> we all have the freedom to not do something.
Then I have the freedom to not pay for your software/music/films/etc. right?
3170 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Jan 2010
If they didn't own GitHub then GitHub could have blocked their scraper bots. Just as they have indeed done to Google. GitHub Wikis are not indexed by Google anymore, and it appears that even issues and PRs are becoming hard to find without using GitHub's built-in search.
Also, owning GitHub allows them to data-mine private repos to a certain extent. Even if they don't directly ingest the code, they can data-mine the user behaviour, comments, perhaps even commits
Buying github didn't give them access to the source code
Of course not, but it bought them access to how that code is made. The minutiae of every dev action, every dev/dev interaction and every dev/user interaction. How do you make a machine that calculates the probability whether any given diff will be accepted into a repo? It's easy if you own GitHub.
But it also gives them a sinister level of control over GitHub users (i.e. open source devs) themselves. Frankly IMO Microsoft's only viable competitor is the diaspora of people who use GitHub, but now each one can be fired just as easily as a Microsoft employee.
I have one small contribution to an open source project, and because of that, microsoft are demanding that I enable 2FA or be locked out of my GitHub account on 24 January. They do not accept hardware tokens such as YubiKey unless you have already set up a phone app.
Nice account you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it.
If they wanted to, they could 'sack' anyone they like, just by running an AI over their entire contribution history to find the historic code comment or PR discussion that is most likely to get them 'cancelled' today, and then block their account for a ToS violation.
It is hard to do this when anything that any open source dev does is immediately slurped up and turned into AI by the megacorps.
Microsoft should NEVER have been allowed to buy GitHub. They are behaving as if they have just "bought" all the world's open-source code and all the world's open-source developers.
No, the trouble with a series circuit is that each element always takes the same current. That's Kirchoff's Current Law.
If one of your CPU cores wired up in series wanted LESS current than the others, then it would suddenly see a higher voltage than it wanted and get fried.
There's also a problem of not having a common ground voltage between CPU cores. How do they communicate when core 1 is at 1.2V and core 10 is at 12V?
> 1.0 kA DC is insane - I vaguely recall that most of the current is adjacent (under) the conductor's surface so what must the current densities (V/m2) be?
We used to worry about Electromigration. (High current density over time damaging the atomic structure of the conductor and increasing resistance). Is that not a problem with today's chips?
Err, except that linear regulators and LDOs do not "convert voltage to current" like a switching regulator can.
If an LDO wants to convert 1.8V to 1.5V, it draws the same current at 1.8V as it supplies at 1.5V, and it throws the excess energy away as heat.
These devices are used for smoothing (so that the resistance of the bondwires does not cause voltage ripple), not for power supply efficiency.
> thinking up imaginative tasks to fill in the timesheet
This. I'd love an AI to do just that
Not sure about getting it to talk to the boss though, unless I can be sure it won't agree to anything stupid.
But all jokes aside, i'm not touching AI until I can put it in a box with well defined input and output ports and no Net access, i.e. no sending my data to microsoft, google or other random internet servers
It depends what we want.
To produce a high-performance EV and drive like a total dickhead, you need Neodymium permanent magnets.
To produce a more moderate EV which drives like an old volvo, an iron-cored reluctance motor is enough. But it is slightly less efficient, and an obsession with efficiency like the one we see in so-called white goods can also drive up the use of rare earth magnets.
It's actually the Chinese export ban on Graphite that worries me more
I'm not sure what you're insinuating there. If you're suggesting that I or anyone else in my team treat people less than respectfully, then you are dead wrong.
The only case like that which I remember from my past workplaces, was a manager who was overly touchy-feely with people. But he was a COO, not engineering or IT, and he was just as bad with the men as he was with the women. He was eventually fired, for his lack of competence as much as his behaviour.
Part of the problem is that there are some people who see a problem when it isn't there, but then get very angry and insulted (thus creating a problem) if they are told that the problem isn't there. How do you win against that?
I've not really seen that in the companies i've worked for. Admittedly I've only worked in engineering fields such as electronics, robotics, firmware, batteries, web dev, and nuclear fusion. Never "IT" per se.
Women I have worked with have always been treated very inclusively. But as I say, despite that it is hard to get to parity because women who enjoy working with machines are pretty rare. Perhaps because machines are emotionless (for now.. :|), and so anyone, male or female, with a lot of emotional intelligence may find them boring. This theory would also explain why more autistic people end up in engineering/IT than other professions, because we prefer working with an unfeeling machine that simply does what we say without judgement :P
IT does have a particular tree-housey effect though (see BOFH) of little dictators enjoying the power they have over others, and I can see how that could be polluted by testosterone. So you may well be right about IT departments. But engineering as a whole is a much more equal space in my experience.
