SECProto

> Lol, like it's some sort of psy-op. I dont check hackernews that often

No, my point was that it's pure coincidence I saw the message at all. I didnt even remember what the thread was about because it'd been so long, and your comment didnt really seem to be responding to mine.

> My point was that banks are pushing one factor, just the phone, by requiring you to use your phone number or their app as the 'second factor'. I don't know which banks you can use without a phone number in the US.

Fair enough, I dont have the experience with it. Banks in Canada certainly want 2fa, with the offered factors being phone, app, or email. Using email as the second factor works just fine and one doesn't need their app or a phone at all.

Regardless, that is only needed to do online banking - you can go in to the branch without a phone or email or app and do any banking you want.

Not sure why you waited 8 days to respond to a comment, and your response is a bit of a non-sequitur. That said..

I was simply stating you can perform banking without a phone. You can check your email (or do your banking) on a phone... But you can do it on a desktop computer just as easily.

I was responding to the thread, which is comparing nuclear to natural gas.

Comparing to renewables is a different story - it can be done but it's much more complex (not dispatchable, seasonally variable) but certainly renewables makes sense in some or many places, (and in all places for a portion of the supply). I'm all in favour as long as it is actually done with the intent of getting to zero CO2, and doesn't just stall when it gets to the more difficult part of the transition. So many places get to 50% annual generation as renewable and throw up their hands about the remainder and leave it on coal/oil/natural gas

The one thing that low carbon grids around the world share is high portion of nuclear (or hydro, which you can't build unless it naturally exists). Therefore, the only thing a SMR cost should be compared to is other nuclear reactors. Natural Gas may be cheaper (startup cost), may be more expensive (ongoing fuel), or will definitely be more expensive (carbon in the atmosphere doesn't go away), but regardless there is no reason to compare nuclear to natgas.

Certainly you can use those, but they're not mandatory (here in Canada at least). Can easily get a card and use physical bank and ATM to do everything, and website logins use email as 2fa.

I'd note that south or southeast would work, even southwest might. But East would clearly lead to the Netherlands. (they may also eat better bread there too, I wouldn't know)

I would note that the population increase 2008-present in the EU (340M to 350M) is much lower than the US (305M to 345M), which could account for a rather significant difference too. I don't think either of these is a "smoking gun" but they both seem pretty significant confounding factors.

> Here's a graph of total freight volume (a proxy for the real physical economy)

In 2008, people and businesses were still buying new computers every year or two, printing everything on paper, buying physical media. I don't know anyone that does this anymore. I don't think that is a good proxy.

> Can anyone defend this? Why would anyone purchase anything from this company ever again?

I mean, if you want my personal reason - I assume any company warranty is barely worth the paper it's printed on - I'm very hesitant to do a bios update ever, only to address specific issues. So yea, I'd buy another framework (currently have a 12, and I love it despite the many flaws)

> Planes still need like half throttle to maintain altitude,

Yes, bit less than half, but anyway that is exactly why I said takeoff would be the peak power output.

> that’s why airplane engines are rebuilt every few thousand hours vs lasting hundreds of thousands of miles (tens of thousands of hours) for a car engine that only uses a small fraction of its power to keep a car moving.

Ratio of max power to average power is very low on the list of reasons why a gas turbine engined plane needs maintenance more frequently than a piston engined car.

> Those are still mostly dependent on fossil fuels, although they use less.

I don't think the word "mostly" belongs in that sentence - "partially" might work.

It depends significantly on how far you drive - I know 4 people with Plug-in hybrids. They all use ~0 fossil fuels most of the time, and only have to fill their gas tank when they go on a longer driving trip (roughly every 4-6 weeks or whatever). Considering how fuel inefficient city driving is, it's enough to eliminate at least half, maybe 2/3 of their fuel consumption.

> I'd guess the actual flight time was only 10 of the 27 minutes, 30 kWh used over 10 minutes is 300kW of peak power

I would note this line from the press release:

> its all-electric propulsion system delivered more than one megawatt of power.

I assume this was peak during takeoff.