Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

German digital signage ban prompts confusion

avinteractive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 457 posts

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#431

Post by staircasethrow »

paganel wrote: post #391
staircasethrow wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of an odd question, but out of curiosity, did the first set of stairs, the one on the ground floor going up, have an "even" or "odd" number of steps? Did the following sets of stairs on higher levels have the same number as the ground floor set or a different amount? Assume "odd" means that when starting on the ground floor, if you were to go up two stairs at a time, you would have to akwardly go up one stair on…

That’s a good question, because now that you asked it I remembered that there were some buildings that did indeed have that odd number of steps you mention, on the ground floor going up to the first floor, that is. I remember that I was finding that strange. Each block of apartments had 16 steps between two floors. The building we were living in had those 16 steps “split” in two, that is you were climbing 8 steps fro…

I know exactly what you mean by 16 steps split in 8 going two different directions, with the window platform between them. The current block I am living in has this setup in Sofia. Built in the 60s with the first steps on the ground floor being 7 instead of 8.

How old are you if I may ask? I am fairly young and have no memory of when anything was built. But I often walk around and try to think of what they were going for and the purpose behind many things. There seems to have been a lot of logic to simple things, like you mentioned with light and ergonomy, it gives a sense of careful design and forethought.

Also I will add, the block started with 3 floors, and then a fourth was added on top of it afterwards, not sure if that was an anomaly or the norm.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#432

Post by immibis »

dontlaugh wrote: post #360
immibis wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... you believe it is the west's fault that Putin felt like genociding a bunch of people?

It is definitely the West's fault for engineering the 2014 Euromaidan coup, which began a campaign of terror and death against trade unionists and the people of the Donbas region, which continues to this day. It is also Putin's fault for invading further, instead of merely protecting the Donbas republics as they asked.

It's the West's fault that the population of Ukraine wouldn't let a Russian puppet dictator of Ukraine ignore the wishes of the population of Ukraine?

I wonder how you feel about Russia engineering the 8-year-old LPR/DPR "conflict".

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#433

Post by immibis »

HKH2 wrote: post #430
dontlaugh wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely the West's fault for engineering the 2014 Euromaidan coup, which began a campaign of terror and death against trade unionists and the people of the Donbas region, which continues to this day. It is also Putin's fault for invading further, instead of merely protecting the Donbas republics as they asked.

Can Russia protect the Donbas from being shelled if they don't invade further?

Russia is the reason Donbas is being shelled.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#434

Post by someguydave »

DocTomoe wrote: post #423
someguydave wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Cold war never involved a large scale Russian invasion. Do you really think Russia will stop at the Polish border if they make it that far?

I think you may forget about Afghanistan, 1979. And yes, I really think that. I do not think many sensible people believe in a looming Russian invasion of Germany.

Ok but what about Poland? Germany is obligated to defend Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, etc. You honestly think Russia will not invade them? Or that Germany will not be obligated to spill blood in their defense?

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#435

Post by someguydave »

foepys wrote: post #363
someguydave wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russian propagandists would accuse Russia of secret interference in European politics? Of course evidence on these matters is going to be hard to find. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-s...

Your "proof" is not supporting anything. Environmentalists can be anybody. Russia didn't want Germany to utilize fracking gas because this would mean that Germany doesn't need Russia anymore. The Green party opposes any gas where possible. Just because Russia financed a few fringe groups doesn't mean that the Green party is in bed with Russia. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nord-stream-2-die... This clear…

My thread was about anti-nuclear propaganda, not anti-gas.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#436

Post by someguydave »

adrianN wrote: post #296
someguydave wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Building enough nuclear power plants to power a country also takes decades People in Germany said these things 10 years ago too. If Germany had started building nuclear in quantity 10 years ago then they would be coming online now and would get cheaper with each new plant. Instead you will have crippling and deindustrializing power prices for years to come.

If we had continued building renewables in quantity ten years ago we would be in much better shape now too. Unfortunately we did neither.

