever you need to call, call them.”

Oh you aren’t getting it for free. You just pay for it to T-mobile, instead of directly to Netflix. Never yet heard of a company, that offers actual freebies. You just pay for it in the price of the other thing you are paying them for.

Buy glasses, get second pair for free… … … you pay price of two for one pair and aren’t just very well aware how cheap eye glasses are to make these days.

No they shouldn’t. since not every OTA update gets a recall. Only safety related issues cause recalls. What OTA recall means is software or algorhitm related to the drive train, driving or related systems had a safety related issue.

It is normal, that now that there is more software control, there is more software related recalls. The point isn’t to track how many times the car went to shop to be worked on. The point is to track how many times and how severe safety related issues there is. Just because the solution was simple to end user OTA update doesn’t mean the underlying safety issue wasn’t severe.

Before you had to go to garage to fix sticking accelerator cable. Now you have to update the power delivery mapping algorhitm, since it had a bug qnd didn’t properly cut the torque from the motor on accelerator lift. Both are uncommanded acceleration application issues. Equally severe and very serious safety issues. One just needs physical work, other software fixing.

That they have to update the software so often regarding safety says to me their safety verification procedure isn’t robust.

Also not like Tesla is the only one. Others also have had to update their software for bugs or ill behavior. Just not as often. I would hazard due to more conservative software updating.

Bunch of the recalls for Tesla have been caused by them updating software, introducing a bug and then having to pretty soon after safety recall for the update fixing that bug. If they had scrutineered the software more closely, they would have avoided the safety recall. Since the deployed software would be bug free on the first deployment.

Remember on modern EV, single bug in control software can send front and rear tires spinning in opposite directions. On 4 motor torque vectoring the software can send the car into uncontrolled tank spin with one side pulling forward and other backward.

The simple truth is the driveline control software is safety critical component of modern car and thus should absolutely earn safety notices on having problems. Mind you recall is archaic name for safety notice, but that is the name in legislations and use. On many other fields also there is archaic legacy terms in use and people learn to deal with it.

Amazon is a retailer, they can choose to sell or not sell whomever’s goods they want to.

Amazon is also platform operator. This is about Amazon being the direct seller on the selling platform operated by this company called Amazon vs third party seller selling Apple products on the platform operated by this company called Amazon.

Meaning stuff like Amazon placing their own direct sell offer higher on results or as said how prominently they featured advertising by their party sellers.

This is the danger of trying to operate both as the retailer and as the platform operator on same market place. Competition authority will very carefully scrutinise ones operating of the market platform on benefit of ones retail sales.

Direct single party retail webshops don’t have this problem. Neither do pure marketplace platform, where they just run the marketplace and don’t offer any first party product sales.

They could choose to not do third party sellers and be pure first party retailer. However then their selection would be smaller. Since third party sellers cover much of the niches not lucrative enough for amazon itself to cover. Then Amazon wouldn’t be the “buy everything” store, which would also hurt their retail business. Since the default move wouldn’t be “well lets first look on amazon, they have everything there”.

Amazon is trying to have their cake and eat it too. Competition authority is saying “hold on there now, you either eat it or keep it. No cheating and double dipping.” If you are to be both market place and retailer, there needs to be firewall between those two divisions and fair dealing with the other retailers on your marketplace.

Oh no, poor Apple having to do a redesign. How can they ever afford that with their billions.

in specific applications. not all calculations are suitable for quantum computation.

Well the one thing you are right about is the governments being different.

Cell networks are modular as such those can be compared per capita, not per absolute. USA has population density twice of Finlands. Also since these are cell networks affordability can be talked network wide instead of locally. Sure that one Winston farm is not affordable, but we’ll the local city already makes up for it.

Upon which we come to the reason we can demand they take that hit of providing for Winston Farm and not just picking the cream from the top by sticking to the city.

Common good or public good. Limited shared reasource, that can’t be utilised without affecting others. If one company gets for radio band and is choosing to not provide for Winston Farm, that shuts out company B. Company B was also going to utilise the radio band, but their plan was to serve Winstons also. Company A thus excludes ability of winstons to be served, even if winstons wanted to be served and willing to pay fair price

Same as we don’t allow companies to pollute air endlessly, since it denies the ability to habitate in the polluted air. There is only one atmosphere, there is only one radio space around Earth. It is only feasible to run one water network, one electricity grid in a city. In that case the shared common good is just the space itself. If someone puts up an utility pole on the only strip of land next to the road, someone else can’t.