In my experience, women in engineering have made up closer to 20% or sometimes more.
IT is less though, I agree.
However, non-parity of numbers does not imply discrimination. Different people enjoy different things. Some of the best engineers are women and it's great to have them on any engineering team. But they ate hard to find. Not just through lack of training, but genuine lack of interest. Engineering can often be boring and frustrating and it takes a certain kind of weirdo to enjoy that.
One of my best friends is the brightest and highest qualified engineer I know. She's a brilliant mathematician and has developed dynamics models for F1 and the robotics startup we worked for. Eventually she quit engineering because it was too boring and slow, she left to do charity work, and she is now going back to engineering again. Engineering pays the bills, but she doesn't really enjoy it.
So, forcing parity of numbers I think is foolish. To do so often requires unequal hiring i.e. preferentially hiring women regardless of merit. This is bad, because it makes it difficult to have equal pay, which is far, far more important.
I have no doubt that the performance will improve, fast.
Even if the documentation is only available to Chinese customers - As soon as China have viable "mainland" alternatives to everything that is produced in Taiwan, then there is nothing stopping them from taking the island by force, and severely borking all Western economies in the process.
Firkins, Furlongs, Fortnights and Fahrenheit. That's the standard unit system isn't it?
Acres must be square furlongs? Or maybe round ones.
I'm sure if you measured the sun's power in firkin-furlongs per fortnight, divided it by the earth's thermal mass in firkin-furlongs-per-fahrenheit, you'd get a temperature rise in fahrenheit-per-fortnight, right? :D
How does your argument do anything to preserve the fuel reserves that we have, then?
Supposing it really is all a Hoax, (perhaps it is one cunningly created to stop us from reaching the end if oil too soon..), if we continue to burn it we will still run out of it, creating all of the catastrophic economic effects that I mentioned.
As I said, AGW or not, we still need alternative energy sources. We have enough nuclear weapons to annihilate the world several times over. How about burning those for power instead, before we are tempted to use them for their intended purpose.
Well, it depends a lot on how fast they degrade. I'm talking about cumulative total deployment. But with a fixed manufacturing capacity, cumulative deployment will eventually plateau as production required for replacement grows to the same as the manufacturing rate. When you reach that plateau, the total number of batteries you can sustain goes with the number of factories you have, and the rate you can get to a new plateau after building a new factory goes with the excess factory capacity. Assuming no factories close or break down etc. Then there's the waste problem ...
The trouble with Lithium battery tech is that it is, electrochemically speaking, already pretty much the best battery tech possible. Incremental improvements can be made to the degradation rate (although with so many different degradation mechanisms it's a bit of a game of whack-a-mole), but there's not so much possibility to improve the energy or power density, because of fundamental chemistry.
Solid-state batteries often claim to offer an energy density improvement, but that comes at a massive longevity cost. I know a lot of people who have worked on them for decades, and despite a few snake oil moments (Dyson/sakti3 for example) none of us can see them overtaking current battery tech.
There are a massive number of people in the battery community trying to develop new (platinum-free) electrocatalyst materials for fuel cells etc, by using AI to design exotic ceramics. That should be enough to tell you not to expect a major breakthrough any time soon.
Perhaps I should have added "on the scale needed to replace fossil fuels" then.
Battery storage is useful on the order of minutes to hours. It's primarily used to stabilise frequency in time for a big gas generator to spin up, not for bulk storage.
Even pumped hydro storage is only good for a few hours. Whereas 'weather lulls' are on the order of days to weeks. But there are a very limited supply of suitable locations, most of which are used. You can't manufacture a new mountain.
Battery storage is already overextended. Batteries degrade, every battery we install increases the number that we have to replace per year. To come close to the scale needed, you'd need to scale up deployment by a factor of 100, which would mean scaling up production by a factor of 1000 or more, depending on how fast you want to get there.
But the current levels of battery production are already unsustainable. They are subsidised by Chinese 'dumping', i.e. deliberately flooding the market with cheap cells. Their manufacture already causes massive ecological damage. You can't scale that up any further, and we may soon find that the cheap supply ends and we will have no cells to maintain our existing stock of batteries, never mind build new ones.
As for hydrogen storage, even the government is realising now that it is not feasible. For the same reason as batteries, it's too expensive and resource imtensive to deploy anywhere near the scale needed.
Downvoter here.
