thechao

I've got one article near me. There's another group of articles that, I guess, are a bit further off? One of them reads like an ad for a creepy park. Luckily, the actual walking time is more like 24 hours. Yay rural Texas?

This reminds me of my favorite arcane C test: what value is TRUE and FALSE on X bullshit tool chain. My a favorite was 0=TRUE, 2=FALSE. I'd like to shake the hand of the joker who came up with that.

I dunno. I vacillated on that. It's something like 45–50 GWh nameplate currently installed, and ERCOT has 177 GW / 371 GWh of active planned battery projects in the interconnection queue. BESS are used for peaker-like capacity and load balancing, so GW is actually a pretty relevant number here.

Here's my theory about modern architectural design. Let's say you've got two students that have to do a final design: (a) chooses a rococo or neoVictorian (humanist design); and, (b) chooses a spare modern design. Both of them are required to draft facades, elevations, etc. The modern design is literally easier to draft — literally less time. That means any school of architecture that both rewards "good grades" and "project completion under pressure" will naturally select for students who like "modern" (brutalist?). Those students then become professors, and the whole system reinforces.

Yeah. The headline is utterly divorced from the reality of the charts?

Absolutely!

Only if the cost of monsanto seed + roundup is less than the cost of regular seed per expected harvested bushel? Otherwise, no one would use the monsanto seed + roundup?

My kids love taking about big numbers. TREE(3) is a family favorite. So, I was going over sequences with them, and I decided to go slow instead. My sequence was: 1 1 1 1 ... 1 ...

They accused me of using just "all 1s" (which is, naturally, cheating). Ai contraire!

The count of the number of digits in the decimal representation of the number of unique primes in the prime factorization of the natural numbers.

The best part is that even pretty young kids can compute this sequence; by the first "2" is at 2*3*5*7*11*13*17*19*23*29!

(Hopefully I got that right; the phone doesn't make it easy to type!)

I am!

That's because we measure weight in tonnage.

If the NTSB claims the car is safe on its interior in terms of certain kinds of crashes, you'd think that geometry & layout of the interior would be part of that claimed specification. That would prevent an A/B problem: the NTSB tests a car with 18" of padding, and the car manufacturer delivers a car with 18mm of padding. Or... whatever. Basically accountability & reproducibility.

I wish overhead (cut away to passenger layout) and side scale drawings of all cars existed. That way you could directly compare the vehicles. You'd think such information would be needed (in the U.S.) by the NTSB; and, thus, be freely available.