Well... The US Defense budget for 2021 alone is 7 times the money needed to build a new LHC (705 billion [1] for the US defense in 2021). Germany will spend a similar 100 billion dollars on weapons in the coming years. So while 100 billion looks like an amazing amount of money, the military spends this in the blink of an eye and without the slightest promise of a RoI...
I like having something to scale 100B to, but this is a silly argument.
"Instead of cutting this program, just have every military cut funding at once" is not a very realistic path forwards, and we're not going to get the program funded on stuff like that.
In the hypothetical universe we're in here, where we have to convince people now.
Right - but that puts the 'solution' to this problem on your end, and not on the plate of the organisation sending it to you in the first place. Sure, this is the easiest way of dealing with it, but it's not how it should be. If Cloudflare needs more customers, they need to follow the marketing rules, and one of them is to allow users who are not interested in their offer to no longer receive these. The whole "verify your e-mail address" is bad enough and as stated above is nothing more than a barrier to prevent you from unsubscribing...
If you use a provider like Gmail, you're not just solving the problem on your end. Google trains their global spam filter through every user's behavior. So if enough people keep marking Cloudflare mails as spam, they will eventually end up in other people's spam folder by default.
Wot?!? It appears you've never experienced the feeling that someone was in your house, your bedroom and went through your stuff - perhaps even while you were home... Money cannot fix everything. It can help, but the creepy feeling that your home is no longer private cannot be repaired...
As someone who was burglarized a few years ago, the things that could be replaced was the worst of my worries. My safe deposit box that had notes and sentimental gifts from people that have passed away were taken. My home had been invaded and my sense of security was gone. I couldn't sleep there for weeks and ended up moving shortly after
In Texas, we say that feeling is what guns and dogs are for. (note: if you go too far down the rabbit hole on the former, the government may impolitely take care of the latter.)
That's a path with no end, with one security gadget begetting another. Today it's video doorbells, then some CCTV, maybe hidden cameras in every room, and eventually laser trip wires and touch sensors.
You're probably better off looking for the root cause of why you've got that creepy feeling in the first place.
My house was broken into about 10 years ago, and I don't have this feeling. Meanwhile, I know someone who does have this feeling and hasn't been burgled. So, the two don't necessarily correlate.
In general, the perception of crime rates are often very out of sync with actual crime rates.
Totally agree. Had a couple of local drunkards come through an unlocked window to steal things years ago and could never shake the creepy factor. Broke the lease and moved early a couple weeks later.
Yes, that sucks. I agree. But, the video doorbell doesn't help with drunks coming in a side/basement window. I understand an array of cameras around the house to cover your example. So, maybe the doorbell video is just one part of the solution--that makes sense. Only having a doorbell video to my earlier question doesn't seem to provide any value.
True, but I want to add that step 1 is lock the windows and doors. No single solution is a cover-all. We have to start with the most basic things, which are usually already installed (locks, blinds, etc).
You are right. I haven’t. I did have my car broken into and the police shared with me the tactics that criminals use and a door bell camera or even cameras wouldn’t deter the pros. And the ones that aren’t pros I wonder if they are too stupid to even notice a doorbell camera.
... or experienced the fine print and hassel of dealing with insurance. Plus, some things can't be replaced. Not to mention, this attitude can lead to higher premiums.
Yes of course. But some will be more competitve by having less weigth-per-axle. So after one replacement-generation of trucks, roads will be in better shape because trucks are less prone to damage them on average. And in general, trucking goods needs to be more expensive anyways to make less pollution transport options like ships and trains more competitive.
Consumers can also be made whole by removing vehicle taxes on cars or subsidizing other modes of transport that consumers use from those trucking price increases.
No - the use of gasoline does not impact the cost of the road. But it can be used to persuade people to use the bike lane next to it. People are amazingly sensitive to costs - check for instance tax benefits. As soon as a product is subsidized by means of a tax rule, people run as fast as they can to get it. Hybrid and now electric cars are a great example (at least in the Netherlands).
By having people pay by the mile instead of whether they own a car or now, usage is more evenly charged. You drive a lot? You pay a lot. Even nicer would be to add a charge to the gas prices: your car uses a lot? You pay a lot. But it seems that the gap between buying gas at the pump and riding your car is too wide: people will get a guzzling car regardless. But if you know that every mile you pay 10 cents..? I guess it will get people out of the car very, very quick...
But road usage by cars is not the problem, CO2 emissions is. By doing this kind of punishment-by-proxy the whole taxation becomes ideological (car too big, car too foreign) and loses legitimacy. Keep in mind that in a democracy you shouldn't aspire to force people to do "the right thing", you should aspire to create consensus. A high tax on gasoline is easy to understand and easy to argue for. Double payments, illogical taxation, and "nudging" just pisses people of into the arms of right-wing parties.
For the (north) Europeans here, there is a German project Luftdaten (also available in English) that does more or less the same [1]. Provides guides for air quality measurement devices [2], firmware and a 'worldwide' map that shows the location and measurement of each device. They have around 14.000 at the moment, mainly in Germany and the Netherlands. The device works with Domoticz, so you can get the read-out integrated in your dashboard. Shows temperature, humidity and PM10 & PM2.5 - very happy with mine!
I second this! I've been sending sensor data into the https://sensor.community cloud for over a year now, with dead simple setup and forget-about-it attitude since then. For the lazy there is also an option of spending ~50€ for a plug-and-play version [1]. Independently of that, you also get a grafana web GUI after registering your chip, e.g. [2].
