justJanne

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago (3 children)

With that, the Germans will have finally won /s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

The 5th booster brought my sense of smell back for a month, but it quickly disappeared again :/

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Just go ahead with the tutorial. Kotlin is basically identical to Java with only tiny changes, and you can just look those up whenever you see something new.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

If parcel A has a property value of X

And parcel B has a property value of 2X

Then you can have the same rent on both of them if building B is twice as tall as building A.

The whole "single family residential only" zoning in the US is the issue.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're conflating two different things. Law is political, and that's fine. Court rulings are not supposed to be political, though, they're supposed to be based solely on the rule of law. That's the only way to ensure the law applies equally to everyone, rich or poor alike.

I agree that voting/non-voting shares are bullshit, but so are shares held by anyone but the workers themselves (which would be a co-op).

[–] [email protected] 34 points 10 months ago

The UK spent decades convincing everyone that all bad decisions are made by the EU and all good decisions are made by Westminster. That's the first mistake.

If the UK had properly educated its citizens about what the EU actually was and did, no remain campaign would've been necessary whatsoever. But it was politically convenient to have a scapegoat.

And let's be honest, remain aka "remoaners" had a ton of arguments all the time. But brexiteers just wanted to enter the magical land where the UK still mattered and they'd eat their cake and have it still.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Having a voting and a non-voting class of shares is relatively common around the world, tbh. Jack Ma held 53% of voting shares, so he should've theoretically kept control.

This doesn't really sound like a decision based on the rule of law, but more like a political one designed to specifically hurt Jack Ma's power, especially considering his "absence" a few years ago.

This ruling isn't turning the company into a co-op. All it did is shift power from one group of rich chinese people to another. It's not really anything to celebrate.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

NIF can't really ever reach Q>1. All the statements of having reached that only include the energy that reaches the capsule. The energy the lasers actually use is orders of magnitude larger.

This theoretical Q>1, where the plasma emits more radiation than it receives, have been reached by other reactors before.

But while tokamak or stellerator designs need a 2-3× improvement to produce more energy than the entire system needs, the NIF would need a 100-1000× improvement to reach that point, which is wholly unrealistic with our current understanding of physics.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Most fusion attempts try to keep a continuous reaction ongoing.

Tokamak reactors, like JET or ITER do this through a changing magnetic field, which would allow a reaction to keep going for minutes, the goal is somewhere around 10-30min.

Stellerator reactors try to do the same through a closed loop, basically a Möbius band of plasma encircled by magnets. The stellerator topology of Wendelstein 7-X was used as VFX for the closed time loop in Endgame. This complex topology allows the reaction to continue forever. Wendelstein 7-X has managed to keep its reaction for half an hour already.

The NIF is different. It doesn't try to create a long, ongoing, controlled reaction. It tries to create a nuclear chain reaction for a tiny fraction of a millisecond. Basically a fusion bomb the size of a grain of rice.

The "promise" is that if one were to just repeat this explosion again and again and again, you'd also have something that would almost continually produce energy.

But so far, the NIF has primarily focused on getting as much data as possible about how the first millisecond of a fusion reaction proceeds. The different ways to trigger it, and how it affects the reaction.

The US hasn't done large scale nuclear testing in decades. Almost everything is now happening in simulations. But the first few milliseconds of the ignition are still impossible to accurately model in a computer. To build a more reliable and stronger bomb, one would need to test the initial part of a fusion reaction in the real world repeatedly.

And that's where the NIF comes in.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Haben wir bereits gesehen wie das aussieht, das OVH Feuer war genau ein "was passiert, wenn die billigsten und schlechtesten Akkus die wir kaufen können im billigsten Rechenzentrum ever Feuer fangen".

Viel Rauch, viel Feuer, aber die Umwelt überlebt's und es gibt keinen langfristigen Schaden.

Und wenn man die Zellen halbwegs sinnvoll trennt und halbwegs sinnvolle Brandschutzschotten hat, passiert gar nix. Selbst das Samsung Galaxy Note 7 kriegt man mit einer Alutüte gebändigt.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

If you actually calculate the maximum speed at which information can travel before causing paradoxes, in some situations it could safely exceed c.

For two observers who are not in motion relative to each other, information could be transmitted instantly, regardless of the distance, without causing a paradox.

The faster the observers are traveling relatively to each other, the slower information would have to travel to avoid causing paradoxes.

More interestingly, this maximum paradox-free speed correlates with the time and space dilation caused by the observers' motion.

From your own reference frame, another person is moving at a speed of v*c. The maximum speed at which you could send a message to that observer, without causing a paradox, looks something like c/sqrt(v) (very simplified).

view more: ‹ prev next ›