Readit NewsThis is right up there with noticing that sometimes the "b" in certain English words is completely silent! Haha isn't that totally irrational and crazy you guys??
electric cars have very large and heavy batteries right? Why is it prohibitively difficult to replace them on demand? What if there were 2-3 batteries charging at home or hundreds at a "battery station", where you would park at a spot/drive-thru garage and have a hydraulic machine drop your old battery and lift in a new battery and the whole swap can take no longer than the time it takes to fill up a has car and you have less queues. Why is this not possible?
If it takes an hour to charge a battery and a battery station has 200 charging at any given time, and it takes 2 minutes to swap a battery then 6 charging bays can replace batteries for 180 cars leaving 20 extra batteries for defects and other issues. Couldn't such a charging station be implemented on a similar lot and budget of constructing a medium size gas station (at least a dozen pumps and around 1 acre lot).
A charging station that is twice as efficient with a 30min charge time can do 2 cars at most in one hour. You need 90 charging station to reach that efficiency even without considering the queues.
I just don't get it. Governments around the world and spending trillions on this stuff so why is there no clear answer on this?
Why would there need to be a "clear answer" on something that quite obviously wouldn't work?
Everyone here has done a great job of explaining to you the complexity of your "simple" solution, but you don't seem to want to accept any of the explanations. You seem to think that your back-of-the-napkin calculation can just be magically turned into a major part of our transportation infrastructure.
Cars aren't television remotes. The batteries in the cars aren't your standard AA battery. The situation is far more complicated than you're making it out to be.
The alternatives would be transfers through different countries with a hugely increased cost.
Been watching him from basically when his channel started many, many years ago. Was really disappointed to see him give in to this.
The calculators had to produce an answer that was off by more than a factor of 2 before the students suspected something might be wrong.
Back in the 80s at Boeing, the experienced engineers were deeply suspicious of any "computer numbers" because they'd been burned too many times by garbage results pushed by the computer department. I was the only person in my group (of about 30) to use a computer to calculate things. The others used calculators and graphical methods. My lead engineer didn't want any "computer numbers". I persisted, so he set up a competition between me and his best graphical method draftsman.
One of the numbers I generated didn't match the graphical results. My lead said "see, you can't trust those computer numbers!" The graphics guy said he'd recheck that one. A couple hours later, he said he'd made a mistake and the computer numbers were correct. (Note the "couple hours" to get one number.)
After that, my lead only trusted computer numbers from me, and directed a lot of the calculation work to me.
(All designs were double checked by a separate group, and then validated on the test stand. Correcting a mistake by then, however, got very expensive.)
I could tell you many stories of witnessing otherwise smart engineers run the worst possible simulations I've ever seen, but argue that their results were correct simply because the computer generated them.
Covid literally attacks obese people. And obese people also are at huge risk. I'm overweight and I was literally frightened during covid.
Now I lift weights every day and work on my diet very hard.
But we are literally ignoring the elephant (literally) in the room.
What's the fascination with this word? It seems to be used to add completely unneeded emphasis, rather than anything resembling its original definition.
StableDiffusionPipeline.from_pretrained("CompVis/stable-diffusion-v1-4",
revision="fp16", torch_dtype=torch.float16, ...)Man, am I a good photographer or what
I mean, probably if you're familiar enough with squirrels something gives it away, but I'm not.
I'm not particularly familiar with squirrels and something about that "photo" looks very off. If you showed it to me in a vacuum I'd just assume someone was trying to make a highly stylized version of something they had a photo reference for, but under no circumstances would I believe that's a real photo.
I'm genuinely confused by your take here.
This is just plain wrong, and makes no sense. If the leaves froze and died during the winter, how is this different from the tree losing the leaves to begin with?
Trees lose their leaves to stop the process of drawing water up from the roots through their trunks. If water were to go through the freeze/thaw cycle inside the long "straws" of the tree trunk, the tree would be torn apart from the expansion/contraction cycle of the ice.