2495 pts · December 26, 2015
Road traffic in Germany is quite different from the US, especially in residential areas like this...
"Open source software" consists of more than just a "LGPL" label stapled to the source code. That's good, but not enough... you will see, if Google wants e.g. adblockers gone from Chromium, none of the chromium-based browsers will be able to keep up and keep them in medium-term.
In 2025, of 105.318 commits to the Chromium repo, 99.003 were made by Google. Another 3000 are by Intel and Microsoft. Who, do you think, will be able to maintain a fork of this engine if Google decides to do whatever they want with enough force? That's right, absolutely nobody. You either do only tiny tweaks or you need hundreds of engineers.
Yeah guys this stuff is all cool and so but it's *all* just cloaks for the same software... there is basically no relevant search engine except Google, Bing and maybe 1-2 others (DuckDuckGo isn't an engine, it's just a frontend), and there is basically no browser other than Chrome, except Firefox. The DuckDuckGo browser is a rebranded Chrome, and if it gains any relevance, Google can effectively just cancel it.
Anyone who thinks the language changing things into what the user probably meant by it is a good idea can try writing a bit of PHP and suffer the consequences of such design decisions.
The whole "poisoining" here is bullshit, the poison is from agriculture. The data center is merely heating water. If that is not acceptable in this region, a law should forbid it... expecting the company to do something different is just odd. I'm really all-in on bashing AI bullshit megacorps, but please pick one of the thousands of bash-able things that make sense to bash -- this just doesn't.
I mean I get your perspective, but it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Sure they can "afford" it, doesn't make it economically sound. I can also "afford" buying $5 for $10, doesn't mean it's a reasonable option.
Iceland has a total geothermal capacity of 800 MW. That's like 1 power plant. Yes the ocean stuff "is already being done" but at publicity stunt scale...
My fridge has like 1 m² of radiator to cool away 40 W of average power. Especially considering different weather conditions like sun, I'd guess that you would need several square kilometers of radioators to reliably cool away this much heat...
Are radiators really a realistic option here? I dunno, at least I have never *seen* such a setup (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist). The ocean stuff is economically bullshit and will have its own share of environmental issues anyways.
I don't necessarily disagree but that wasn't the discussion here...
How would that work in your opinion? You have 100 MW thermal power to cool away, how is this heat transported away from the facility when all cooling is closed-loop?
The test looks a lot like it just has different amounts of paste applied, and the X just has a lot more than other patterns... I think this would need weight-controlled paste to mean anything
Yeah, this is a pretty odd framing. The problem (if correctly traced) is nitrate in the water, and the solution is reducing nitrate added to the water, not burying the tainted water somewhere.
... especially since the shelf life of the paste is extremely limited.
Meh, this clearly some toll station or something... it exists in a lot of places and always looks kinda like this...
I'll just reply with this chart: https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2022/11/Screenshot-2022-11-21-105357.jpg
Lab efficiency has traditionally been about twice the real-world efficiency of solar cells. Since the 60% seem to be theoretical only, I unfortunately don't think there is any big news here...
Just as an example, with 2% base inflation, effective rate is around 1.5% now and was around 8% in the 80s. Borrowing an inflation-corrected 400k over 25 years thus costs an inflation-corrected 580k now and cost 2.47M (!) back then. 100k over 15 years is 125k now vs 317k back then. That's WAY more than 47% difference even in the most conservative borrowing scenarios.
They were around 10%. The current 3% are ridiculously low, people just think they are high because rates were even lower recently. And keep in mind higher rates mean an exponential increase in the amount of interest paid, so 10% isn't "about three times as high".
Sorry, didn't see the different timescales.
Actually, considering the cost of financing, it's likely that a 47% increased price now is more affordable than the base price was in 1985.
Well, the posted graph suggests an increase of about 120% in price and an increase of about 20% in wage, which is a 83% relative increase. Your graph shows a 47% relative increase. Quite a difference. Also, to make an affordability comparison, these graphs should include cost of financing, which (at least around here) is vastly lower now than it was in '85.
I'm sorry to disappoint you but I'm in a country with mandatory governmental health insurance and it's definitely not anywhere near 5%... 20% isn't far off.
I don't know what this is trying to tell me. England+Wales has tens of millions of properties. This is talking about 92.000 of them, so the whole chart deals with significantly less than 1% of properties. So what's the message here?
Sooo Google is taking this down why exactly? Because nobody wants to see it? Oh really! Then why does the same company shove AI-generated content into its user's faces everywhere *it* has control over the situation, like search?
You're missing that it's actually 0.1% and everything above that is an estimate.
Not electromagnetically, though. Also, while we do have detectors for neutrinos, this detector doesn't actually detect them. It measures missing energy in a different particle.
This is obviously fake anyways...
The other bullshit about this "statistics" is that it takes a rate, applies it to a really large group, then takes the resulting number, and compares it to the size of a really small group. It's just misleading, no matter how you look at it.
