I can imagine a setup where multiple series of slower cooler water converging into a faster warmer stream, and the water will extract an equal amount of heat away from all the chips whether upstream or downstream.
I think GPS is essential. Tie it to a location - if stolen, it won't operate.
Then a way to text you if it is moved outside the designated area. Telling you where it is.
At that point, I suppose it would still be worth stealing just for the battery? A hard problem to solve.
The problem with gps is it doesn't work (reliably) under trees which many lawns have. Since trees are common in yards they need something else anyway and at that point you can get rid of the gps
Not super helpful if it doesn't have a way to communicate to the outside world. Some of the companies solve this by adding a cell module that can send an SOS, but it usually requires a monthly/yearly fee to maintain the cell connection.
In my case, my lawn isn't easily accessible and also not visible from the street (because the house and garage is between the street and the garden), and I trust my neighbors. So, I think (I hope) this isn't so much an issue for my case.
I think the eufy has also an optional GPS module just for this purpose, to better track it. I don't think this GPS module has any other purpose (e.g. it would not be used for navigation). But I didn't really checked the details on this.
I have seen this a few times for such robots, that you can buy an optional GPS module for tracking.
I think the appeal is much higher than we think. Apple tried to do the same thing with on-device child porn image recognition. The company that markets itself as the privacy advocate.
How about the UN censuring Iran for not complying with the agreement? Was this a manufactured consensus? I don't see anyone mentioning IAEA's decision here.
You can connect two running grids. Earlier this year the Baltic countries disconnected from the Russian grid, and synchronized and then connected to the European grid.
I imagine you can get close enough by syncing to a shared time source like GPS or the DCF77 signal, as long as you communicate how the phase is supposed to match up to the time source. Or at least you could get close enough that you can then quickly sync the islands the traditional way.
The question is if it's worth the effort and risk. Cold starting a power grid is a once in a lifetime event (at least in Europe, I imagine some grids are less stable) and Spain seems to plan to have everything back up again in 10 hours. Maybe if the entire European grid went down we would attempt something like that by having each country start up on their own, then synchronize and reconnect the European grid over the following week.
Nothing that complicated. You just carefully synchronize the state of the grid on both sides of the interconnect, and when they are perfectly matched, you throw the big switch.
It's a bit difficult in another way: Obviously 50/60hz is not such a high speed that it's difficult to synchronize.
The harder part is this: To pump power into the grid you lead the cycle ever so slightly, as if you were trying to push the cycle to go faster. If instead you lag the phase the grid would be pumping power into you.
That lead is very very small, and probably difficult to measure and synchronize on. I would imagine that when the two grids connect everything jumps just a little as power level equalize, it probably generates a lot of torque and some heat, I would assume it's hard on the generator.
From a physics point of view, by leading the cycle you introduce a tiny voltage difference (squared), divided by the tiny resistance of the entire grid. And that's how many watts (power) you are putting into the grid.
Yes, but that actually makes it harder to start up.
To synchronize the isolated grids, they all need to operate with an exact match of supply and demand. Any grid with an oversupply will run fast, any grid with an undersupply will run slow. When it comes to connecting, the technical source-of-truth doesn't matter: you just need to ensure that there will be a near-zero flow the moment the two are connected - which means both sides must individually be balanced.
And remember: if you are operating a tiny subgrid you have very little control over the load (even a single factory starting up can have a significant impact), and your control over the supply is extremely sluggish. Matching them up can take days, during which each individual subgrid has very little redundancy.
On the other hand, the interconnect essentially acts as a huge buffer. Compared to the small grid being connected, it essentially has infinite source and sink capacity. For practical purposes, it is operating at a fixed speed - any change is averaged out over the entire grid. This makes it way easier to connect an individual power plant (it just has to operate at near-zero load itself, move to meet a fixed frequency target [which is easy because there is no load to resist this change], and after connection take on load as desired) and to reconnect additional load (compared to the whole grid, a city being connected is a rounding error).
I was just reading how fishing industry’s longlines have caught many dolphins and other bycatches. It would be great to be able to give them warnings, or even better, to ask them to keep other big animals away from the longlines.
I know this comment is totally innocent but it does kind of bum me out to be at a point in time where instead of addressing our impact on the environment directly, we're trying to make computers that can talk to dolphins so we can tell them to stay out of the way lol
You don't tend to hear about it and not that there isn't still progress to be made, but there has been tonnes of progress on fisheries interactions with protected bycatch species. For ex the infamous dolphin problem in the eastern tropical Pacific purse seine tuna fishery is down 99.8% from its peak to the point populations are recovering, despite the fishery intentionally setting on dolphin schools to catch > 150,000 t of yellowfin tuna per year.
