It’s still only a few reps.

So it seems Iran overstated the accuracy of their missiles and Israel understated how many got through.

“Create an Haitian cooking a tabby cat in a spit fire, the background should look like a typical Ohio town”

And the capital gathered through this automation won’t redistribute itself to keep people fed without a fight.

Oh the units conversion looks promising. Might replace Ultra Measure Master for me. I think it doesn’t quite work yet.

Is the author’s username a play on “jerkoff”? No his name is Jost Herkenhoff.

Oh this is an interesting argument.

Posting this further up for visibility.

Maybe I’m stupid but there’s this table:

It seems like they’re not just counting the combustion emissions in that number.

Then there’s also this, which explicitly talks about fuel development emissions:

The carbon-dioxide emissions just from combustion are substantially greater for coal, 99 g CO2/MJ versus 55 g CO2/MJ for LNG. Total carbon-dioxide emissions from coal, including emissions from developing and transporting the fuel, are also greater than for LNG, but the difference is less, 102.4 g CO2/MJ for coal versus 83.1 g CO2/MJ for LNG (Table 4). This is because of greater energy costs and, therefore, higher emissions of carbon dioxide for developing and transporting the LNG compared with coal. Methane emissions for LNG are substantially larger than for coal, 76.5 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for LNG compared with only 17.3 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for coal (Table 4). As presented in Section 2, this result for methane emissions for coal is quite robust across regions, including China and Poland.55, 56 Consequently, total greenhouse gas emissions are 33% larger for LNG than for coal for the cases of average tanker-cruise lengths, 160 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for LNG versus 120 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for coal (Table 4).

Did you look at the paper or am I grossly misunderstanding something?

Maybe I’m stupid but I don’t see that in the abstract. I just see a GWP_20 potential for coal in the abstract. Further down there’s this table:

It seems like they’re not just counting the combustion emissions in that number.

Then there’s also this, which explicitly talks about fuel development emissions:

The carbon-dioxide emissions just from combustion are substantially greater for coal, 99 g CO2/MJ versus 55 g CO2/MJ for LNG. Total carbon-dioxide emissions from coal, including emissions from developing and transporting the fuel, are also greater than for LNG, but the difference is less, 102.4 g CO2/MJ for coal versus 83.1 g CO2/MJ for LNG (Table 4). This is because of greater energy costs and, therefore, higher emissions of carbon dioxide for developing and transporting the LNG compared with coal. Methane emissions for LNG are substantially larger than for coal, 76.5 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for LNG compared with only 17.3 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for coal (Table 4). As presented in Section 2, this result for methane emissions for coal is quite robust across regions, including China and Poland.55, 56 Consequently, total greenhouse gas emissions are 33% larger for LNG than for coal for the cases of average tanker-cruise lengths, 160 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for LNG versus 120 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for coal (Table 4).

Did you look at the paper or am I grossly misunderstanding something?

It is marketing and it does have meaningful connection to the litho features, but the connection is not absolute. For example Samsung’s 5nm is noticeably more power hungry than TSMC’s 5nm.

And for whom?

Great news for EU auto workers!

Is this true? Can someone cross-check it?

Doesn’t uBlock Origin already have a Manifest V3 version of the extension?

/s

To add a concrete example to this, I worked at a bank during a migration from a VMware operated private cloud (own data center) to OpenStack. In several years, the OpenStack cloud got designed, operationalised, tested and ready for production. In the following years some workloads moved to OpenStack. Most didn’t. 6 years after the beginning of the whole hullabaloo the bank cancelled the migration program and decided they’ll keep the VMware infrastructure intact and upgrade it. They began phasing out OpenStack. If you’re in North America, you know this bank. Broadcom can probably extract 1000% price increase and still run that DC in a decade.

Why would MS not use this opportunity to also hike the prices of their equivalent offerings? 1000% increase leaves a lot of room for an increase while still being cheaper.

I’ve seen the numbers and heard the commentary about it but I’ve tried to stay away from hearing/seeing actual individuals’ words.

Good. It’s not like the extra margin from eliminating this labor would be passed down to the rest of us. This way the money goes into labor and a significant chunk from this labor to the rest of us, through taxes and spending. Those jobs should be automated when no union labor wants to do them anymore.

Yes, it was a mistake to look. 😮‍💨

Holy shirt balls that comment section.