Curufinwe_wins

Unless Louis is being extremely unreasonably combative, I doubt very much youtube cares enough to 'cancel him'. Floatplane exists, Nebula exists, etc etc. If anything it just is starting to suck having more and more random flipping places to find crap. Everything becomes cable.

Fundamentally, no. It is incorrect rational thought to have no priors (to be perfectly neutral). Our strength as rationalists is tied to our ability to be more confused by fiction than reality. If you accept all things as neutrally possible, that is indicating a lack of any knowledge. Example, if someone claims to have discovered a way to (truly) violate thermodynamics in any macro sense, one should strongly suggest they are mistaken. The body of evidence is absolutely unfathombly large that such things are as impossible as anything possibly could be. Your prior should be ironclad against acceptance beyond anything you believe to be true in the world. Now, that doesn't inherently mean you won't listen to the evidence. But rationality absolutely does **not** require that neutrality is the default condition. Prior knowledge should be leveraged.

@LAwLz extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The sheer history of non-existence and fraudlent claim rates of HT superconductors definitely should make the prior of any well-attuned baysean rationalist default to 'this is almost certainly not true' and require strong evidence to sway. With that being said, it seems like we are getting close to that. A lot of recent Chinese reports are positive, though even in replication, there is strong incentive to be part of confirming the 'new world order'. Evidence is piling that it is certainly something... and will continue to develop overtime. But I'm not a super conductor expert, so my default should be less confident in right or wrong than someone who is, and I require less evidence to sway my suitably weaker prior.

The really cool part of this discovery is that the manufacturing process laid out is hilariously easy, fast, and straightforward. And the claimed conditions are sooo high that one of the supposed demos is literally a video of a guy pushing a crystal on a magnet. Within the next two weeks, we'll know if this is utter fraud or the start of a new era. --- Yes I know it isn't necessarily immediately viable, but proving existence at all would be instant Nobel and a huge achievement for humanity.

All good

Hi, Vishera, I think you misunderstood or misquoted my comment. I'll go back and edit it. I was additionally pointing out the ridiculous stupidity < removed > I fully agree with you.

Just to be clear. This is stuff that even the most basic research would have told you. First adblocking extention available, Internet Fast Forward was created and administered by a company selling privacy software to other companies to help prevent government spying amongst other things. This is from the one of the founders: https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/08/interview_gene_hoffman/ And for Adblock itself (ADP is the one that is pushing the edge of extortion there): https://www.businessinsider.com/interview-with-the-inventor-of-the-ad-blocker-henrik-aasted-srensen-2015-7 ------ Some other older reputable discussion points (since I have noted that I think the problem is actually less severe today than 10-20 years ago), from cisco itself https://www.pcmag.com/news/online-advertising-more-likely-to-spread-malware-than-porn

I'm sorry, what world do you live on here? <removed> Please pull some random ass throwaway comment from an author of a non-relevant script that does nothing other than add some flipping weird fancy letters up front. Or the completely unsubstantiated unresearched throwaway blog post. You have to be able to find better supporting arguments, right? And god forbid, look at those ad examples shown on the webpages. They are definitely demonstrating 'ads for discovery' alright. I have to ask, were you using the internet pre-adblock (or shit, just using school/work computers where often adblock wasn't installable)? Because let me just say, ads are a lot... less likely to be malware or inappropriate than they were in 2005, let alone 2000. Used to be an extremely common issue that if you click on that addicting games ad on accident, you are spending the next 10 minutes fighting ad popups and autoinstallers, and more than once having to wipe the computer from malware that got installed. UAC didn't come around because Microsoft just wanted to intentionally piss people off. It came around because the internet was a cesspool (and it still is in the deep corners, but the general standard has improved sooo much). I don't think I saw a single content relevant ad on the internet in my entire life prior to 2010, certainly I had never seen on on youtube ffs. For a while there, the *only* ads you saw on websites were for porn or malware. These days most reputable sites are only mildly infuriating, not dangerous. There is no golden age to fall back on. - I do apologize for the ad hominems, but this is just a false reality, with no substantiation, that even if substantiated, wouldn't bypass the arguments noted about impairing basic function of websites or protecting users. And prescribing an absolute like 'always spite first' is just laughable. Honestly.

