Miscellaneous Tech News
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
While I'm against the insane amount of energy needed for crypto's creation/use,
Or you could support a move to more energy production through renewable resources.
There is plenty of energy available if governments stop listening to the legacy industry lobbyists and actually focus on helping renewables instead of legislating against it.
-
@JaredBusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
While I'm against the insane amount of energy needed for crypto's creation/use,
Or you could support a move to more energy production through renewable resources.
There is plenty of energy available if governments stop listening to the legacy industry lobbyists and actually focus on helping renewables instead of legislating against it.
This is definitely true - but it's highly expensive to do so... and I don't want the government paying for. I want free enterprise to pay for it.
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@JaredBusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
While I'm against the insane amount of energy needed for crypto's creation/use,
Or you could support a move to more energy production through renewable resources.
There is plenty of energy available if governments stop listening to the legacy industry lobbyists and actually focus on helping renewables instead of legislating against it.
This is definitely true - but it's highly expensive to do so... and I don't want the government paying for. I want free enterprise to pay for it.
Generally more expensive in the wrong ways and far less reliable. Nuclear is really the best.
Renewable can work to meet energy demand if done right and with redundancy.
-
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Generally more expensive in the wrong ways and far less reliable. Nuclear is really the best.
Here here!
-
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nuclear is really the best.
It's not.
Perhaps it's the most efficient, but at what cost? -
@nadnerB said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
but at what cost?
It depends on where you need the power and what is available.
Ideally, you'd have hydro-electric from a source such as a dam that didn't harm the environment. But that isn't doable everywhere. Wind and solar just suck, typically worse for the environment than others. Nuclear is by far the most reliable, efficient, and best for the environment. Your amount of waste by nuclear power over your entire lifetime, plus some, can fit inside a soda can under your desk.
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@JaredBusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
While I'm against the insane amount of energy needed for crypto's creation/use,
Or you could support a move to more energy production through renewable resources.
There is plenty of energy available if governments stop listening to the legacy industry lobbyists and actually focus on helping renewables instead of legislating against it.
This is definitely true - but it's highly expensive to do so... and I don't want the government paying for. I want free enterprise to pay for it.
It's not expensive, just stop giving legacy energy companies massive discounts and tax advantages like 70%cost accrual being allowed within the first year of drilling.
-
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@marcinozga said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
At least one country is doing the right thing. Mining crypto is just a waste of energy.
It sounds more like an excuse, to ban crypto to force everyone to use their government's currency, blaming it on electricity waste.
This will not go well.
Of course it is. But this actually has a good outcome for humanity.
-
@nadnerB said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nuclear is really the best.
It's not.
Perhaps it's the most efficient, but at what cost?Done correctly, very little cost. So much fuel can be recycled that there is so little waste (this is assuming 100% of power production is switched to nuclear) that a single Falcon9 could launch it all into the sun.
A modern nuclear reactor is so much safer than what just about everyone thinks. Modern designs just won't melt down. I'm not sure about Australia, but in the US we haven't modernized much at all yet, so the nuclear currently in production are all basically Fukushima's waiting to happen
-
@travisdh1 Well yeah, but this is also because the nuclear systems that are in place were designed some decades ago. With relatively little consideration for a melt down.
If new nuclear was built it would be substantially safer to operate.
The issue with this is still the waste, that has to be stored for hundreds of years waiting for the half-lifes to diminish to 0.
Solar, wind and Thermal are the options that any reasonable person should be looking at, not nuclear - due to the waste product, and certainly not gas/oil/coal.
-
@travisdh1 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@nadnerB said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nuclear is really the best.
It's not.
Perhaps it's the most efficient, but at what cost?Done correctly, very little cost. So much fuel can be recycled that there is so little waste (this is assuming 100% of power production is switched to nuclear) that a single Falcon9 could launch it all into the sun.
A modern nuclear reactor is so much safer than what just about everyone thinks. Modern designs just won't melt down. I'm not sure about Australia, but in the US we haven't modernized much at all yet, so the nuclear currently in production are all basically Fukushima's waiting to happen
I'm sure that's because of the cost - Plus the fact that it take 10+ years to get approval for this shit.
-
@travisdh1 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@nadnerB said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nuclear is really the best.
It's not.
Perhaps it's the most efficient, but at what cost?Done correctly, very little cost. So much fuel can be recycled that there is so little waste (this is assuming 100% of power production is switched to nuclear) that a single Falcon9 could launch it all into the sun.
I'm wondering if the reason they don't do this, want to do this is because of the chances of the rocket blowing up, and now we have radioactive material spread over 100's if not 1000's of miles.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@travisdh1 Well yeah, but this is also because the nuclear systems that are in place were designed some decades ago. With relatively little consideration for a melt down.
If new nuclear was built it would be substantially safer to operate.
The issue with this is still the waste, that has to be stored for hundreds of years waiting for the half-lifes to diminish to 0.
Solar, wind and Thermal are the options that any reasonable person should be looking at, not nuclear - due to the waste product, and certainly not gas/oil/coal.
This is the problem our entire infrastructure suffers - we don't continue to pour the trillions into it needs to be updated - forget about maintained.
When we were first building roads/bridges, etc - we had nothing, so the benefit was massive, beyond massive! But updating, the benefits are much less in your face, getting people behind the spending of trillions is significantly harder because those people already see working things. it's not like we are building new floating highways that will provide some massive new function we don't have today, or reduce costs to the public at large with these upgrades.
