I prefer Thunderbird. It doesn't need the app password for Gmail. With a bit of effort to you can make it auto open and close via scheduled commands to do a daily sync, or just leave it open.
Wikipedia has a table that still puts both above nuclear with rooftop solar at 440 per PWh and wind at 150 per PWh. (Doesn’t include other solar and I haven’t dug deep to verify those numbers.)
You need more solar panels to get the same amount of energy. So since all the practical risk factors in nuclear apply to solar, and solar requires more activity, we'd expect solar to have more deaths per energy unit.
That said, neither nuclear or solar really kills anyone per TWh, so solar might score better by statistical fluke since the variances are so low.
I personally suspect that we don't count sunburn -> skin cancer deaths from solar. If we did, the radiation risks would ironically be higher for it than for nuclear power. Still basically 0 though.
No we aren't. I compare carbon emissions to wind and solar all the time. Nuclear's on par with wind, 4x lower carbon than solar PV, 40x lower than natural gas, 80x lower than coal.
Wind has a 35% capacity factor in the US, nuclear has 90%. Solar has 25%
Wind and solar capital cost is 4x lower than nuclear right now, thanks to the fact that they're at low generation fractions and have lots of fracked gas and hydro to integrate their variability. As generation fraction goes up, their cost goes up non-linearly. Nuclear cost is terrible right now. Some people are trying to bring it down, but no great progress yet. In 10-20 years when 20 countries have 20% or more variable renewables, nuclear will probably start looking really good again for deeply decarbonizing.
And nuclear roughly as few (and probably a little bit fewer) people than wind and solar per kWh generated, all of which are orders of magnitude safer than fossil. People fall off roofs installing solar panels and wind turbines catch fire and sometimes do ice-throw.
Many people who are interested in nuclear energy see it as a replacement for forms of energy that add carbon to the atmosphere. During normal operations (discarding commissioning and decommissioning) none of the three add significant carbon.
Get an 8 bit microcontroller dev board for a few bucks and learn how to control the peripherals. AVR are good and there is a lot of material online to learn from. Sorry I don't know any books.
You can't stop it. Even if Brexit was reversed - which I doubt even possible - Britain has been shown to be a source of political risk. That isn't going away.
the question isn't if the EU still wants the UK (but that it's unlikely that in the current local political internal climate and the opposition it isn't likely. Though certainly legally possible.
Of course you can stop it. UK Parliament would just need to annul the Article 50 withdrawal bill. But the question is whether there is the political will to do so.
It's very tricky because Brexiteers/Remainers cut across both Labour and the Tories and yet the party members are expected to toe the party line. Which results in an impasse.
The complete agreement of every EU nation is required to un-invoke article 50, because there are no provisions for it. Now, they'd likely do it, but that isn't a certainty, especially as the UK arguably gets a lot more out of the EU than most other member states relative to investment.
Britain held a referendum - one which probably shouldn’t have been held as it was, but it’s too late to hand-wring about that now. But the way in which the outcome is being executed is absolutey shameful and there are a number of things which could be done:
- the referendum outcome could be fulfilled by formally withdrawing from the EU while retaining most of the machinery involved - single market membership in particular.
- The UK government could make a clear and achievable proposal for what a post-Brexit relationship with the EU might look like. They had a stab at this, but the outcome failed to be either clear or achievable.
- The UK government could pledge to hold a second referendum once the end state of UK-EU relations is more clearly known. This fulfills any objections over democratic representation.
Any of these would be far better and far less cliff-edge than the current policy.
Interesting viewpoint. I had considered a second referendum politically impossible in the sense of acceptance by the polity. Not in the sense of democratically existentially impossible.
But it seems (maybe this is some sort of positivity bias on my part) a second referendum is becoming more politically acceptable in both aforementioned senses. Though it'd be nice, if that never happens, if "someone" would fall on their sword for a second referendum, as really I think that's the only really democratic way forward.
> I had considered a second referendum politically impossible in the sense of acceptance by the polity.
I agree in principle. That is what should be.
