471–480 of 596 posts
How did Apple allow their app in the App Store? It can easily be a website (no phone specific frameworks are used). There was a post that explained the difficulty they had for Apple to approve their application (music festivals).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Multiple solutions are already known Care to link to some?
c. 1820s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_conductor c. 1869: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water 1897: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction Antiquity or 1835: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror 1882: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s just a different problem we can’t solve, either.
Just need to wait for Putin to conquer the world and build Putin Pipes.
Try a small game, put PR and the emotion they push aside: who need a war today? If you are honest you have to admit that the most in need of a war are UK first, USA second. UK need a war outside to avoid a civil war inside. Having essentially lost their "empire" status they are simply unable to live anymore. A war would compact people and if won give resource of the looser. USA need a war for similar reasons, mitigated by the fact that USA can actually live on it's own, even alone, "only" correcting it's crazy economy. Not easy at all, but technically possible, so practically when crisis really bite.
China do not need, but like, a war. They have a hyper big food issue, they need to conquer south America to eat. To do so they need to overpower the USA. To do so they need Russia's tech and natural resources, something Russia, a China's historic enemy, do not like that much to share to such a big & powerful giant.
Russia do not like a war at all. It's something that impose agreements with China, imbalanced. EU similarly do not need a war. It simply destroy EU itself due to the lack of natural resources.
So the plan is? Well. USA declare it essentially in the far 2004: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_Mapping%... oh, they are formally just acritical prediction from the intelligence to the politicians. But sounds really accurate. In more modern terms: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/R...
A bottomline: saying that UK and USA need a war means their oppressive ruling classes need it, of course NOT the people, unfortunately as most people in the world those who do need the opposite of their ruling class are the last to understand they are fighting for their own enemy that's not those on the opposite front, but those who march at their head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
c. 1820s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_conductor c. 1869: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water 1897: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction Antiquity or 1835: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror 1882: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
Are you telling me that Sweden, a country of 10 million people, which has wildly differing electricity prices within that same small country¹, could simply use copper conductors to solve this problem, but chooses not to for political reasons ? 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32618798
Might not even be wrong to have made this choice, I can't tell — economics (which is an important part of politics) is outside my domain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should see how much they’ve invested in solar to hit that mark, and how much capacity is being unutilized
Top utilization of solar was approximately 25% of the installed base today At the same time, 49% of nuclear in France is being used today and 62% of nuclear in the UK So, it's "bad" but not everything is used 100% all the time
But that perfect day is rare, largely because of Germany’s climate.
So you have a situation where you have to essentially install over 100% of your needs in solar. You’re overspending for suboptimum results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should see how much they’ve invested in solar to hit that mark, and how much capacity is being unutilized
Maybe you could show us with a source?
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-failure-...
Essentially, there’s plenty of installed solar capacity but most of it can’t be utilized fully unless its a perfect day. So you have to essentially rely on backup and keep installing more and more solar capacity beyond your needs because those perfect solar days are so rare in Germany.
This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who has ever spent even two days in Germany - the country isn’t exactly brimming with sunlight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile over here in the UK, the press is blaming the energy crisis partly on the fact that our government didn't spend loads of money on solar and onshore wind like Germany. We're even worse situated to benefit from solar than they are. (The renewable program here is mostly focused on offshore wind, which is the least-bad option given our geography, plus attempts at nuclear that are widely criticized by the press…
Britain is the best position country in Europe for wind and tidal power. There was a project to pay down cable to import reliable, cheap 24/7 power from Iceland and hobernment said 'nah'. They also cancelled a 340 MW tidal project
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All energy problem reduce to problems of energy transportation. We have a huge fusion reactor in the sky. The challenge is capture and transit. The problem is not incidental; it's fundamental.
As long as people won't even try to install a solar concentrator while bitching about rising prices, I won't take any of them seriously. Such a simple design, can be used for at least heating water for 3-6 months. But nah. Same for which the roofs. You don't have a white/silver roof on your house? Fuck you. On that note, you like cruise ships? Also fuck you.
If I want to go fully autonomous I have to spend in batteries like the same price of a Lamborghini, for zero re-sale value, to be demolished in 10 years in theory, in practice more likely 7-8 years if I use them with significant daily important DOD. I also doubt we are even able to produce enough battery and panels to everyone. And I'm not alone: https://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services... essentially the governmental, non-interested report state: we can't run on renewable. That's is.
What I'm curious is another thing: why some on a technically sound community like HN with certain topics became totally partisan of this or that topic at fanatic levels. It's not you, it's a trend I see in the last months at least, for various topics: anytime there is a post with a neoliberal agenda hot topic such behaviors appear.
My honest review:
- I spent a very big amount of money to build a new home, witch will not pay back ever in monetary terms, only pay back in comfort terms;
- I spent more for renewables NOT because they are ecological (they are pollutant) but as a protection against future disruption I imaging we will suffer, again in economical terms money dumped to the bin;
- I'll spend more in the near future for an BEV because I expect diesel/gasoline supply issues and artificially skyrocketed prices.
The synthesis? Well: those who have done such investments will be far less wealthy then before. Those who have not done that or can't will be far poorer. Those who gain are ONLY those who push such evolution for almost pure financial reasons, not "green" at all in ecological terms, green just in dollar and stereotypical toxic waist terms. Since it's clearly NOT sustainable nor extendable on scale the obvious results will be a very big disaster and another global war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> determined by the most expensive producer That's wrong. The price is determined by demand and supply, which in turn is determined by what prices producers are willing to sell at and consumers are willing to buy at, plus other traders in the market.
The parent is providing valuable and spesific information on how energy market works, you are incorrecting him by reciting a generic market principle that everyone learns at school, without any insight of how it applies to situation at hand.
Saying that price is "determined by the most expensive producer" without further context is still wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just need to wait for Putin to conquer the world and build Putin Pipes.
Did you really think that the actual crisis is due to a single man choice? Try a small game, put PR and the emotion they push aside: who need a war today? If you are honest you have to admit that the most in need of a war are UK first, USA second. UK need a war outside to avoid a civil war inside. Having essentially lost their "empire" status they are simply unable to live anymore. A war would compact people and if w…
Russia may not like a war but Russia needs resources since it wants to be the only store in neighborhood, and unfortunately, Ukraine does have resources. War was not expected outcome of the initial scare tactic but here we are.