So I can see the plight. -
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@travisdh1 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@nadnerB said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nuclear is really the best.
It's not.
Perhaps it's the most efficient, but at what cost?Done correctly, very little cost. So much fuel can be recycled that there is so little waste (this is assuming 100% of power production is switched to nuclear) that a single Falcon9 could launch it all into the sun.
I'm wondering if the reason they don't do this, want to do this is because of the chances of the rocket blowing up, and now we have radioactive material spread over 100's if not 1000's of miles.
Nope. Cost is the most important factor. We can safely store all the waste on earth for next to nothing. And it's really hard to get a rocket launched directly into the sun. It involves multiple gravity assist flybys by Venus and Mercury. It would actually be easier to launch it towards Jupiter or Saturn and use their gravity to head into the sun.
-
@coliver said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@black3dynamite said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/03/ubuntu-new-installer-designs
Is it just me, or is it that no matter how hard all Linux desktops try, it's still like the 90s compared to Win10.
Just you. Windows 10 and most modern *nix distributions look very similar. They all share very similar UI elements that could easily move between operating systems.
But we need desktop OSes for using apps, not for using UI elements.
Unfortunately, Linux still can't match Windows in number of desktop apps. It is still far more difficult to develop and support desktop app for Linux, then for Windows -
@coliver said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@black3dynamite said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/03/ubuntu-new-installer-designs
Is it just me, or is it that no matter how hard all Linux desktops try, it's still like the 90s compared to Win10.
Just you. Windows 10 and most modern *nix distributions look very similar. They all share very similar UI elements that could easily move between operating systems.
I'll agree in principal, but I'm going with @Obsolesce on this one (granted it's been 2+ years since I've looked at Cinnamon and other others). They just don't seem to have the spit and polish that Windows and MacOS have.
Of course, some of you completely disagree and think they look way better than Windows. Personally, the last time I loaded one up, I just hated the icons.
-
@Mario-Jakovina said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@coliver said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@black3dynamite said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/03/ubuntu-new-installer-designs
Is it just me, or is it that no matter how hard all Linux desktops try, it's still like the 90s compared to Win10.
Just you. Windows 10 and most modern *nix distributions look very similar. They all share very similar UI elements that could easily move between operating systems.
But we need desktop OSes for using apps, not for using UI elements.
Unfortunately, Linux still can't match Windows in number of desktop apps. It is still far more difficult to develop and support desktop app for Linux, then for WindowsIs that actually true? and if so, what makes it so?
-
@Mario-Jakovina said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@coliver said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@black3dynamite said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/03/ubuntu-new-installer-designs
Is it just me, or is it that no matter how hard all Linux desktops try, it's still like the 90s compared to Win10.
Just you. Windows 10 and most modern *nix distributions look very similar. They all share very similar UI elements that could easily move between operating systems.
But we need desktop OSes for using apps, not for using UI elements.
Unfortunately, Linux still can't match Windows in number of desktop apps. It is still far more difficult to develop and support desktop app for Linux, then for WindowsI have to disagree here. The majority of people only need a web browser today.
-
@travisdh1 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Mario-Jakovina said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@coliver said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@black3dynamite said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/03/ubuntu-new-installer-designs
Is it just me, or is it that no matter how hard all Linux desktops try, it's still like the 90s compared to Win10.
Just you. Windows 10 and most modern *nix distributions look very similar. They all share very similar UI elements that could easily move between operating systems.
But we need desktop OSes for using apps, not for using UI elements.
Unfortunately, Linux still can't match Windows in number of desktop apps. It is still far more difficult to develop and support desktop app for Linux, then for WindowsI have to disagree here. The majority of people only need a web browser today.
You know - I hear that a lot. And for home users, it's probably not far off. Between mobile devices (and their apps) and a browser they get along great.
But in an office - how many offices do you know running zero local apps? How many of those could move to a pure browser based existence?
In my case, 80% of people could move to a browser only existence - oh wait, no they can't because we use Dymo printers, which require the Dymo software to be installed to integrate into our web based EMR.
But - You're making me think about potential replacements for softphones - There might be a completely web based softphone out there, never looked. -
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@travisdh1 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Mario-Jakovina said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@coliver said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@black3dynamite said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/03/ubuntu-new-installer-designs
Is it just me, or is it that no matter how hard all Linux desktops try, it's still like the 90s compared to Win10.
Just you. Windows 10 and most modern *nix distributions look very similar. They all share very similar UI elements that could easily move between operating systems.
But we need desktop OSes for using apps, not for using UI elements.
Unfortunately, Linux still can't match Windows in number of desktop apps. It is still far more difficult to develop and support desktop app for Linux, then for WindowsI have to disagree here. The majority of people only need a web browser today.
You know - I hear that a lot. And for home users, it's probably not far off. Between mobile devices (and their apps) and a browser they get along great.
But in an office - how many offices do you know running zero local apps? How many of those could move to a pure browser based existence?
In my case, 80% of people could move to a browser only existence - oh wait, no they can't because we use Dymo printers, which require the Dymo software to be installed to integrate into our web based EMR.
But - You're making me think about potential replacements for softphones - There might be a completely web based softphone out there, never looked./snark To misquote an old Dilbert "Here's $0.05, get yourself a real label printer" /end snark
Yeah, being stuck with something like Dymo sucks, and artificially locks you in.
Every office I deal with could be 100% browser based, and are actually moving that way.
