jj4211

Well the explanation would work for one election, 2024.

In 2016, he was a terrible choice on so many fronts, but no especially strong reason to expect he would dramatically shift inflation or pay. And on those specific metrics, his first term was mostly typical, except pandemic, which people can believe to be an utterly freak event beyond anyone's control if they still wanted to vote for Trump.

The global economic shock continued and was exasperated by war. Biden had little to do with it, but it was on his watch, so he gets saddled with blame, so to the extent a voter just thinks about their personal economic situation, they vote for "not the current leadership".

So this term has been marked by utterly predictable economic problems that everyone told them would happen, but they didn't have first hand experience to trust that, and Trump's rhetoric resonated with the "I know smart people say it doesn't work, but 'common sense' tells me get rid of immigrants and tariff all imports and things will be great, making American jobs and getting rid of foreigners taking the jobs".

So now they get to see first hand why those common sense thoughts don't actually work.

Still. I predict next year they'll roll back tariffs to try to create a bit of deflation and also cut checks to everyone to make them feel like winners in the moment as they decide midterms.

Yes, the government that was accused of abducting a family is in the right, because that same government says they are treating that family well, and no, no one is allowed to independently verify that, but obviously you have every reason to take our word for it

Whatever the situation is in Venezula, it's not going to be a good thing for America to get entangled.

Hussein was a pretty bad dude, but our intervention in Iraq ultimately was bad for America and didn't exactly make things in Iraq better.

Yes, indeed, it's open ended and on the surface it is consistent with a plausible follow through on existing decision.

Though the prospect of suspiciously selective enforcement comes to mind, in the midst of this very specific scenario they decide to execute a seizure that is conveniently adjacent to the boat strike operations.

Mr. Rubio’s order cited the origins of serif typefaces in Roman antiquity.

So, it's best because it has "Roman" in the name. And if they like "Roman" salutes, clearly they want "Roman" fonts too.

So assuming 10 lbs of force, as measured 1 meter away from the hinge, you have about 44.5 Nm of torque. Assuming each door opening was about 90 degrees, then you have about 70 Joules per door operating event.

Each door opening would have a physical theoretical max of 0.02 watt-hours.

Assuming you spent 8 hours opening a door every 10 seconds constantly, then you have 58 watt-hours of energy at the end of the day if you had 100% efficient generators. One typical solar panel would hit that in under 15 minutes in real-world energy collection, not theoretical.

So yes, the law says there is some unavoidable, unusable waste heat, the question is how much of that heat is really unusable?

For example, you have lava at around 1,000 degrees. You certainly can harvest energy from that, hit some water with it and spin a turbine.

For the most part, once we get under 100C we run out of ideas on how to realistically harvest energy out of it, but there's still a pretty good delta between that an ambient. The claim of this article is he has an approach to harvest energy at an even lower temperature delta.

If it got to harvesting all of the temperature delta of a system, then we can say "not at all possible based on current understanding of physics", but if the process leaves some waste heat unharvested, then it's not yet violating that law. The law just says it gets less and less likely as the amount of heat in question diminishes.

Well then you need to handle backfeeding all sorts of circuits, which is generally a pain to the extent it works. But it also would barely do anything.

It is scalding hot, but I think the key takeaway is that it's not hot enough to boil into steam, which is our current go-to for harvesting energy from heat.

So after you do your steam turbine and you are left with not-quite boiling water, by today's standards it is useless for further harvesting for electricity. If this article is as-advertised (a big if), then we can harvest more, adding efficiency to any process that boils water to turn a turbine.

Hypothetically, any energy harvested from a zero-emission strategy might at least displace combusting some hydrocarbons.

Offshored/outsourced code is generally shit regardless of where it comes from.

Question is generally 'how is it that using this company thousands of miles away is so much cheaper? Business folks like to think it's just because the country is poor, but no, the answer is that it is a grift. It is always a grift.

The good developers in that location? They are too busy doing work for real companies paying real money. Maybe less than an American makes, but not as dramatic as management imagines. So companies looking to offshore will never pay enough to get the actual talent in a geography. What happens when someone competent actually lands in one of these arrangements? Gone in 3-4 months after they get a real job after proving themselves.

So what developers are you getting? People who probably had the equivalent of a high school programming course and didn't really get it, but there's a company that will pay money to anyone with some arbitrary 'certiificate' that they can claim to clients means you are a trained software developer. They don't know your use case, and they don't care. They utterly fail at being competent, but who is going to call them on it? Management has no clue, and besides, it was their idea to outsource, so it has to be a good idea. Leftover technical talent that you kept on as a skeleton crew to supervise the outsourced effort? Oh they are just whining and trying to protect their jobs and being overly dismissive of the offshored staff because it suites their self-interest.

Offshoring is a big old grift wherever they set up shop.

Yeah, I was thinking it's impossible to fake AI codegen with humans, for however terrible it is, it vomits the code it generates quickly.

I of course take issue with:

LLMs were already more than capable of generating high-quality code.

That claim will remain unjustified so long as LLMs equally generate imagined function calls and such as much as they like 'real' function calls.

But in any event, it's also telling that despite ostensibly being a company focused around AI code gen, when it came to doing stupid in-house stuff that didn't need doing they went with a bunch of human developers. And many of those are knock-offs of projects that should be pretty firmly in the territory of LLM codegen to let you 'vibe code'.