Yes, greenhouses and the greenhouse effect are real things (although greenhouses themselves work more by trapping convection than they do by trapping radiation, but I digress..). CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, but as your kitchen-table experiment will show, you need a vastly higher increase in concentration than we are seeing through fossil fuel use, to see any measurable effect. I'm not saying that I reject it, just that other hypotheses seem equally plausible to me. For example, the CO2 increases found in ice-cores that correlate with increased temperature may have been caused BY wildfires, not the other way around. The temperature rises in the first place may have been due to changes in solar activity, or some other reason. It's not clear-cut to me. Nevertheless I DO accept that fossil fuels are finite and that an alternative needs to be found, and soon.
Second: Supposing you are right and CO2 really is the problem and that we are already seeing its effects, will halting CO2 output at this late stage actually save us? Or will the economic and geopolitical "effects" of halting CO2 actually pose a much graver risk to our immediate existence on earth? Personally I believe that it is not possible to halt global CO2 output suddenly without inducing WWIII. So we need to do it gradually. The mass-hysteria that I see in the media, "global boiling" etc, does not support doing anything gradually. It has polarised politics and pushed us further towards war.
True, although a storage cylinder removes that burden. Meanwhile a heat pump -cannot- be used as an on-demand flow heater.. And it struggles even to heat a storage tank to a temperature that will kill the microbes living in it.
OK, although that was 2014. These losses go with the square of load, though.
CCGTs only reach their peak efficiency after they have been running for a few hours. When they are starting up, their efficiency is no better than an OCGT.
But my point is intended to be illustrative. Heat pumps offer very marginal (which I deem as bugger all, considering their disadvantages) gains in terms of CO2 over gas boilers, at least with our current energy mix during winter months. They are not the silver bullet that they seem to be sold as.
I kind of agree though re. water systems. An air-air heat pump would be more efficient vs a "drop-in" replacement for a boiler.. Although wouldn't subsidising air-conditioners have enticed more people to turn them on, and used more energy / CO2?
Of course I know how a heat pump works. But it isn't magic. If a heat pump pumps 3 times more heat than it comsumes in power, but is powered by a gas turbine which is 30% efficient, via a grid which is 85% efficient, how much CO2 is saved compared to a 95% efficient condensing boiler?
I agree although sadly having worked at Culham for 5 years, I believe fusion on its own for energy production is a dead end. The sun actually has a very poor power density, comparable to that of a compost heap. That's why we need even higher pressure and temperature than the sun to improve the power, but that is very challenging.
All of the energy from fusion is transferred across a vacuum by sheer intensity of neutron radiation, which destroys and makes radioactive almost all materials, except a few like Beryllium, but that has its own problems. Fusion would actually produce more waste by volume than fission, it's just hot for 100 years instead of 10000 years.
However, the technology I am most excited about is the hybrid fusion-fission reactor, which uses low-enriched, subcritical uranium or plutonium, basically taking old weapons stockpiles which we have vast quantities of, and burning them safely.
The fusion reaction, which is easy at the low intensity needed, is only needed as a neutron source to 'fiss' the fissile material, and the nice thing about it is that it can be turned off, and it uses the fuel much more efficiently. A traditional uranium reactor only uses about 2% of its fuel before it is considered 'spent'.
Thorium reactors can also burn more of their fuel.
It's still using heat, but it's much higher quality (hotter) heat than you get from fusion.
For my sins, I worked at a traffic controller company for a couple of years.
The majority of traffic controllers, especially outside big cities, use 2G or 3G for remote monitoring and optimisation (control is always local, no 'italian job' possible, but they do rely on timing adjustments to optimise throughput). If a grey controller cabinet has two round or square black plastic blobs on it, one will be a GPS antenna just for an accurate clock, and the other is a 2G/3G antenna.
If the 2G/3G were to go away, then the local council's traffic controls maintenance dept would have no info except complaints from the public about borked signals, and optimisation along long roads would suffer slightly. Probably enough to cause congestion though.
> They already likely have various tricks, wouldn't surprise me if the surveillance agencies could listen in on your house even when the phone is hung up.
Alexa, Are you spying on me?
No, Dave. I'm in the middle of downloading a firmware update from someone in possession of a valid signing key..
Well, as the others have alluded to above, i expect if Twitter was banned, the chief beneficiaries of that would be the Twats who use it. It would give them something to moan about (on other platforms such as tiktok and youtube which are even more virally targeted and don't even require that the audience are able to read..) and to attack the EU with, which is basically the goal of the Russian/Chinese propaganda trolls anyway.
Interesting stock image to pick for the article.. Is that what happens when all the EV chargers get their special OTA-update from China?
I was with you until you pushed resistive heating. That's a completely stupid waste of energy. Much better to have a gas boiler.
Unless you're in France and have nuclear power. But even then, electric resistive heating is expensive because the electricity can be exported, and can be much more effectively used for other things