partial_accumen

You’re proving my point. They just started working on it 3 months ago. It will be a long time, if ever, before it is a Gsuite replacement. They even said they tried this a few years ago and abandoned it. There’s a risk they’d do it again.

So if there’s another open source effort specifically focused on an online product, its a good thing.

I like and use Libreoffice, but its a local application. This makes it fine for working by yourself and on your own hardware. Google Docs (Gstuite) is an online application with the best collaboration integration I’ve seen and works on nearly any device you can open a modern browser on. Yes, both products have a word processor and a spreadsheet, but they don’t serve all the same use cases.

If this new Euro-office can replicate the Gsuite offerings (that Libreoffice lacks), then Euro-office could be a great addition to the open source community.

Corporations to workers: “Use AI for everything you do!”

Workers use AI.

Corporations to workers: “Not like that!!”

You’re going to be even more angry to learn that your apartment neighbor is using the shared building power to run an industrial aluminum smelter on his balcony as his side hustle. It does explain why he’s posting all of those pallets of 6061 alloy bar stock and ingots for sale on Nextdoor and Facebook Marketplace though.

The actual paper (PDF) this is based on gives much better information than the article. From that we get some really key information:

To allow FROST to measure SSD contention, the victim must perform activities that result in storage accesses to the same disk as the file used for contention measurement

This can’t ready your SSD. It can only listen in on the conversation between your CPU and SSD when something else reads it or writes to it. The whole FROST approach has a number of clever tricks to generate reads from open applications though. Further, it requires the attacker’s code to be running in an active browser session.

Also, If you have two SSDs, and your browser is on one, this FROST approach can’t see anything written to or read from on the other SSD.

Lastly, there’s a mention in the paper about hardware based SSD encryption being vulnerable, there’s no mention of Software Whole Disk Encryption. Given how the researchers are using the SSD timing exploit, I would guess that a software (not hardware) whole disk encryption might be immune to this attack because the patterns of timings would be different with encrypted data being written to the SSD (instead of the data being encrypted by the SSD when written.

something something tAx MoNeY

Nice fake quote

Idk maybe tax the fucking billionaires? Maybe instead of useless foreign wars spend it on schools? Tax the NFL? I’m just spit balling.

Get out of here with that lazy answer. Saying [paraphrased] “Have someone else pay for it somehow” is the most throwaway answer to any cited problem. If you want to contribute to the conversation looking for a solution, then contribute. What you posted here isn’t a useful or meaningful contribution.

I’m not opposed to taxing fucking billionaires, but how are you proposing? Increase on capital gains taxes? Higher taxes on non-resident properties? Wealth tax on unrealized gains? That’s a great conversation to have, but its pretty far away from school spending which is what we’re talking about here.

I’m not opposed to lowering defense spending, but in the USA you might as well try to boil the ocean than try to reform the Military Industrial Complex today. Short of revolution, that’s not happening in our lifetime. If we have revolution, school taxation will be the last of our worries.

They seem to think that what I mean is that we shouldn’t use tax money at all. No.

Incorrect. That’s not what I think. I’m seeing if you’ve thought through the consequences of your proposed change and have a solution I can’t see.

I’m happy to pay for the same education for all children. A standardized education.

Okay, so right now many schools are paid for by additional local income/sale/property taxes (these would be over and above any state or federal tax money that all schools would get). Those local taxes are passed by vote of the people in those localities. Under the current system, if “City A” has voters choose to tax themselves at a higher rate for better schools, then they get better schools. If “City B” has voters shoot down their tax increases, their schools pay the price and decline.

I’m happy to pay for the same education for all children. A standardized education.

I’m not trying to strawman you here. I’m trying to understand your proposal. Are you proposing to take the additional tax money generated in City A that they put on themselves and give a portion of it to City B to create your standardized education?

Here is study referenced in case interested - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967070X2600051X

First, I want to thank you for taking the time to engage on this topic, and also finding this great research paper. There’s always room for criticism in a source, but overall this is a great analysis done by the paper’s authors within the scope they define. I only have access to the abstract through the link, but may see if I can find the full paper from my library.

Pros of the paper:

• the WTW (Well-to-Well) metric the authors use does encompass nearly all of the energy/emissions from using the stated fossil fuel for transpiration. This is a great way to have an apples-to-apples comparison of the various sources of energy with regard to their pollution cost in vehicles of various types which is our core question.
• For Diesel the authors factored in emissions including not only CO2, but also Particulate Matter and oxides of Nitrogen which is much worse from diesel emissions than other forms of petroleum compared to gasoline or methane combustion. I appreciate this level of detail from the authors. However, in just the abstract I can’t see the formula for how they define a percentage of pollution on these other to inputs.

Cons of the paper:

• the WTW (Well-to-Well) metric starts at the well. There’s no accounting for the exploration pollution associated with fossil fuels (or battery materials for that matter). As an example, the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster was the largest oil spill as well as the largest release of methane in history. Deepwater Horizon was not an active production well. It was an exploration well (which is the step before production). Therefore it wouldn’t be included in the WTW metric, yet represents a huge amount of pollution that would not exist if we weren’t using oil and methane.

Also, to our question about coal derived power for EVs, we may have enough information from the authors to extrapolate the coal figure. Since the paper includes detailed analysis of methane generated power, we can likely get the efficiency and emissions numbers for that power source. This will let us use the author’s methods for defining the percentage of efficiency for comparrison once we get the coal inputs. We can likely get the coal inputs from looking at an existing coal power plant and getting its ingested coal, CO2 cost for extraction of that amount of coal, then the published emissions numbers from the plant for the KWh of electrical energy generated over a set period.