This is just false. It isn't even remotely worth pretending to be true, and is intellectually dishonest. If you live in the US, it is literally impossible that you have not seen malicious political advertising on youtube. Or a more directly malicious ad in general. Google routinely has malvertising get through its ad systems, so don't give me that BS line; they also have suffered more than a few failures to catch pornographic ads from going through despite that being supposedly against policy. Even more directly than that, more than once in the last decade, youtube suffered a large breach of literal malware ads directly on popular content. See 2014 Sweet Orange malware, which hit almost exclusively US users. Pretending that many reputable sites, whose content is indeed worth existing, function consistently and properly without adblocking is ridiculous. Even BBC, which barely has ads at all breaks more than once a week for me with loading failures or banner ads that prevent accessing the content at all (due to not resizing properly). Or ads which autoplay audio and video content etc etc. There are many extremely valid reasons to use adblock by default and only permit certain sites, notably that the people buying ad slots and pushing for more and more ads content (those same ads that are intrusive and/or even interface breaking being by far the most profitable) don't give a shit about the user experience. Youtube doesn't care either, more engagement is good for buisness, even if it is being pissed off or negative experiences due to shitty ads. And I don't blame them for not caring. They exist to make a profit, and get as much money as possible with as little effort as possible (as does every company, I'm not singling them out), and if their value matrix says they'd rather make a site non-functional or spread harmful content than control their greed, I have absolutely no moral or ethical qualms doing everything in my power to A bypass those constraints and B make the platform actually worth using for me. PS: I pay for premium, and still use adblock. Spite has nothing to do with it.

Biggest reason why Intel's naming hasn't been a huge historic issue is that ARK (well and its current successor) is ludicrously comprehensive and fantastic. My only major complaint is that Intel still allows companies to get away with not telling consumers upfront the specific sku on prebuilts or laptops with the explicit intent to deceive on what the actual product performance is. Ultra is stupid and pointless, but I don't think a 5 digit number matters. AMD however seems to love to obfuscate everything right now, instead of just owning up to their shitty generational naming.

So just so we are clear, my only comment was, is and continues to be that your previous note... that lbs was a unit of force **in the US** is demonstratively false. You can try to conflate me with other commentors if that helps you deflect, you stated untruths and were called out on it. Or rather, you made logical (in the formal sense) claims, which are incorrect. Unless you want to also now argue the 'definition' of 'is'. Unlike the science of metrology as practiced in the US and indeed the many societies whose codified measurements dictate the appropriate terms of discourse (ASME/NIST/etc come to mind here), one may be fortunate to note that arguing about definitions that are not policed by codified bodies (aka the english verb 'to be') is not particularly productive. I did not mince words however. You did. Oh and why should we have the US Customary system? We shouldn't. It is bad. Stupid. Disastrously mistake-prone. But socio-political inertia often disrupts more elegant solutions in science and technology. --- Anyways... Talking in terms of metrology, the difference is between equivalence in base units, and what is called derived units. A lbf is a derived unit, as is the N. The kilogram is considered a base unit. Its standard of reference refers to two other base units (s and m) in applying fundamental constants of the universe (so much as we understand them today), but said constants are only definable with inclusion of its own existence so that standard is by requirement self-referential (it is not possible to define a kilogram without referring back to some unit or constant that references its existence). Amongst the US customary unit system, the pound (which is explicitly mass, as noted previously) is a base unit within that system. It does indeed, standardize its magnitude against the definition of another unit, but only one outside of that standard, and within that system, nothing can describe it without self-reference.

