Readit NewsGenuine question.
Sorry... just musing on this topic because this is giving me a laugh.
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
Natural gas comes out of the ground with water in it, and is piped around wet until it reaches a processing plant that removes water.[1] Everything upstream of water-removal is vulnerable to frozen water.[2] So, where freezing is a possibility, water removal needs to be near the wells, or it's possible to accept some freeze shutdowns and use more downstream storage. Texas used to have a climate where that wasn't a problem.
This is all well understood. There are plenty of natural gas operations in cold climates. So how is Texas doing on improving their system?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycol_dehydration
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/17/22287130/texas-natural-ga...
There are glycol stations but as I recall those are really only used in gathering systems with a compressor. The large plants will have tons of equipment online to condition the gas before pushing it upstream. The biggest issue we ever had was just baby-sitting compressors in the middle of the night because some of them just really don't like to operate in cold conditions.
I used to test the gas in a lab and there wouldn't be enough water vapor left in the line to cause any issues under freezing. You have far more issues with carbon sludge build-up since anything above butane just really wants to be a liquid. That area typically produces wells with something like 4% N2, 70-80% C1, 2% CO2, and the rest is basically C2+ with maybe some H2S in a few places. It's very easy gas to pipe around for the most part.
There’s a meme that Git is hard to use but I think it’s conflating the challenges of getting used to version control at all, distributed version control, and any specific tool. I watched a number of developers do that and it was about as much work to go from SVN to either Git or Mercurial, and if they learned the other DVCS it was always easier since they were mapping concepts rather than learning them for the first time. The marginal returns on productivity weren’t worth switching in most cases so it tended to come down to Git being so much faster and, as network effects kicked in, easier to host.
No. I had used CVS, SVN, SVK, Bazaar, and Mercurial for years before I switched to Git. I can generally explain the internals of all of these tools (a DAG) to someone in simple terms in minutes. Overlaying that onto the commands becomes easy.
What Git does is take that concept and wrap it in the worst possible workflow UI. The people that immediately grafted onto the Git community cheered this on for some reason very early and then recanted by saying that you are really supposed to build "porcelain" for Git since it was meant to be a rough tool.
To this day all I see are articles about people's confusions and conniptions over simple things that Git does incorrectly because it's UI is horrible. Most can't even get to the point where they understand the DAG. Even though I know what is supposed to happen it's hard for me to fumble around with simple commands because the naming is inconsistent and I have to research to find solutions. This was rarely an issue with Mercurial and when I talk to people that have used both they seem to share that sentiment.
Git is the PHP of version control. Widely used and very popular but has a lot of architectural problems that make it a total mess.
> I never questioned the competence of past engineers
False just based on your opening volley of toxic spew. Backwards compatibility is an engineering decision and it was made by very competent people to interoperate with a large number of systems. The future has never been fucked over.
You seem to not understand how ASCII is encoded. It is primarily based on bit-groups where the numeric ranges for character groupings can be easily determined using very simple (and fast) bit-wise operations. All of the basic C functions to test single-byte characters such as `isalpha()`, `isdigit()`, `islower()`, `isupper()`, etc. use this fact. You can then optimize these into grouped instructions and pipeline them. Pull up `man ascii` and pay attention to the hex encodings at the start of all the major symbol groups. This is still useful today!
No, the biggest fuckage of the internet age has been Unicode which absolutely destroys this mapping. We no longer have any semblance of a 1:1 translation between any set of input bytes and any other set of character attributes. And this is just required to get simple language idioms correct. The best you can do is use bit-groupings to determine encoding errors (ala UTF-8) or stick with a larger translation table that includes surrogates (UTF-16, UTF-32, etc). They will all suffer the same "performance" problem called the "real world".
So if the price of Premium was lower you'd be ok with this? Premium costs about the same as Netflix.
Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on Youtube.
If YouTube would be willing to charge me something in the neighborhood of $5-$10 per month for that I'd happily pay. I have never had a Netflix subscription. I stopped consuming pop content and movies in 2010.
I am serious about this. If you have any way of making recommendations to anyone anywhere within Alphabet that will listen, please offer it up. I would point you to a site like HistoryHit which is far more in-line with what I want. It is $60/year.
Also, I already pay $5/month to the Kevin Richardson foundation and the ad-blocking mechanism on YouTube prevents me from watching those videos (which I paid for).
The Information Service Provider offered it for "free with ads".
Do you otherwise support paying creators for their work, if not through YouTube's system for compensating creators?
If you don't want ad-blockers, shut it down.
No, you don't have a right to free service either. Do you pay your other bills while you demand free rendered services from these companies?
Having a disability or similar does not entitle you to an unsubsidized Times Square with no ads.
(NASA is running their own streaming network and competing; it can be done. EU should try to run competing free video streaming businesses before shoving preferred American companies around with anti-competitive claims. EU haven't run a video hosting business that's been prevented from competing by the success, existence, and approved mergers and acquisitions of American media companies; and so EU video hosting businesses haven't and can't have been anti-conpetitively disadvantaged.)
I also run ad blockers for various justifiable reasons; but I don't tell myself that I have a right to free shtuff.
How the heck can you require only Netflix to host 30% local EU content and also demand free video streaming service with no ads?
Because they offered it for free.
YouTube can close the doors any time. If they want my money, they can make a service offering that meets my needs. They could charge content providers for bandwidth and storage and meter it with assisted ad-support networks. They could charge a price I'm willing to pay.
But they don't and I will not accept any argument that consuming resources they put into the public sphere for free use means I am under any moral obligation to either give them money or facilitate them making money off of my traffic.
The only time ads worked was when Google made them an unobtrusive part of search. They dominate literally every piece of software I use now. I'm sorry but I say burn it all to the ground. I will either pay for or build its replacement.
You don't want ad-blockers? Shut it down. I was doing the internet before there was a need for them.
Why not just buy physical media where available, and abstain where an acceptable legal option is not provided?
Because in addition to all the filthy pirated booty I stole, I would also show them this:
I'm never paying for entertainment again. I paid my dues and the industry has done nothing but fuck me and everyone else.Fuck them. It's over.
Have fun paying to sing "Happy Birthday".