I don’t believe it is possible to run Germany on only renewables

1) without massive subsidies

2) without huge investments in storage tech (research and production)

3) without building solar/wind in outside places like North Africa

Nuclear fission solves all of those problems and is a known ( and safe) technology.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#437

Post by shukantpal »

moffkalast wrote: post #383
shukantpal wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Efficient” is a relative comparison. Any absolute threshold would be arbitrary anyway

Not really. Converting all the energy to work would be 100% efficiency, converting none of it would be 0%. It's an absolute measure. Now sure there are subcategories where 100% efficiency is the maximum theoretical efficiency (like the carnot cycle limit of 37% for heat engines), but that's already misleading info if not specified.

You provide no points to refute my statement. Being bounded between 0% and 100% is irrelevant, unless you think only 100% efficient is not inefficient - which would be absurd due to the impossibility of obtaining an “efficient” label.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#438

Post by hnbad »

BurningPenguin wrote: post #139
hnbad wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the problem with nuclear power in Germany is bigger than that the existing nuclear plants are being shut down. It's actually a good idea to shut them down eventually as they're old and inefficient. Calling them "fully functioning" is a bit of a rose tinted glasses type of situation. The bigger problem is that Germany doesn't have any more recent nuclear power plants due to public pressure and instead just…

> there is an almost patriotic attitude towards coal plants As a German, i'm wondering where you got that idea from... Because pretty much every poll i know of, is in support of turning off coal plants.

That's not a contradiction though. Yes, there is broad popular support for renewables and until earlier this year gas probably also had a better reputation than it deserved, compared to coal.

But culturally, especially in the Ruhr region, coal has the benefit of nostalgia whereas nuclear has always been scary. Of course nowadays most "coal" is actually lignite and there is some resistance against lignite mining destroying large swathes of the landscape whereas the industrial architecture of "black coal" mining has become a national heritage. But lignite is still benefitting from some of that "black coal" nostalgia.

It's probably worth adding that these perceptions not only vary by region but also by socioeconomics and politics.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#439

Post by GekkePrutser »

vasco wrote: post #365
GekkePrutser wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, emitting light through a thick diffuser and a poster is not as efficient as just putting up a light.

If you put a poster in front, the poster pays for the light.

Yeah I was purely viewing this from an environmental perspective, not an economical one. But you're right. This is of course the reason it's done that way.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#440

Post by paganel »

staircasethrow wrote: post #431
paganel wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a good question, because now that you asked it I remembered that there were some buildings that did indeed have that odd number of steps you mention, on the ground floor going up to the first floor, that is. I remember that I was finding that strange. Each block of apartments had 16 steps between two floors. The building we were living in had those 16 steps “split” in two, that is you were climbing 8 steps fro…

I know exactly what you mean by 16 steps split in 8 going two different directions, with the window platform between them. The current block I am living in has this setup in Sofia. Built in the 60s with the first steps on the ground floor being 7 instead of 8. How old are you if I may ask? I am fairly young and have no memory of when anything was built. But I often walk around and try to think of what they were going…

> How old are you if I may ask

Early 40s, I now live in Bucharest but I grew up in a town besides the Danube, Bulgaria was on the other side.

> But I often walk around and try to think of what they were going for and the purpose behind many things

There was definitely a "purpose" behind most of the stuff they built back then, especially in the '60s and the '70s (in the '80s things were already getting tougher from an economic pov, so at some point they started cramming apartments building close to apartments building in the name of better use of the land, or something like that).

> Also I will add, the block started with 3 floors, and then a fourth was added on top of it afterwards

The norm here was ground floor + 4 floors in the small and medium towns, plus in some neighbourhoods of the big cities, including Bucharest, or ground floor + 10 floors in the bigger cities and in Bucharest. There are also buildings with ground floor + 8 floors (I now live in one, on the 8th floor), but they were not the norm.

Post reply on HN