Oh yes. Please tell the US professional engineer how to do dimensional analysis or how units are actually defined or used. Tell me how demarcations of lbf or lbm are used within the profession as well as the courses I have both taken **and taught** to collegiate students. NIST standards define almost everything you interact with, including that '5lbs of flour', expressly in terms of mass. Every piece of food you buy or interact with is sold in units of mass, demarked often in US Customary Units (amongst them pounds). If you would like a history lesson, I can recommend https://www.nist.gov/document/appb-12-hb44-finaldocx The pound, when not stated explicitly in terms of thrust/force, is referring to a unit of mass that has for the last 65ish years been *defined* by way of the standard kilogram. If you want to try to pretend that any of the quasi-recent changes in methodology and efforts to synchronize the standard kilogram/meter etc are fundamentally altering the very aspect of reality they are attempting to measure... we have much bigger gaps in understanding to be discussing.

The hilarious thing is you are wrong. The correct official US customary units standard for unit of force is the lbf (pound-force), the lb is the pound-mass, or more precisely the avoirdupois pound, which is **legally** defined as 0.45359237 kg. https://books.google.com/books?id=4aWN-VRV1AoC&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false <-United States. National Bureau of Standards (1959). Research Highlights of the National Bureau of Standards. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. p. 13. Emphasis mine.

6 channel memory, 16 per channel. Just a natural result of the chip architecture

Those names are already a cluster... super speed represents the 3rd and 4th fastest. Then comes USB 2.0 (Hi-Speed), below that is the 1.x standards including Low Speed and Full Speed. Now add ontop of all the rest the non-manditory bs names/labels. DP alt mode, usb audio, pd (with the 10 different labels) etc etc. It's one of the worst controlled and named interface standards in history. End of story.

USB-IF (amongst others) has been rubberstamping the decay of meaning for the very idea of a standard for ages now. The sad part is, the engineers and others know how bad it is, know how stupid and silly the situation is, but like so many other open-standard orgs... getting 50 (more like 1000s of members now) manufacturers in a room to decide on a system inevitably decays into this. The members of USB-IF are directly the cause of the mess, and the promoters of the mess, so the org can't just get a free pass saying 'oh no, we have a system that makes sense, if manufacturers would just follow it, hur hur hur.' You make the standard, you police the standard, or the standard inevitably means nothing. Not a new problem though.

When did I do this? When I did this. There are ways to statistically show this, quite easily. Since the overriding burden of proof is clearly youtube videos in your mind, here is a pretty straightforward example of how much even the small influence of luck makes getting out of unfavorable start points (or into favorable ones from farther back) almost entirely based on that luck.

For every successful hustler, there are thousands who fail and get no where. Not because of a worse attitude, or even less skill, just because competency is not close to enough. Opportunity is still the single biggest factor, shit, even Ayn Rand couldn't write a book where her idealized meritocracy man didn't rely on many fortunate events beyond his control to allow him to succeed. To give a more personal example, I had an unplanned departure from a graduate program. It took almost a year and literally 10s of thousands of applications to find work, and every time I tried part-time/entry-level apps, I was turned down. I have done that work before. They could see I had done it before, I was not prideful or arrogant about needing work to pay the bills and food. If not for a support group of family that allowed my failure to not be catestrophic... I literally don't know what would have happened. It was beyond all imagining. I would not have been able to keep applying, keep pushing certainly. I wouldn't have had basic needs being able to be met. I had worked 3 jobs non-stop the 4 years before that and I couldn't even qualify for unemployment or basic welfare, because there was/is an exception in the state for university workers, even if I was already being paid fractions of what the work would have cost outside of the gradstudent system. And the job I did get eventually get, I crushed, generating literally >50m in revenue in less than a year. The company was scummy AF, and it took another year to get out of that role into what I actually liked to do, applying to anything and everything, and today I lead critical technology development for a 200+ member team at one of the oldest/largest firms in my industry worldwide. My competency never changed. My interviewing skills didn't magically get dramatically better... It took an opportunity that I lucked into where the company was as desperate as I was for them to take the chance on me and see how well it worked out. It isn't an "impossible barrier" absolutely. But hard work is not remotely close to sufficient, and it is only with the most brazen interpretation of ones own past that they fail to recognize the sheer luck that plays overriding factors into our own developments.

