431–440 of 827 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did the British go with 240V because it makes tea faster? I don't know the history... but I want to believe.
I think you mean 230V, but it was picked because it's more efficient and cheaper (you can use smaller wires for the same output).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Claiming that the issue was Epstein is what any smart legal / publicity team would do in this circumstance. If a PR team was going to pick a fake reason to hide a blasé real reason, why would they pick the biggest scandal possible? I thought rich people tried to keep their personal lives out of the news. Saying that they had drifted apart naturally while the real reason was Epstein is something like what a PR couns…
> If a PR team was going to I think you need a PR team if you're going to start writing replies like this...
I wonder who's right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From other comment > I mean, start with why his wife is divorcing him (Jeffery Epstein) and why he's no longer on the board at Microsoft(inappropriate relationships with staffers), then go into how he's screwed up public schooling in the US, then Microsoft under him. That's the easy stuff that you can see publicly.
Even ignoring that, his fortune came from anti-competitive business practices in the 80s and 90s, without which, personal computing would have been in a much better place today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell someone how many watts/kWh/etc, and they'll maybe have an inclination of what that means to them. Tell them something in a way they can relate by referencing something they do multiple times in a day, then they can understand. Doesn't seem like a mystery on why the reference was used.
It was a joke
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you mean 230V, but it was picked because it's more efficient and cheaper (you can use smaller wires for the same output).
But the size of those wall plugs tho...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's nice is that even for Q_plasma this only gets 0.33. So it's a net loss no matter how you measure it.
I'm confused. What do you think the goal of the campaign was?
As the article itself states: In the words of my colleague Jon Amos: "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century."
Sorry for being like this but what I like most about that remark is the joyful optimism that there will be a society to power in the first place, and secondly one that can (still) build and operate such technology. Edit: maybe I’m needlessly pessimistic but I feel societies are much more fragile than they seem. We had it unreasonably good in ‘the west’ for the last 77 years but that time span is so short in the grand…
Just to be clear, I 100% believe in climate change, and do what I think is a fair amount to help (cycle as much as I can, don't take long haul flights, take train instead of short haul flights, drive EV, insulate house, don't eat much meat, Solar PV panels).
BUT!
I feel like humanity and the earth are way more fault-tolerant than the parent comment gives them credit for. I don't think we are going to see the total collapse of civilisation - far from it. But I would welcome any links on people/studies/groups who have theorised what might happen in a medium-case scenario?
As the article itself states: In the words of my colleague Jon Amos: "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century."
Sorry for being like this but what I like most about that remark is the joyful optimism that there will be a society to power in the first place, and secondly one that can (still) build and operate such technology. Edit: maybe I’m needlessly pessimistic but I feel societies are much more fragile than they seem. We had it unreasonably good in ‘the west’ for the last 77 years but that time span is so short in the grand…