Road traffic in Germany is quite different from the US, especially in residential areas like this...
"Open source software" consists of more than just a "LGPL" label stapled to the source code. That's good, but not enough... you will see, if Google wants e.g. adblockers gone from Chromium, none of the chromium-based browsers will be able to keep up and keep them in medium-term.
In 2025, of 105.318 commits to the Chromium repo, 99.003 were made by Google. Another 3000 are by Intel and Microsoft. Who, do you think, will be able to maintain a fork of this engine if Google decides to do whatever they want with enough force? That's right, absolutely nobody. You either do only tiny tweaks or you need hundreds of engineers.
Yeah guys this stuff is all cool and so but it's *all* just cloaks for the same software... there is basically no relevant search engine except Google, Bing and maybe 1-2 others (DuckDuckGo isn't an engine, it's just a frontend), and there is basically no browser other than Chrome, except Firefox. The DuckDuckGo browser is a rebranded Chrome, and if it gains any relevance, Google can effectively just cancel it.
Anyone who thinks the language changing things into what the user probably meant by it is a good idea can try writing a bit of PHP and suffer the consequences of such design decisions.
The whole "poisoining" here is bullshit, the poison is from agriculture. The data center is merely heating water. If that is not acceptable in this region, a law should forbid it... expecting the company to do something different is just odd. I'm really all-in on bashing AI bullshit megacorps, but please pick one of the thousands of bash-able things that make sense to bash -- this just doesn't.
I mean I get your perspective, but it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Sure they can "afford" it, doesn't make it economically sound. I can also "afford" buying $5 for $10, doesn't mean it's a reasonable option.
Iceland has a total geothermal capacity of 800 MW. That's like 1 power plant. Yes the ocean stuff "is already being done" but at publicity stunt scale...
My fridge has like 1 m² of radiator to cool away 40 W of average power. Especially considering different weather conditions like sun, I'd guess that you would need several square kilometers of radioators to reliably cool away this much heat...
Are radiators really a realistic option here? I dunno, at least I have never *seen* such a setup (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist). The ocean stuff is economically bullshit and will have its own share of environmental issues anyways.
I don't necessarily disagree but that wasn't the discussion here...
How would that work in your opinion? You have 100 MW thermal power to cool away, how is this heat transported away from the facility when all cooling is closed-loop?
The test looks a lot like it just has different amounts of paste applied, and the X just has a lot more than other patterns... I think this would need weight-controlled paste to mean anything
Yeah, this is a pretty odd framing. The problem (if correctly traced) is nitrate in the water, and the solution is reducing nitrate added to the water, not burying the tainted water somewhere.
... especially since the shelf life of the paste is extremely limited.
Meh, this clearly some toll station or something... it exists in a lot of places and always looks kinda like this...
I'll just reply with this chart: https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2022/11/Screenshot-2022-11-21-105357.jpg
Lab efficiency has traditionally been about twice the real-world efficiency of solar cells. Since the 60% seem to be theoretical only, I unfortunately don't think there is any big news here...
Just as an example, with 2% base inflation, effective rate is around 1.5% now and was around 8% in the 80s. Borrowing an inflation-corrected 400k over 25 years thus costs an inflation-corrected 580k now and cost 2.47M (!) back then. 100k over 15 years is 125k now vs 317k back then. That's WAY more than 47% difference even in the most conservative borrowing scenarios.
They were around 10%. The current 3% are ridiculously low, people just think they are high because rates were even lower recently. And keep in mind higher rates mean an exponential increase in the amount of interest paid, so 10% isn't "about three times as high".
Sorry, didn't see the different timescales.
Actually, considering the cost of financing, it's likely that a 47% increased price now is more affordable than the base price was in 1985.
Well, the posted graph suggests an increase of about 120% in price and an increase of about 20% in wage, which is a 83% relative increase. Your graph shows a 47% relative increase. Quite a difference. Also, to make an affordability comparison, these graphs should include cost of financing, which (at least around here) is vastly lower now than it was in '85.
I'm sorry to disappoint you but I'm in a country with mandatory governmental health insurance and it's definitely not anywhere near 5%... 20% isn't far off.
I don't know what this is trying to tell me. England+Wales has tens of millions of properties. This is talking about 92.000 of them, so the whole chart deals with significantly less than 1% of properties. So what's the message here?
Sooo Google is taking this down why exactly? Because nobody wants to see it? Oh really! Then why does the same company shove AI-generated content into its user's faces everywhere *it* has control over the situation, like search?
You're missing that it's actually 0.1% and everything above that is an estimate.
Not electromagnetically, though. Also, while we do have detectors for neutrinos, this detector doesn't actually detect them. It measures missing energy in a different particle.
This is obviously fake anyways...
The other bullshit about this "statistics" is that it takes a rate, applies it to a really large group, then takes the resulting number, and compares it to the size of a really small group. It's just misleading, no matter how you look at it.