On another note, I hope these databases from similar projects stay mergable or the projects even merge.
I don't think the IoT devices will care that their download speed is somewhat reduced and that they'd have to wait a few ms to get access. These devices will hardly transmit or received any data. Likely a lot of switches, wall outlets and some sensors that you'd want a reading from every minute.
The number of clients should not be an issue, the half-duplex shouldn't be as well...
I can't imagine it's the high number of (IoT) clients that is the problem - it is the high power that the AP's use that causes the issue.
WiFi goes two ways - the AP talks to the client, and the client has to talk back. Clients don't have the high transmitting power that an AP has, and actually the AP won't need this high power. After all, if you use a bullhorn to reach your backyard, but the guy over there can't talk back, there is still no communication.
The solution would be to set the AP's to a lower transmitting power, enough to cover the house but not the street.
That would be the ideal solution, but they'd have to adjust tx power on all of their devices. Or at least a significant number of them. Which might prove problematic, since most of them don't allow manual adjustment.
Good question! Why would a company rather invest 1.5B$ in something volatile like bitcoin instead of investing it in the well being of their employees?
Or any part of their production and process... Musk has managed to drive the stock price up. But many of his decisions seem questionable from value investor perspective. Or downright self-serving...
> instead of investing it in the well being of their employees?
because the returns of "investing" in their employee's retirement is not a good ROI for shareholders of tesla. simple as that. There's no humanitarian obligation for tesla to make their employee's retirement great, or any other obligation (other than contractual obligation for payment of wages and benefits already committed).
if employees feel that they are short-changed, they _need_ to leave, and let market forces adjust. if they sacrifice their own wellbeing to the "mission" of tesla, that's on them.
I think you over-estimate the CO2 emissions for solar panels and under-estimate the complexity of nuclear installations.
A quick google search [1] learns that the CO2 emissions of the solar panel are marginally higher than for a nuclear power plant, but more then 10-fold lower than coal plants. Vattenfall did a study, but it's from 1999, so relies on 20-year old solar technology.
In addition, building a nuclear power plant is amazingly complex. In Europe there are hardly any companies that have the technology and risk-appetite to build one without a solid (financial) support from the government. I recall that in the UK they are building one that is over time and way over budget [2] (spoiler: they started in 2008 and as of now still aren't producing any electricity, and the government-promised price of ~100 pounds/MWh was in 2016 already beaten by solar, implying that over the lifetime the nuclear power plant will cost the consumer 50 billion pounds on subsidies and 20 billion on construction)
And sure, you can't control the sun or the clouds. But with a bit of effort you can create a grid that evens out the impact of the weather. High-voltage power grids in Europe are increasingly interconnected and help fill the gaps in electrical power cross border. Excess solar energy from Germany can simply be transferred to the UK via the Netherlands.
> I recall that in the UK they are building one that is over time and way over budget [2] (spoiler: they started in 2008 and as of now still aren't producing any electricity, and the government-promised price of ~100 pounds/MWh was in 2016 already beaten by solar, implying that over the lifetime the nuclear power plant will cost the consumer 50 billion pounds on subsidies and 20 billion on construction)
Oh I know. I'm french, the Flamanville EPR is a running joke. But this is merely a consequence of dubious political choices having lead to putting a hold on building nuclear power plants for a long time, which means the people who knew how to do that are either in other companies or retired. There has been a horrible loss of skill in this subject in most of western Europe and the US. We've built dozens of nuclear power plants are are one of the cleanest countries in the world when it comes to CO2 per kWh. I dare say that at one point we definitely understood how to do it.
Korea has demonstrated they have the ability to build multiple third generation reactors in 5 to 6 years. So does China.
> And sure, you can't control the sun or the clouds. But with a bit of effort you can create a grid that evens out the impact of the weather. High-voltage power grids in Europe are increasingly interconnected and help fill the gaps in electrical power cross border. Excess solar energy from Germany can simply be transferred to the UK via the Netherlands.
The way the electrical grid is made in Europe is fully made with centralisation in mind. A few core production points distributing to everything else. For this to apply to solar, that would require absolutely gigantic solar parks.
> Excess solar energy from Germany can simply be transferred to the UK via the Netherlands.
Except Germany doesn't sell their solar energy. Germany is running on coal and natural gas, producing over 40% of their energy through these means. The absolute insanity of phasing out a solution as effective and safe as nuclear has lead to horribly worse.
> But with a bit of effort you can create a grid that evens out the impact of the weather.
How ? solar panels produce a _pitiful_ amount of energy. We would need dozens of millions of them. A small nuclear power plant produces about 10 TWh per year. A well running solar panel produces, if you're lucky, 300kWh per year. Thirty million solar panels, thirty million square meters plus the needed infrastructure, maintenance... for one measly small nuclear power plant.
Wind is not better. Hydraulic is okay, but most countries have run out of space to make dams. Geothermal is very limited.
The environmental cost to do solar at scale is often overlooked, perhaps as great a sin as obscuring the “true cost” of fossil fuels. The cost of production (strip mining, heavy manufacturing), emplacement (concrete, steel, shipping, land clearing), and short lifespan are easily overlooked when the ideal vision seems so juicy. It’s great to augment a house (assuming you own one) with panels, though without substantial subsidies or disposable income in more northern climes the math still doesn’t pencil out as a good return when compared to natural gas. If your only alternative is imported diesel/heating oil, maybe different story, but of course in such places the carbon cost of TCO goes up in tandem with the benefits.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...