deadbeef79000

joined 2 years ago
[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2 points 7 hours ago

But how will their donors make bank with that plan?

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 day ago

It's the political equivalent of an abuser saying "look what you're making me do".

They've been doing the converse too by taking credit for things that the last government did.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 34 points 2 days ago

Spending those trillions was the point, that it bought the world's most powerful military was a bonus.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 16 points 6 days ago

The above passage, for example, comes from Game Feel, a game design guide written by Steve Swink.

Steve Swink (and his editors) needs to be forced fed a copy of his book.

Being able to design games doesn't mean one can write about designing games.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago

Those EV R&D subsidies are just socialization of that risk. The risk is still there regardless of who is paying to mitigate it.

Frankly, automotive products are so entrenched that no automotive company needs any social support at all.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago

Does anyone know how these bills differ from the two that Labour introduced in their last term (which the current coalition repealed)?

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You know you're doing something right when an American Corporation is complaining.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago

Perfect is the enemy of good.

A tale as old as time.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I was struggling with the wording.

A cabinet position is the premier position an MP can have, which i was trying to say could be the cost: you "spend" your cabinet position for the term to "buy" 'urgency'.

But your point is better, justification should have a high bar or cost.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Urgency needs a cost.

Perhaps an MP has to lose something to sponsor an urgency. Their cabinet position perhaps.

Such that if it's genuinely urgent then it's worth the cost.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 49 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Yeah, that happened way before the current AI slop bubble.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 70 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

OK. Science time. Somewhat arbitrary values used, the point is there is a amortization calculation, you'll need to calculate your own with accurate input values.

A PC drawing 100W 24/7 uses 877 kWh@0.15 $131.49 per year.

A NAS drawing 25W 24/7 uses 219 kWh@0.15 $32.87 per year

So, in this hypothetical case you "save" about $100/year on power costs running the NAS.

Assuming a capacity equivalent NAS might cost $1200 then you're better off using the PC you have rather than buying a NAS for 12 years.


This ignores that the heat generated by the devices is desirable in winter so the higher heat output option has additional utility.

 

Congratulations NZP you and your guns successfully escalated this situation to as bad as it could possibly get.

 

Well, at least one person in the Greyhound racing industry is an awful person: Rachel Rae in this case.

view more: next ›