brrt

Sure, you were right.

But if you had been wrong and we would now have had superintelligence, the upside for its owners would presumably be great.

... Or at least that's the hypothesis. As a matter of fact intelligence is only somewhat useful in the real world :-)

Have you heard about xenon poisoning? Load following with a nuclear power plant is much more complex than it seems

Natural gas, from the Slochteren gas field, was the cheapest way to heat a home for the past 60 years. It's probably not so anymore, considering the Slochteren field is mostly shut down.

The city heating network operator is a monopoly, that is why the price is capped.

Even though city heating networks utilize 'waste heat', the capital cost of the network is significant. The price cap and the capital costs (especially now with higher interest rates) led to many proposed projects being cancelled in recent years.

I'm from the Netherlands and

> The imported junk we get from Netherlands is abysmal compared to anything grown locally, and the reality is that we want the good stuff for ourselves, not the tourists.

This hurts, and it's absolutely true.

Makes me wonder why we spend so much in subsidies for the dutch tomato growers, if nobody actually likes eating them.

For what it's worth, I get them in the supermarket, grown in spain, if at all possible.

If you tolerate this, then your children will be next....

The critical point of hydrogen is 33.2 K, that is Kelvin, or -240 degrees celsius. Any higher temperature than that, hydrogen is not a liquid, and exerts pressure on the walls of its container. ... so, you have the choice of making a very strong container, or a very well-isolated one, preferably both. But probably not a lightweight container, which is what you'd prefer.

Also, there's Leibniz, for Newton :-)

I don't understand what measure of efficiency you are trying to use, in which Diesel would end up being better.

In environmental discussions that measure is usually something of grams-of-CO2-equivalent emitted per km. One oddity is that the usually communicated figure is only that emittted 'at the tailpipe', which is obviously zero for full electrics. Often people try to compensate by taking the kWh-per-km figure and multiplying by the CO2-per-kWh figure for their environment. This is however still misleading if compared with the tailpipe CO2 for an ICE, because the production of gasoline or diesel are also fairly CO2-intensive.

The official term of use is well-to-wheel efficiency or emissions; there is no doubt at all that electric vehicles beat ICE vehicles easily, basically on account of the ICE being relatively inefficient because of size/performance constraints.

Obviously the actually interesting figure of merit is the lifetime emissions (and the 'useful work' gained from those emissions) and while methods and tools to compute this exist computing this in a reasonable way means making a lot of assumptions (such as the miles-per-lifetime), assumptions that will be easily attacked on internet fora, and assumptions that can easily be tweaked to show what you want to show.

The reality is that (full) electric vehicles are practical and efficient for most of the population today, if not in the very near future, and that it's hard to imagine that the current dependency on oil will last very long. Ten years is a long time.

... in which the state still owns roughly 30% of what there is to own. (Source: Pikkety)

I guess the incarceration rate would be a good candidate too

LuaJIT is an example of what happens if you do this right :-)

No horse in the race, but:

- The Rust compiler uses the LLVM backend, which is generally more aggressive about optimizations and code generation. The Go compiler is a custom compiler (I think plan 9 inherited) and as of fairly recently didn't do some optimizations that are fairly common otherwise (non-leaf inlining).

- Rust as a language heavily favors automatic (stack) allocation, and does not favor complex object graphs, so that will often help make algorithms more cache-friendly. In go, stack allocation is strictly an optimization. This is somewhat defeated by the common use of 'smart' pointer types.

- Due to using segmented stacks, the function prologue/epilogue is a bit more involved in go, than it is in a language like rust.

So with rust, it is - with some work - possible to have code that executes as the equivalent C code would. I guess in go you could too, but it'd be quite a bit harder, and go against the grain of the language.

Compared to the performance of a typical interpreted dynamic language, this is a fairly marginal difference however.

Thank you for that link! That does look like it is a very similar IR structure indeed. Very interesting.