thebestaquaman

Sure it can, as long as it retains behaviour according to whatever standard it needs to comply to. My point was rather that I would be very surprised if the actual implementation (at memory level) was a linked list.

You're probably right, at the same time, a spring that isn't overloaded can usually take an absurd amount of cycles: Just think about how long the suspension on a car typically lasts compared to a lot of other parts.

If I'm understanding you correctly, they're basically doing the same thing as Python under the hood and using a heap-allocated array (vector) of pointers? If so, that should still be orders of magnitude faster than a linked list.

If their implementation is actually a linked list, colour me shocked. My impression was that JavaScript is "decently fast". I've never even considered writing high-performance code in it, but I've heard that the compiler can optimise extremely aggressively, and it's used so widely that I couldn't imagine that it had glaring performance issues like what I would expect to see if every array was actually a linked list under the hood.

And FORTRAN (I do nothing but SCREAM in FORTRAN anyway)

That's right the actual moment of breaking usually releases tension, but the overall process of breaking includes building it up!

Idk about you, but I usually build tension when I break.

I heard about a version that used springs as well. Basically a pull-back car: When you break, it puts tension on the springs, then it releases that tension when accelerating. Apparently it was very good for city-driving, since you get an absurd number of cycles with very small "charges", which makes it very good when you do a lot of start/stop driving in slow traffic. I'm not sure why I haven't heard any more about it in more recent years.

I wondered the same, then my SO got one, it's a seam that makes it look real funny when not worn.

I think it's unfair to downvote you for playing devils advocate here, especially when you're making it obvious that that's what you're doing. People should do better and rather challenge themselves to explain why you're wrong in a way that can convince the devils advocate. It serves as a nice exercise for re-thinking your position and arguments.

For my attempt: They're "wasting" water in the sense that liquid water at ambient conditions is a limited resource. They're taking that water, and either turning it into steam, or heating it a lot before releasing it back to the environment. Both uses reduce the amount of liquid water at ambient conditions available in reservoirs connected to infrastructure made to extract it for public use. That is the resource we use for everything from drinking water, to showering and cleaning, to making food and filling radiators.

You could say that "wasting water" is imprecise, but I would argue that it serves as a convenient shorthand for "wasting liquid water at ambient conditions accumulated in reservoirs that are connected to extraction and treatment infrastructure", which becomes a mouthful when you say it often.

The heat you have available in a data center is pretty low-quality (cold) heat. If you're not familiar with the field, a (very) basic introduction is looking at the Carnot efficiency: In principle, you could increase the pressure in the water with a pump, then let it evaporate, before extracting work in a turbine. Then, you condense the steam (by heat-exchanging with the ambient) before sending it back into the pump.

Now, if this process is ideal (frictionless pumps and turbines, perfect heat exchangers, etc.) we can figure out how much of the heat energy that can be converted to useful work (turbine output - pump input). Assuming the ambient (our cold side) is about 25 C, and the racks we're cooling (our hot side) operate at around 100 C, we get a Carnot efficiency of about 0.2. That means only 20 % of the heat can actually be converted work. Again, this is the ideal case. It is not thermodynamically possible to get better than this. Realistically, you could maybe get 10 % or something.

So, bottom line: The racks aren't really hot enough to extract meaningful work. A better proposal would probably be to build things like this in places that are cold and require heating, so that you could use the waste heat as a district heating source. In that case, you could more or less completely eliminate the need for other heating sources in homes (which are far too often electrical). Then, we would be using the electrical power (which is high-quality) for something "useful" (disregarding whether or not a data center is useful in the first place), and use the low-quality heat for what it does best (heating things to moderate temperatures).

During my service the rule was pretty clear that any assembled weapon is always treated as loaded, regardless how many people have checked it. Part of the idea was that no matter how sure you are that your weapon is clear, there's no way for me to be sure, and if you ever muzzle-swipe me you can bet your ass I'm not taking any chances on whether it's clear. So basically, if the weapon is assembled, it's loaded. Always.

Aha, then I understand! In my training, a "clear" drill was always concluded by firing in a safe direction (e.g. the ground), so I would regard that trigger pull as the conclusion of the clearing drill, not as "treating the weapon as unloaded". The point of that step was exactly the mentality that "You just cleared the weapon, so obviously you should treat it as loaded and fire a shot into the ground to re-check that you actually cleared it".