Pelagic gillnets are probably the gear that still have the most issues with dolphin bycatch, and acoustic pingers that play a loud ultrasonic tone when they detect an echolocation click are already used to reduce interactions in some fisheries.
One of the things I think is amazing is that people will say “here’s a way to make the world better” and others will react with “it’s so sad that you propose making the world better instead of making it perfect”. I think it’s great.
Or, like, we could stop ravaging the oceans by industrial fishing, stop pretending magical technology will save the day, and try to limit our resource consumption to sustainable levels?
Humanity’s relationship with animals is so schizophrenic. On the one hand, let’s try to learn how to talk to cute dolphins and chat with them what it’s like to swim!, and on the other, well yeah that steak on my table may have once lead a subjective experience before it was slaughtered, and mass-farming it wrecks the ecosystem I depend on to live, but gosh it’s so tasty, I can’t give that up!
Humans are omnivores. I am unapologetic about obeying biological imperatives to eat other animals.
At the same time, I want to be as humane as practical; I don’t want to cause needless suffering to any creature. If I kill a bug, I don’t want it to suffer. Same with food animals.
The more like me an animal is, the less I want to eat it.
There are a lot of humans. Any action to forcefully reduce the number of humans or to forcefully reduce birth rates is almost certainly way more morally abhorrent to me, than doing what is necessary to feed those humans.
> Humans are omnivores. I am unapologetic about obeying biological imperatives to eat other animals.
This is akin to saying ''humans are violent, so i am unapologetic about obeying biological imperatives to commit violence''.
So just be honest: you WANT to eat meat because you like it, consequences be damned.
And of course if you truly want to feed as many humans as possible the only solution is vegetarianism or even veganism. Meat is just way too wasteful to be a decent solution.
> And of course if you truly want to feed as many humans as possible the only solution is vegetarianism or even veganism. Meat is just way too wasteful to be a decent solution.
This myth needs to die. Two thirds of all farmland on this planet is pasture [1] that isn’t fertile enough to grow food for humans except by raising animals on it. If we were to switch to a plant based diet, the vast majority of our farmland as a civilization becomes unusable. Most of the world uses animals to generate calories from unproductive land, first via dairy and then slaughtering the animals for food.
Not to mention, animals have been crucial sources of sustainable fertilizer for many thousands of years, without which agriculture would never have been as productive.
Do you also have this negative attitude towards all other non-vegitarian animals, or is it just for humans since they have more capability to cause more ecological harm?
Most importantly, humans have the ability to reflect their actions and decide differently. Both to minimize suffering, and to keep the plant hospitable to humans.
What’s gross is the idea that plants are “lower” and thus less deserving of value to life. Either embrace radically life denying Jainism, anti-natalism, voluntary extinction movement, and benevolent world exploder theory - or admit that you are just as cruel as those you implicitly claim to be better than (as a presumably non gross person)
But white vegans aren’t prepared to actually reckon with the logical conclusion of their ideas. Go read David Benatar (he’s a vegan whose actually consistent btw)
I never understood that line of reasoning. Plants do not have a central nervous system and, as of the current scientific consensus, are not aware of their subjective experience like animals are. Humans are omnivores, capable of thriving on a plant-based diet. The logical consequence, if you try to minimise suffering, is to eat plants instead of animals.
Life is a game of shifting carbon. To stay alive, you need to kill. But you can try to limit that to the least amount of killing required, and to killing those life forms without sentience as we understand it. This is the foundation of any ethical reasoning.
Having said all that, I also reject the vertical ordering of life on the tree of evolution. Plants are just very different from us, not necessarily higher or lower. Considering we have to make a choice as to what we are ready to sacrifice to survive, we can still choose those life forms that likely are not capable of suffering like we do, before turning to those more similar to us.
Specifically, this gave me the reaction, bc it seems in bad company with other ideologies:
> I am unapologetic about obeying biological imperatives to eat other animals.
Deep history exists in our "biological" context and is critical reality, but arguing some "biological imperative" to act on it, that strikes me as a strange place to start
Context: am biochemist, and I think about biology and biochemistry as a very integrated part of my worldview. But I don't harken to any biological imperative for my actions and choices. It explains them, it doesn't command them. Distorting our biology and psychology is what makes us human and agentic imho
Humm the next logical step would be to pressurize the rocket before igniting it. Or maybe to add some water in the bottle to increase the propelled mass. They just need a way to ignite the alcohol fume from the top……
I would think the next logical step would be pressurizing a stainless steel thermos with liquid methane and mating it to a 3d printed copper prototype manifold and turbine pump.