This guy advocated for literal tax fraud just a little bit earlier, and clearly just doesn't get how the world works in terms of opportunity, which most just never get. The trail of any 'successful' person's past history and how many times things beyond their control could have gone just slightly differently and they'd have ended up penniless and destitute despite their supposed aptitude is huge. (I know you know this, just more suggesting let the troll troll).

I'm a bit of two minds about the house videos. On the one hand, I seriously feel like all of this has been milked to high heaven and the choices are insanely superfluous. At the exact same time, these videos are the only ones often on the very real issues and problem solving that has to happen when you take products outside of a highly controlled space and into the real world, and the dives into shitbox experiences with home automation for example have been honestly quite helpful in dissuading me from investing at that level or recommending others do. Intel xtreme tech upgrade is also sortof in that vein, the openness of the format means that it ends up being so much more than just another pc, and that has showed off a lot more varied content and real world priorities as a result. Plus, it genuinely feels wholesome getting to know some of these people, even if that isn't really our right. If anything, SC bothers me more than the rest of the content these days because sometimes it's useful and other times its just not worth the time. And there feels such a range of quality that I genuinely have to ask myself if I want to watch Alex review another laptop in an assbackwards way that often gets basic things wrong.... (I'm sorry if that is harsh, but seriously do better.) I'm genuinely annoyed that we didn't get Linus's quick impressions on the bendy oled video given we **just** had one with him comparing two other extreme options, even if I know yes, the reviewer is as up to snuff as he likely is. They also talked about two monitors... HAD two monitors... and didn't bother to demonstrate if the idea made any sense. Just why? --- Anyways, it's one of the channels on the list. TBH, there is a lot of saturation of tech youtubers these days and it feels like relatively few add much value, so the videos sit and if I'm super curious, cool. if not, also cool. I definitely don't mind them trying to keep pushing. Hell, we have techjesus if we need the insane detail at least.

Safety regulations update quite regularly, and the extreme majority of them have updated absent major incidents. It is disingenous to suggest otherwise, and furthermore, TMI has nothing, literally nothing to do with what happened at the Daiichi plant. There is no overlap in actions, no overlap in causality, no overlap in any sort of safety ignorance etc. TMI was operator error, compounded by operator error, compounded by sensor failures. And the end result was lost money and nothing else. The closest thing to human error in the Daiichi event was that emergency response lines (in a situation where the entire country was out of power and even telecoms weren't consistently functional no less) was less organized than it could have been. Which is has since been rectified and made dramatically more explicit, all throughout the world. You mention that until the 90s no one cared about the environment, and yet all of these safety programs that were decades ahead of any other industry (PRA started in nuclear) meant that reactors built in the 60s and 70s (**thats** the newest reactor to fail in any sort of significant event) still manage to give a shit about the environment, still managed to be safer than literally everything else that has ever been built. No reactor built since 1980, not a single one, has suffered any event of deemed an accident (INES 4 or above). Not once. There has only been a single level 4+ event period in the last 35 years and once again... it took *the third most energetic earthquake in recorded human history* at exactly the right location (any closer or farther from the shore would have permitted the breaks to function) to occur. Hydropower doesn't have close to that safety record (a quarter of a million people died from a dam failure 2 years before TMI was built). Wind power doesn't even have that safety record (most fatalities are during maintenance admittedly). Best cancel bicycles, cars, planes, buses, trains and walking because they don't come close either. China is building primarily US designed reactors at the moment, and even their CAP1400 is a copied WEC design. New CANDUs, and VVERs are also under construction, in smaller numbers, and China's engagement with the IAEA has been robust and thorough. Seriously, I get that its hard to trust a thing that comes out of any given country (US/China/Russia etc); heck I don't recommend you trust any of us individually. The thing about nuclear accidents is... no single government can cover them up. It literally isn't possible. We (as in Western Governments) knew when and where Chernobyl had occurred. We knew when the windscale fire occurred, when the Kyshtym explosion occured. We can tell you within fractions of a percent the yield of the latest North Korean nuclear test, we can tell you what its detonation efficiency was, what fuel it used. The sensors used to detect radiation, the infrastructure around that throughout the world is unfathomably powerful and exact (the best chemical sensors might be able to tell you parts per billion 1:1e9, the trivial measurement of 390k Bq/L in seawater represents detection of 1 part per 10^20, and we can do a lot better than that). Now, is it possible for a sufficiently large group of countries to band together to hide the truth from others? Absolutely (and it did happen in the 50s btw). But that is true for literally everything, and it is still harder for nuclear than for anything else. Especially now that the technology for radiation detection has been so democratized and broadly distributed even amongst non-nuclear countries. ---- I promise you, I am exceedingly well versed in the situation ongoing at the Chernobyl exclusion zone, and of the (quite incorrect claims) revolving around the Zaporizhzhya NPP as well. There are hundreds of superfund sites around the world that will be forever tainted, and thanks to generations of using leaded gasoline, there isn't an urban area in the world, and literally never will be, where it is safe to raise livestock using native topsoil. Radiation lasts a long time. Heavy metal poisoning from cadmium etc is literally forever. Many superfund sites are quite seriously never going to be human safe, and electronics waste is rapidly becoming one of those indefinite problems. Nothing is perfectly safe, nothing ever can or will be. Nuclear **is** already safer than everything else that has been built, and modern nuclear is honestly safer than anything else that will ever be built, such is the (mostly reasonable) demands placed upon it. We can argue the fear and perception all day long, the statistics, the real human impact is what I care about, and it is undeniable.

