Queue the next batch of YC sand companies
SandGPT
Readit Newsmalloci commented on Sand trafficking in Latin America insightcrime.org/news/the... · Posted by u/josh-sematic
Yes, but at least those don't have hardware lock-in.
From the article, however, you don't technically need an apple device...an iCloud+ account is sufficient. That said, I don't know many people with iCloud+ who aren't already in the Apple ecosystem, and obviously anything Apple releases will obviously have some advantage to it if you use the hardware alone.
malloci commented on TikTok users flock to Chinese app RedNote before US ban bbc.com/news/articles/c24... · Posted by u/segasaturn
This is a weird development no one seemed to see coming. Wonder if it will get traction or just a overreaction from the TikTokers
Given the running narrative that closing down TikTok is more of an effort of American social network platforms, it's probably more a form of protest than anything.
Tend to use blind for the inside scoop these days anyway
malloci commented on Heat your house with a mechanical windmill (2019) solar.lowtechmagazine.com... · Posted by u/solalf
> I think the real reason nobody does solar thermal is because it's just so much less practical to deal with pipes and pumps and heat reservoirs than wires and batteries.
It very much depends where one is located. My parents' house, in a subtropical climate region, has had solar thermal for over 2 decades. Now they've also installed PV panels, but hot water is still mainly solar thermal with electrical heating as supplement.
New houses also have dual setups like theirs. Solar thermal collectors for hot water + PV for other electric usage and selling the excess to the grid.
> Also it is useless in the summer when you don't need heating.
You still do need some water heating in the summer.
Is that more or less efficient than a heat pump water heater driven by solar though? A quick search shows that the heat pump option can be upwards of 3x more efficient. Plus, you can use the extra electricity generated to power your fans or heat pump cooling system.
Irrelevant and ultimately arbitrary distinction. Is it bad for certain people to have too much money or not?
Consider that Americans waste more energy and generate more greenhouse gasses that citizens in other, lower emitting countries pay for - we are all on the same planet.
Ultimately these discussions devolve to people just being bitter others having more than them.
That's an interesting attempt to deflect from the income disparity between those in executive positions to those that work for them. Even in tech, while the salaries of tech workers is high it's nothing compared to the execs.
But let's follow the deflection. Instead of monetary disparity, lets look at energy waste disparity. It was recently shown that the top 10% wealthiest Americans contribute to 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the country. As you said, we are all on the same planet. just because they have managed to grab a bigger piece of the pie shouldn't mean that they get to pollute the planet more than anyone else. In both cases the mindset needs to change and those at the top maybe need to be a little less greedy overall.
source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/08/230817163849.h...
I've got a background in this field and I am very surprised to see this published in Nature. The model presented is purely statistical with no representation of the underlying physics. When we are dealing with a phenomenon that is driven by well-understood physical laws (e.g. geophysical fluid dynamics, radiation physics etc) then these physical models are the most reliable basis for prediction.
When I say physical models here by the way I'm referring to physically-based mathematical models as well as numerical models.
It seems that the authors have done a good job in developing their model. My issue is with Nature deciding to publish it. If this paper was not published in Nature it would receive little attention within or without climate science - in fact many such statistical models are published each year without much comment. However, Nature have published a paper that I think many ocean scientists would feel draws dramatic conclusions from a weak basis but will now inevitably draw much more attention than more insightful papers.
MIT professor Carl Wunsch accused Nature in 2010 of near-tabloid science with a tendency towards sensational papers built on weak foundations. However, I've felt that Nature's choice of publications on climate in recent years has been high quality. This paper feels like a big step-down from that standard.
Skepticism on this was called out in WaPo's article on the same subject:
Other experts on the AMOC also cautioned that because the new study doesn’t present new observations of the entire ocean system — instead, it is extrapolating about the future based on past data from a limited region of the Atlantic — its conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/2...
But what if they just understand time-value-of-marshmallow. Sometimes marshmallow now is better than marshmallow later.