partial_accumen

at lan parties using 10base2 networks and

"Anyone have another BNC terminator? Oh, also the IPX network number we're using is 11111111."

Rendition Verite video cards

Nobody could afford the Canopus, it was a room full of Sierra Screamin' 3D cards at best

with a side of 3dfx.

A dedicated 3D card in addition to a good 2D card?! We'd dream, but didn't have that kind of cash.

There only appears to be two realistic choices, and I've enumerated them both. Feel free to clarify your position then.

This always felt like banker advice to me. That’s an insane percentage of cash to have sitting in an account that’s earning less interest than the rate of inflation.

First, if you're getting less than 3% on your savings account rate, find a better bank (or even better a credit union).

Second, you will find that there are times in life when having cash you can lay your hands on immediate solves problems that nothing else can. An extreme example: if you need to get bailed out of jail or retain a lawyer right now, the stock you have in your portfolio is going to take more than 24 hours to liquidate and get transferred into your checking account you can pay the court or a bondsman. More than likely its closer to 48 for the market to open to close your position and perform a wire transfer to get the cash in your hands. A less extreme situation may be a desperate car repair or a dental root canal.

Lastly, you really don't want your emergency money in volatile stocks. Even an boring S&P500 index fund is a bad choice, why? Because there are times of financial crisis that can drive down the value of your stocks or mutual funds. Its entirely possible that is the time when you're going to need cash to float on. Selling at the bottom of the market in a crisis is a bad place to be. This was many people's situation in 2007/2008 during the financial crisis where the market tanked the second worst in US history, and people were losing their jobs left and right.

S&P500 returns over the last 100 years:

source

All those red years would mean your desperately needed emergency fund is worth a fraction of what you put into it.

A better use of this Hydrogen would be to burn it on-site in ICE generators or in fuel cells during time of high electricity costs as a method of arbitrage. As in: Extra electricity from solar and/or wind at the moment? Make clean hydrogen. Low supply of electricity from solar and/or wind at the moment, turn that clean hydrogen back into electricity.

Storing and transporting Hydrogen would lead to lots of unnecessary losses.

I know a bit of python and ruby, but doing something similar except I'm writing it in BASIC on a Commodore 64 and am going to attempt to refactor it assembly. I have most of the BASIC version working now.

The git commit comment when pushing to prod is just: WCGW?

... alternate ending: YOLO!

…wouldn’t it be funnier if he did start explaining

Funnier yet would be if logarithmic curve right before the intersection of the linear curve was a projection. Then the following dialog in the frames following:

Researcher on the left: "Sure! See we're dealing with multiple forces and...."

awkward pause (frame with no dialog)

Interested person on the right: "Then what? Why did you stop explaining?"

Researcher on the left: "I just realized we just now hit the intersection of the curves."

Everyone's a critic, right?

Are you saying you would prefer they sell tons oil and gas (carbon emissions), as well as have their nation producing even more carbon emissions from ICE vehicle tailpipes? That seems to contradict your desire to have fewer carbon emissions.

I've read through your all of your arguments on this thread and it looks like you're reading lots of papers, looking at a particular finding under specific circumstances, then using that as a blanket answer as to why EVs aren't viable. The problem is that these are mostly devoid of real world usage of EVs where viability is ultimately determined. Here's one example:

Also it’s not a 20% loss at 0°C. It’s closer to 50%. Which would be most accurately described as a “significant” loss of efficiency.

If an EV driver is only using a fraction of their range to accomplish 100% of their driving needs, then the temporary reduction in battery capacity is completely irrelevant. I can't say I know any EV drivers that have a 80 mile commute and only buy an EV capable of driving 80 miles under perfect conditions. Would that person exist, you'd have a valid point, but I would guess that person would be a statistical anomaly and shouldn't be used to derive policy or guidance for the majority of people. Most EV drivers are driving EVs with 200+ mile range and only using a small fraction of that for daily usage, so even with the most extreme temporary reductions its little to no impact on their driving ability.

In another post you called out that EV batteries use Cobalt which is typically derived from questionable human rights locations. Again, true on paper, but not all EVs use NMC or NCA chemistries which use Cobalt. Many EVs today use LFP and many in the years ahead will be Sodium based, neither of which use Cobalt at all in the batteries. So again, you found one particular finding and applied it to all EVs.

Any arguments you have about how dirty the extraction and transport methods used for EV materials fall apart immediately when the alternative is petroleum exploration, extraction, refinement, and distribution which need to occurr on an ongoing basis to keep fueling ICE vehicles.

I don't think anyone is claiming EVs are completely perfect from a user experience or environmental impact, however, compared to the alternative of ICE vehicles and the ongoing environmental and geopolitical impacts of the needed petroleum extraction needed to continue their use, EVs are a dream come true.

Yepp, it’s odd to celebrate the milestone to emobility if one knows it’s paid all by carving carbon out of the earth.

A nation converting nearly 100% to EV means less carbon needing to be carved out of the Earth going forward. How is that not something to celebrate for those that like less carbon being carved out of the Earth?

What you're detailing here is the definition of "cap and trade". Its a good approach to affect change, I just don't like the money earned is going to someone like Musk.

I don't see this getting better either. The EV subsidy is disappearing in multiple places, and Tesla is increasing the price by about $7k on its most popular model (the Model Y) with its refresh coming out.