After reading the first sentence, I cannot stop imagining some Rust people cannot stop salivating at the prospect to a version saying, "written in Rust", "safe", etc. ~
Not really. One example image has Capella, Rigel, and Sirius clearly marked. But even with that, I can not make out Orion, probably the most recognizable constellation behind the big dipper.
I would absolutely love a terminal Stellarium alternative, but this isn't it.
Well, no. This one is one thousands of studies on it. And they narrowed things down (e.g. only looking at Denmark) and setting their projected numbers exactly so that the desired outcome arrived.
And usually (I did not read into detail here) the total cost of energy is never calculated.
In Europe, nuclear power plants usually don't have an insurance. It's the state that pays of the cleanup after an aftermath. So total cost is socialized.
Few countries have final deposits. With current technology, you need to operate them for thousands of years (e.g. guard them, so that no terrorists can get the material for "dirty bombs"). None of these total-cost studies calculates this in.
Many countries don't have their own source of uranium or the fabs to bring it up for usage in power plants. So it happens that by betting on solar, you bet on the goodwill of some external country. Did you know that most nuclear related companies worldwide used to be owned by the russian RosAtom? I have no idea if that is still true now after 5 years of war against Ukraine, so maybe the odd country seized mines or enrichment plants. But RosAtom owned stuff abroad, like Canada or Australia. Finding new ways if some terrorist country like russia suddenly ceases to supply you (like they did with gas) has a very high oppertunity cost. These studies usually don't plan in "second source" economic calculations.
In Germany, the four big electric power companies (e.g. Vattenfall, EON etc) say since decades that they don't want to open new nuclear power plants. Since it is not economically feasible. If the TCO would really be spectacular, then they would say differently. In those places, where they still open nuclear plants, like France, even a single block costs billions. I mean, one block estimated to cost 3 billion euro was costing 27 billion. Do these fabricated studies calculate in this grave error of factor 12? In France, EDF only works because it is state backed. If the TCO would be any good, they would swim in money like the senior Uncle Duck.
GR resulted in Proposal E, Choice 5: Responsible Use of Generative AI. Clearly stating: "Any such automated process should be overseen by a human who remains accountable for its behavior and output."
This is very interesting from pairwise comparison perspective. Infact, humans are better at pairwise preference scoring rather than estimating a score from single input [1]. In regular dating apps, the profiles are presented one by one which makes it more recurrent comparison based on the experience rather than in pairs.
In the news, it is not detailed but what would be interesting is to profiling automatically, given a somewhat larger pool of participants. Where certain number of pairs during the setup is presented to the new user and asked to make pairwise choices to build the preference profile over.
> Every possible product name is carefully checked to avoid undesirable meanings in other languages, political or religious affiliations and fit into our global profile
If I remember correctly, they had a desk named "JERKER" in early 2000s.
I worked with a guy called Jerker at IBM in Greenock, who soon learned to give back as good as he got. Swedish people can be pretty sarcastic, so he was what you'd call a "good cultural fit".
After reading the first sentence, I cannot stop imagining some Rust people cannot stop salivating at the prospect to a version saying, "written in Rust", "safe", etc. ~
reply