I believe that we live in dangerous times. The political centre (e.g. labour & tories in the UK) is in dire straits in Europe and the US. Any action that puts strain into the democratic process, I'm afraid will be in advantage of the misanthropic, xenophobic warmongering groups. I'm afraid a new referendum might catapult the UKIP from ~2% to 5% or 10% turning it, much like the AfD, the third political power in the UK. Might sound a bit out of touch now, but historically, will not be the first time something like that happens in a country. What fuels these changes is the delegitimisation of existing democratic processes and organisations by those in position of power.
Democracy is a fragile flower. Takes months, sometimes years to grow but seconds to destroy.
The people most vocal before the referendum (such as Nigel Farage) resigned after they "won" and admitted most of the pro-brexit campaign was bullshit (such as NHS funding). This was very much a con many people would like to reverse.
But there's no referendum on that. My main point is that the referendum wasn't very sensible and should probably always have had two stages. X = "What kind of Brexit do we want" then "remain vs. X". I expect "hard Brexit" vs. remain would have gone the other way, for example.
And the way to rectify this is to have a referendum on the reality of the eventual deal vs. the reality of the status quo.
Nobody thinks otherwise, but “the country will continue to exist” is a pretty low bar to achieve. I’m much more concerned about a massive spike in prices, people leaving the country, and difficulty importing and exporting goods.
A democratic referendum can be rigged by the emotions ruling at the moment of said referendum. You'd think if it would be repeated it would get the same outcome?
Well, in my opinion the "people who know our best interests" are the ones who sold Brexit as the new solution for everything, skipping the true nature of it.
This is important enough that you want to get it right, which means you want most voters absolutely sure they want the outcome. Take three votes over five years to be sure. A one-off referendum with an issue of this magnitude is like voting for a party once and then having it stay in power forever.
It’s strange how a referendum on a totally unknown outcome is considered democracy, whereas another referendum once the terms of the deal become known would be a “gross mockery of democracy” to quote May.
Is the will of the people only applicable when people can’t even know what they’re asked?
If there was another vote to reverse the Brexit-decision and people voted for that in majority, you could stop the madness and accept the results. Things change. Being stubborn is rarely the best option.
... a referendum in which none of the outcomes were properly understood by anyone voting leave. running it again when the exit deal has been qualified is the only democratic way to do this.
It's missed the boat for being the first long range affordable EV. Hyundai got there first with the Kona, which has the range of the more expensive Model 3 Long Range but at the price of the cheaper Short Range one.
Don't get me wrong, the M3 is okay as a stripped down sporty hatchback, but the $35k model is looking a bit basic and overpriced already.
That may not be necessarily the case. Hyundai is having issues with producing an appropriate amount of battery packs[0] and it's not planning on delivering more than 2500 units to Norway in 2018. I don't think they're planning to sell more than 25k overall this year.
Sure the Model 3 is considerably less affordable, but it has scale[2].
Can you point at a source giving a similar range to the Model 3 Long Range? I googled and I found that the US EPA numbers are quite different: Kona Long Range 250, Kona short range ~166, Model 3 Long Range 334, Model 3 Standard ~220.
Well, 40 and 64kW batteries in Kona compared to 50 and 75 in Model 3. Plus Kona is only available in 24 weeks according to their website, so 6 month wait.
The Model 3 is looking a bit over priced now, with cars like the Kona and coming Lead 64 offering similar features, performance and better range for less money.
GM already sells an EV (Bolt), so there are less expensive options out their today. Nothing matches the Model 3's combination of performance, price, styling, and driving experience.
I have the same experience working in an office job. The best thing I have found is to carefully manage my energy to avoid the boom/bust cycle, but it's only partially effective.
The best thing would be to simply work less hours. Say 28/week, but they would all be good high productivity ones. Unfortunately it would be a massive pay cut too, because employers don't think that way.
The only way I’ve been able to handle this is by being self-employed. That way, when I needed to sleep for 5 hours after lunch it was up to me.
Now that I know I have celiac and can manage it by avoiding gluten, I just have chronic pain and inability to eat without not all of the autoimmune madness. This is a lot less uncomfortable but I am surprisingly almost as unable to work fully.
My crohn days are over (at least for the diagnosis), but I'm with you on this one. I follow a strict schedule with eating and then just sit around (this usually means breakfast at 7am and then waiting an hour and a half, similar thing for lunch), but whenever an empoyer comes up with "team breakfast" or "early standups" I'm in a difficult situation.