There is more than one radio band, but only limited amount.

Well sure there is use cases for satellites like ocean and sea going ships, remote ocean island and antarctic research stations. However “small village in rural, but mainland USA” is not one of those to me. It could be handled by radio towers and wired links. If only the political and resource priority was there. It is far more permanent and sustainable infrastructure choice, than “we have to keep blasting space rocket very 5 years to keep this towns internet going. If they stop blasting the rockets, we lose the internets.”

Same applies to pretty much all mainland and all communities outside of something like deep jungle and deep siberia. I come from Finland. Finnish Lapland is not exactly hive of population density, but still couple hundred people villages and just summer cottages have mobile internet cell coverage. I remember when it wasn’t so. There was time, when dial up and satellite internet via geostationary was a thing in 1990’s and early 2000’s. It all fell out with the spread of cell networks. Who in their right mind would compete with “20€/month, you get 5G/4G internet. Unlimited data, 100Megs speed”, heck 50€ per month as much you can eat and 5G can deliver 1G service mobile cell network with constant satellite launching. putting up towers with microwave links isn’t that expensive. I streamed Netflix at family summer cottage in Lapland.

The “but vast distances” is empty argument. Is USA way vast to Finland… yeah, but there is also 300 million people compared to 5 million to pay for it all. . Problem in say USA isn’t vast distances or small population density. It is that mobile carriers are run as regional monopolies without sufficient monopoly controls of “no you have to serve also that town there, you have to serve that ranch there. You are utility company using the public good of shared radio spectrum slots. Sure you paid license for it, but those are limited resource. Even the paid for radio slots come with obligations. Electric utility has minimum service obligations, now you telecoms are new electricity, here is demands for minimum service obligations. In this county you have sought to have under your coverage, you provide radio coverage for every permanent residence. Including that farm. Don’t like it? You are free to relinquish your temporary license for exploitation of common good resource and we will find someone who will do same business with acceptable to us terms… Oh would you look at that, seems to be like 5 companies in queue there at the door.”

Do the Finnish mobile operators like they have service obligations in certain regions to cover even low density areas as private profit seeking business? Noooo, but ahemmm they are still making profits. Do they like they have to offer roaming under fair terms to competitors to avoid every operator having to put their own mast for every last village? Probably not. They are still making profits. They fullfill their minimum service obligations and play by the roaming and competition rules, government leaves them alone to run their business.

Additional fun fact: Radio towers anchored to ground are also dodge obligation free and are able cover the supplementary mobile and wireless communications needs to complement the wired connections for cases of not being able use wires.

😀

It won’t (my personal totally empty prediction). To get humidity in larger scale it means getting air flow. Air flow in sufficient numbers doesn’t come out of no where. Usually with this kind of stuff one quickly finds one needs just insane amount of flow to scale meaning big blower fans and then you find you spend all the energy you produce running the fans and other needed ancillary equipment.

“The beauty is that the air is everywhere,” says Yao. “Even though a thin sheet of the device gives out a very tiny amount of electricity or power, in principle, we can stack multiple layers in vertical space to increase the power.”

And when you start stacking the layers you need pressure to push the air through the layers and so on meaning, supply fans. Otherwise eventually on big enough system you find… the system sucks all the moisture out of the air locally and then no more electricity. They aren’t pulling energy out of air, but out of humidity . First is plentiful in atmosphere, second is at times very finite quantity locally. Sure on the wider atmosphere the humidity is plentiful, but again how you get that humidity to the device constantly. There needs to be airflow. With small enough device like those micro watts, well the humidity present ambiently is enough, since it consumes next to nothing. Start to scale up and well the ambient humidity is not enough. Not unless you are at windy sea front at which point… why not just put up a wind turbine and a sea front sea wave power station.

It might find utility as small local power source with not much power required, but grid scale thing it most likely won’t be. aka it isn’t hog wash, but when they start talking “yeah, but we put 100k of these disks in a stack and it will be this much power” you must start asking “so how many kilogram of H2O is that thing ingesting per minute, is there that much H20 weight in the air in the first place. If not how big fans and turbine you need to drive new moist air to it”.