Overall, this paper, and your read of it is a fantastic contribution to the conversation. Thank you!

Last I read the only time ICE beat EV in emissions was when electric came from coal fired plants.

I’d be interested in your source on that as it contradicts my understanding.

For the ICE vehicle did your source include all of the environmental costs associated with producing the gasoline or did it just consider the tailpipe emissions. Or worse, did it include all the Coal costs as a environmental burden on the EV, but exclude all of the petroleum value chain environmental burden (besides the tailipe emissions)?

And then the battery production/disposal of course…

I’d guess the entire environmental damage of petroleum exploration, extraction, refinement, distribution, and combustion is greater than the entire environmental damage from battery material exploration, extraction, refinement, manufacturing, and eventual battery disposal when talking about a single ICE car vs a single BEV.

All of the ICE vs BEV pollution metrics I have seen to-date include the environmental cost of the battery, but only include ICE tail pipe emissions and exclude the environmental cost of everything needed to bring petroleum to market.

Did you include the loan payment, assuming you have one?

What about the lease payment for the solar panels?

I’m not the person you’re responding to, but I’m in the same situation of driving an EV and have solar panels.

I bought the solar panel system outright with no lease/loan. It is very much paying for itself and the full payback of the solar system continues to get shorter as electricity prices rise. When installed I had an 11 year payback. That has dropped to a 9 year payback now. I’m in a mostly red state that is is 20 years behind California in solar deployments. This means most of the rules that benefited early California solar buyers are still in place in my state. Full 1:1 net metering, option for discounted Time-of-use rates available only on EV charging.

As I’m posting this I’m pushing a KWh back to the grid and getting the full value of that KWh. I can draw back that KWh later tonight after the sun goes down. Even better, with the EV TOU I charge my EV not on sunlight, but instead after midnight and pay 75% only the cost of the KWh. All this banked money/energy I end up using later in the year when the home heating costs go up.

I know this won’t last forever. As my state catches up to the rest of the advanced blue states and we have a solar surplus during the sunlight hours I’ll be in the same situation as California solar users. However that still looks to be potentially 10 years out.

Yup. We knew this. But they won’t let us buy the affordable cars because that sort of free market would put US companies out of business.

While I mostly agree with you, the Chevy Bolt brand new can be had for $29,990. We really should have the option to buy Chinese EVs since the majority of other US car makers have abandoned the EV segment, and therefore deserve no protection from a market they are not in anymore.

The way to fix this is to make the entirety of the school experience the same. Not by going cheap. But by giving more money to poorer schools to subsidize education so it’s up to the exact same standard across the board.

Where are you proposing the tax money come from for this? While there are certainly areas of poverty that lack funds, I’m not even sure that’s the majority of the lack of funds. Another is today’s senior citizens that were fine with their children’s education being subsidize by yesterday’s senior citizens and the childless tax payments, but as soon as their children are grown they vote down any tax increases to fund schools.

Another point: I know a number of families that have intentionally moved out of good school, well funded, districts seeking lower taxes, and hence, worse funded schools. They would fight you on getting better funding even for their own schools if it meant the necessary tax increases. Teachers don’t, and shouldn’t work for free.

I’m not a kobo owner, but I’ve bought multiple hundreds of dollars of fully legal ebooks off Humble Bundle. Some of these collections are actually sourced through the Kobo ebook store for the backend delivery. Other collections are non-DRM epubs. I’m currently reading through the Martha Wells collection (Murderbot, Ile-Rien series). It was $18 for 14 of her novels/novellas. Prior to that was a collection of Hugh Howey (Dust, Sand) and Neil Stephenson (Seveneves) There’s currently a Robert Silverberg collection of 32 books for $18 I’ll probably pick up.

I wonder if this is newly built/to be built data centers for AI, or ones that previously existed/ are being built for general web infrastructure. The article doesn’t say.

The age of the DC doesn’t really matter. Its whether it was designed to be an “open loop” or “closed loop” cooling system. Closed loop DC use surprisingly little water because they capture and recycle it. A fast food restaurant would likely use more water than a closed looped DC. The big offending Datacenters for water use are the Open Loop design. These use massive amounts of water.

Close to me there are two DCs under construction. One is a large colocation DC and is closed loop. The other is a new AWS DC, and it is open loop. So as you can see, age isn’t really the determining factor.

So you’re asking yourself, why use open loop at all? Its energy bill is cheaper! Open loop uses swamp coolers (evaporative cooling) Closed looped requires more electricity for cooling using more traditional phase-change coolant (same as residential air conditioners).

If everyone in my area who has AI psychosis needed to be helped, they’d need to re-purpose the latest data center being built as a mental health facility.

“…thats why in these difficult times, I use today’s sponsor, Betterhe*lth.c0m.” /s

Not today, Mandela.

What surprises me most is that I don’t think Apple ever sold an expensive cradle for this mouse to be held upside-down. Die hard Apple fans would have bought it.

Federal minimum wage is almost exclusively for red state populations that hate their working poor. All blue states besides one (that I can see) have state minimum wage set significantly higher that the lower federal minimum wage so the federal minimum wage doesn’t apply it those blue states.

Further, your DD 5.25" could have been set up in a RAID array so you could have 3 buses full of diskettes and only need two buses to reach the destination to rebuild the whole file system.