My schedule in the undiagnosed celiac days was to get up, and only drink coffee instead of breakfast since food made me intensely exhausted. Then I had good productivity until lunch. After lunch it was a tossup whether I’d be basically okay, a little slowed down, feeling like a nap, or incredibly exhausted and feeling like I was dying. At some point I found that drinking only alcohol for lunch left me feeling less horrible than food, on average, and that was puzzling, somewhat convenient and not helpful.
Work gatherings based around food are a huge problem, now and then, in several ways. For various reasons, I always got felt sick after eating at restaurants.
You still have fatigue after eating even after avoiding gluten - is that from residual damage?
I'm curious because I have similar fatigue symptoms. But I had stopped eating wheat, so I had assumed it wasn't celiac. (Can't test without doing a gluten challenge)
But I completely agree that being self employed is the best way to handle this, and also that it is a major setback to productivity. My symptoms have improved in the past eight months or so and it's felt like an incredible blessing to simply have some normal days.
I have some sort of condition that makes me unable to swallow solid food - after I swallow it. We don’t know what it is yet. It is similar to achalasia or diffuse esophageal spasm. It could be from damage from celiac, or it could be it’s own thing. I don’t have the insane immune reactions to food anymore, which caused most of my fatigue, but I still have constant pain, headaches, regurgitation after eating. I’m slowly starving because I simply cannot eat enough food to stay healthy, which leaves me very low in energy. I’m now just barely at a healthy weight, at 18 BMI.
There is something called refractory celiac, which is permanent digestive damage. My mother had that and much of her small bowel had to be excised. I may have that issue. I’ve recently been to the hospital and have a few biopsies pending.
Yep. At my current place HR allowed me to go and see the doctor if I tell them well in advance and overwork the missing hours.
Funny thing is that I'm very diligent and if they asked me how I feel about _helping them out on the project_ I would've gladly tried to stay longer whenever the pain allowed me to do so, but this way it felt like a slap in the face.
One technique I have found works is to do incorporate your own open source code into your work. Then when they want to see samples you have commercial quality code that isn't company property.
> What was in it for the foundation to get rid of her sooner?
It just occured to me just now that this has some similarities to technical debt:
- The costs to the individual employees are a lot more obvious to those individuals than the costs to the organization as a whole are to the leadership.
- The costs to the organization are both real but hard to quantify: Higher turnover, missed opportunities because staff don't have breathing space to think about seizing them, decreased ability to execute on goals. The costs to the organization of solving it are much more tangible: an immediate and sharp hit to the ability to execute on some things right now. Its easy for someone to argue that it is too costly to solve and hard to push back on that.
- Requires leadership to be able to recognize the symptoms of the problem, to keep open communication channels that would let diagnostic information bubble up, to acknowledge that there is a tangible cost to taking action but agree that its worth it to avoid the larger hidden costs, and to actually take that action.
I suspect there is probably a good essay to be written (or which has been written) which defines this category of organizational rot and fleshes out the specific leadership habits that are needed to notice and fix it.
As long as there was no actual expensive lawsuits and publicity wasn't too bad, it sounds like she was a major net contributor. What was in it for the foundation to get rid of her sooner?
From an ethical standpoint, the well-being of their other employees? From a business standpoint, missing out on great hires or exactly the situation they find themselves in now?
I am not sure why the above comment is getting downvotes but seems like a valid question to ask.
Extraordinary people need extraordinary compensation. Maybe pissing off a few people is part of compensation and company has no problem with that as she is worth 100 such people she is gonna piss off.
The reason this is problematic is that it downplays the risk associated with the behavior. It's a form of short-term thinking that emphasizes the immediate gains over the longer term losses.
This article may possibly impact the business longer-term and the hidden opportunity costs they have already experienced are both harder to quantify and also really costly.
It also assumes that you couldn't find someone just as effective with good people management skills as well. I personally think it is a myth that someone is irreplaceable unless you make them irreplaceable. If you do that then you deserve the fallout for when that irreplaceable person becomes a liability.
This foundation is likely now opened up to lawsuites, a reputational hit, and potential loss of business. Can they weather it? Probably. Did they have to weather it? No.
