Morphit

And then there’s shit like this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Standard-Computer-Quieter2-Quieter2Q-Quieter2D-Black/dp/B099RXXDYT

if you want to use it on the third part mini pc,confirm that the output voltage of your mini pc needs 12V. If the output voltage is lower or higher than 12V and the output current exceed 2A, it will burn your mini pc or cpu.

It’s important for objects that can be dereferenced. Smart pointers have methods that can be accessed with dot syntax like swap(). You can still dereference through a smart pointer using arrow syntax to access methods on the referenced type since they overload the operator->() method.

The full ten months of the year?

That’s the BBC criticising Apple for indiscriminately mangling all notifications with AI, like news headlines. The BBC could boycott the Apple platform, but that’s basically their only lever to stop Apple doing this besides asking nicely.

Well read the BBC article on this then: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0elzk24dno

It’s an iPhone ‘feature’ that summarises a bunch of notifications into one. It took a set of BBC headlines and turned them into “Luigi Mangione shoots himself…” They don’t list the article that was being summarised so I don’t know what the original headline was.

Already done of course

I didn’t recognise the ‘10 seconds of human consideration’ claim. I found this ProPublica report on it: How Cigna Saves Millions by Having Its Doctors Reject Claims Without Reading Them

There a former Cigna doctor says “It takes all of 10 seconds to do 50 at a time.” They claim to have seen documents for a two month period that put the average at 1.2 seconds per review. That’s using a specific review system that processed 300,000 claims over that period.

They don’t mention if there were other claims processed with different methods but still, the OP article seemed to be generous with that claim.

I don’t know what the “90%-error-rate AI” claim is about though. It’d be nice if the sources were actually cited.

Yeah, they’re a burgers & spies joint.

Too right. They wanted to show off the design of the Apple I so much, they didn’t even put a case around it. It’s all about the aesthetics with Woz.

I expect (hope) it’s a small factor, but I wonder where pedestrian fatalities fit in. Several of the worst models seem to be large SUVs or sports cars - alongside these Teslas and some rather cheaper compact cars.

Go to the actual report. There is one table for the top fatalities by vehicle model and another for the top average fatalities by manufacturer.

As a note, it looks like the data they used is publicly available from the NHTSA. They mention that “models not in production as of the 2024 model year, and low-volume models were removed from further analysis.” I wonder where the Hummer and Rivian show up there since they are not mentioned in the report whatsoever.

Yeah the Rolling Stone article is written really weirdly. I don’t think it’s technically wrong anywhere but it reads really misleadingly when you compare it to the actual report.

Like it leads with “the group identified the Tesla Model S and Tesla Model Y as two of the most dangerous cars” - meaning they are in the list - at sixth and twenty first places respectively. The mix is really weird though. As you mention the top of the list is cars like the Chevy Corvette and Porsche 911, but also things like the Mitsubishi Mirage and a load of Kia models. So it seems like there’s a lot to interpret there.

Certainly it’s somewhat damning that despite the driver assistant technology, these models are not particularly safer. But I think other manufactures have a wide range of vehicles at different price points that also vary in safety, which brings their averages below Tesla’s in the final rankings.

For thin clients?

“abbabba”

“abbabba” doesn’t match the original regex but “abbaabba” does

It’s Cannonical. They prefer implementing everything themselves fast, rather than developing a more sustainable project with the rest of the community over a longer timescale. When they do that, there will be very little buy-in from the wider community.

Others could technically implement another snap store for their own distro, but they’d have to build a lot of the backend that Cannonical didn’t release. It’s easier to use Flatpak or AppImage or whatever rather than hitch themselves onto Cannonicals’s homegrown solution that might get abandoned down the line like Mir or Ubuntu Touch.

It’s Cannonical. They prefer implementing everything themselves fast, rather than developing a more sustainable project with the rest of the community over a longer timescale. It makes sense that when they do that, there will be very little buy-in from the wider community. Much like Unity and Mir.

As you say - why would others put time into the less supported system? Better alternatives exist. If Canonical want their own software ecosystem, they’ll have to maintain it themselves. Which, based on Mir and Ubuntu Touch, they don’t have a good track record of.

They’re not converting it back into electricity, this is for industrial process heat. They have 100 units of electrical energy and 98 units go into whatever the industry needs to heat.

Lots of industries use ovens, kilns or furnaces. Mostly fueled by gas at the moment. Using electricity would be very expensive unless they can timeshift usage and get low spot prices. Since they need heat anyway, thermal storage is pretty cheap and efficient.

It’s heat though. They’re turning electricity into heat then moving that heat to where it’s needed, when it’s needed. Making heat from electricity is nearly 100% efficient, and pumping losses for moving fluids are going to be tiny compared to the the amount of heat they can move. They quote the heat loss in storage seperately as 1% per day. It seems reasonable.