It is incorrect to suggest that the Soviet designs were cheaper (in the sense of materials or construction costs adjusting for labor). Purified graphite is **much** more expensive than water per unit volume/mass. It required less novel upfront investment in manufacturing capabilities (particularly in large welding and forging processing), but even then, the west couldn't have built an RBMK for cheaper than a LWR or CANDU reactor of the same era. Likewise, CANDU and many fast/breeder reactors could use natural uranium, so the argument that 2% as opposed to the standard 4% in LWRs isn't definitive either. It certainly was faster to build, since the parts were more modular and relatively easy to put together, but even by the time of the 70s, many soviet groups considered it to be a dead-end reactor design. It is one of the bigger hackjobs the reputational damage that has been done to the RBMKs overall, even if it isn't a design I'd personally recommend anymore. The only aspect that was truly "cheap" about them was that instead of being a clean sheet design, they were variants of reactors extremely well designed and optimized for the production of weapon's grade plutonium. Dual purpose in a way that no other country tried to do. It is absolutely true that even with TMI the safety record of US reactors is beyond repute (again by the standards of any other industry in the world), and it is absolutely true that a large positive void feedback coefficient, inherent in RBMKs, was patently unacceptable to most other country regulators. It was a mistake by Soviet (and most countries at the time) regulators to assume the 'book' would be followed by plant operators. That is to say that in that era, intentional human error was not considered in safety analysis. It is today, and has now been standard assumptions for decades in fact. Nuclear plants are designed against the type of operation that is basically "assume your pilot intentionally tries to fly into a mountain and the aircraft must be capable of preventing itself from crashing". No other industry comes close.

The point being that we know how to make them safe. Trivially so. Tritium is used **all over the world** for exactly safety critical things already. It is not exactly challenging to design against forms of carbon that wouldn't be bioaccumulated even at intentional ingestion levels. Compared to the chemical dangers all around us already, compared to the chemical hazards of the very same devices you seem to have concerns with tampering with, this is a complete non-issue. In fact, putting layers that also happen to function as containment is critical to the 'efficient' (still incredibly inefficient) operation of the design. Using the technology is pretty silly and extremely cost-prohibitive, but safety is not a hard thing to design against here. This just isn't true. In nuclear terms, this material is somewhat abundant, but yield is on order 30-100 Ci/GWe-yr depending on reactor and particularly fuel type (nitrogen being primary precursor). 1 Ci of pure C-14 is only 0.2g. Last year, nuclear power generated 2700 TWh of ele, roughly speaking. That is ~300 GWe-yrs. So yield worldwide per year, if literally 100% of the material was stripped from all activated components everywhere in the world non-stop and all could be sequestered from atmospheric release, is 6kg of C-14. Now for true scale, 27000 Ci of C-14 is produced each year via cosmic rays hitting nitrogen (about that same 5-6Kg), but the global inventory of the material in the oceans/air/dirt/organic issues, is ~75 tonnes. If they need 20g of material to make a AA battery equivalent, long term only 300 new batteries could be produced each year (a bit more upfront due to the stockpile of material I suppose)... this is completely irrelevant compared to the scale of human activity. So irrelevant infact, that even if the health hazards were 1 fatality per battery (which it never could be), it still would be a rounding error in the global health hazards and total societal costs related to chemical battery abuse/misuse/accidents. I am not going to sit here and pretend to you that we can't do better. But the honest and irrevocable truth is that there is no industry on earth that is run safer or more responsibly than nuclear power. There is no industry on earth, other than nuclear power, that is responsible for 100% of its lifetime and indeed perpetual health and material impacts from cradle to grave. There is no energy source on earth, despite decades old designs and 3 famous incidents, that is anywhere close to as safe in per energy produced. The "boogeyman" still exists because people falsely imply and believe that any of those above things are false. That there is anything anywhere in the world done better, cleaner, safer. And yet, despite all of this, new reactors being built all over the world are designed to safety levels 100s of times better than what was built before. And unlike every single other industry in the world, the design, operation, maintenance of reactors is so internationally interconnected that every single country and company has a vested interest in holding each other to higher standards, because when the third most energetic earthquake known to human kind hits at exactly the right place, the story isn't the 16000 deaths in country with the most stringent building/safety codes in the world, the story isn't the oil refineries outside of Tokyo bay that literally exploded. It isn't the 3,324 hazardous material facilities critically damaged across the country. It is that of a near end of life nuclear plant, built to withstand just a bit too short of an tsunami, a nuclear plant that only failed because the design put fossil fuel generators below ground to keep them safe from earthquakes. That story causes Germany to kill 1000s of people (per year) via increased pollution by encouraging the early shutdown of its reactor fleet. That story causes massive changes/improvements in every regulatory body on earth, for new and existing plants. Causes the cancellation of hundreds of reactor orders for literally trillions of dollars lost revenue. ---- I can tolerate quite a few things in the criticism of nuclear power. But the claim that any country, even flipping Russia (by its own standards in any other field) prioritizes cost over safety is a serious miscarriage of justice, so long as even a single other industry, anywhere in the world, does things in an acceptable fashion to you, because no one else even gets close. ---- BTW, C-14 doesn't have a useful power density for getting out of the earth's gravity well (literally cannot generate enough power no matter the mass), so at best you are comparing against other RTG isotopes, and Pu-238 has much lower shielding requirements than C-14 as an alpha emitter, though the chemical hazard of heavy metal poisoning has to be weighed against the bioaccumulation. I would worry a lot more about the heavy metal poisoning than the rad fall out from Pu or U purified materials, given the statistics we have now on toxicity (and the ridiculousness of LNT). Po-210 would be probably the only RTG material I'd really worry about, but only via ingestion, and well... its half-life is too short for most space applications.

We actually use radiocarbon tracing on purpose. It is one od the most used radioisotopes for medical purposes. The safety limits and biostorage/accumulation pathways are extremely well known. But the power density is pretty damn low so I'm rather skeptical that the effort will be worth the reward. People have been talking about this proposal for ages, and it hasn't made sense yet. Space reactors use radioisotopes of much much higher power density for self-evident reasons. This is not a new idea. I've been seeing this proposed on and off for at least 20 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_battery#:~:text=From their FAQ%2C the estimated,%2C and providing 700J%2Fg. ---I **am** a nuclear engineer, that is the material lead for a large advanced reactor program.

I have a zfold3. This is a fine albeit marginal iteration on it. The main drawback with the design is the openness of the hinge, but that's just because Samsung is being more conservative on the screen curvature. Also case support is abysmal, to the point of being non-recommendable if you risk dropping your phone, but tbf, it's a big boy regardless.