thought i'd share my minimal sway setup. It is simply designed with a utility focused in mind, I don't plan to implement UI/UX graphics, although i might add a dark theme to it.

distro: arch linux tty emulator: alacritty file manager: alacritty menu: rofi editor: vim wm bar: swaybar background utility: swaybg etc: swayidle, swaylock

the swaybar configuration is simply a shell script to fetch information such as battery, ram, cpu, and workspace data. again, this won't be modified for asthetics.

[–] 3 points 1 day ago

You can thank MOSFETs for that.

The alternative would be using BJTs (bijunctional transistors) which are far less efficient because whichever mode the transistor is conducting in, there will always be a 0.7 voltage drop from the gate to the emitter (since after all they are diodes). In N-channel MOSFETs there is no voltage drop from gate to source. There's also no current going into the gate, where as with BJTs there are.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    You assume that by increasing gas prices it would result in people not buying it and hence less CO2 emissions.

    The production process for gasoline also contributes in CO2 emissions whether or not humans use it.

    The current issue with gasoline (and why prices are increasing) is that gasoline companies aren't opening up more reserves, because by doing so it will decrease their revenue. I'm not sure what will happen once US gas reserves are finished.

    You're right that it is helping the climate, not for the reason gas prices are expensive.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    Each uranium rod has a life of around 6 years before needing replacement, the relative abudance of uranium-235 is about 0.9% compared to uranium 238 which has 98℅

    Sure, the decay chain of uranium 235 is long, but the usability of in converting it to nuclear power the uranium rods last 6 years, not billions.

    Even if we take all our uranium-235 reserves (which is about 56,304 kilo-tonnes of uranium-235)

    1.) It's unrealistic because we use U-235 for other things 2.) This is a global reserve. Countries haven't made peace with another yet.

    I know niche points, i'll admit I really dug through the barrel with this one. Nuclear power plants are also quite expensive to maintain and build since these are often built based on the selected site. Also very inefficient as each reaction loses 1.4 neutrons (or else kaboom).

    These reasons are why (despite it generating 17℅ of the US electricity with only 92 reactors), countries don't invest more into nuclear power. Inefficiency + large costs make it unappealing compared to wind which generates 40℅ or even 60℅ (with offshore) of the energy the wind pushes.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago* (2 children)

    I think there's a very simple explanation, the renewables as in solar and wind energy generation methods show that the world isn't perfect, that even ignoring the basic notion that natural gas and coal generate CO2 emissions; natural gas, U-235 (used for nuclear power generation), and coal are of a finite supply.

    That destroys their ideology that we live in this perfect world with infinite resources, because most conservatives come from a religious background. They are beyond condescending (I know this because I lived in one), even with the world crumbling from gas prices and food, I don't think they'll even give a damn that prices are exponentially growing. They live in this fabricated environment abstracted away from the rest of the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    I recently attended a lecture on dynamic charging of EVs. Theoretically speaking slapping a solar panel on a car to charge it is feasible, but by putting on solar panels it will add a lot more additional weight and will result in larger wind resistance.

    The car would ultimately use more if not the same energy (with the additional energy supplied by the solar panel) then if it didn't have it in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    I generally wouldn't post something like this because I do think there are advantages using AGI. However, it is unsustainable and that warrents concern for the future.

    I say "future" not in a dystopian-like world where were fighting against robots, rather hundreds of years of infrastructure and development crumbling. We are progressively seeing this happen like with stackoverflow.

    So from an engineering standpoint the technology is unsustainable both in terms of energy (which we don't have), money (which we don't have), and humans, critical thinking humans (which we have very sparse of, but to generalize; we don't have). On top of all of this it is funneling literary work, it is funneling all of our digitized information (crappy and or otherwise), into an ai system that doesn't know how to solve a transistor problem which has been ID'd and given to be in saturated mode.

    What would otherwise take a few minutes to do research on google or duckduckgo of a saturated mode transistor with an example a few years ago, is now taking two hours to search: It's not just funnelling information, it's collapsing everything that it has scraped into a single centralized source. Do you know what this sounds like (give or take a few years), this sounds like constrained indoctrination.

    Here's a thought experiment, what if in every cupcake baking book someone said "now put 300g of 10 microcurie uranium-238" what's stopping the AI of generating that? what's stopping a human from actually making uranium cupcakes? Nothing is. If the only source of information is generative AI Who's to say that "uranium cupcakes" are indigestible if everyone is following the same lead. There is no common sense. Common sense is AGI and if AGI says to start putting uranium into your cupcakes, you bet your ass everyone's going to do it. Just like how people have committed suicide because they listened to AGI.

    So here's my solution (which tech companies won't agree with because they'll loose money as a result) diversify your learning, spread your learning to multiple sources not just generative AI, use websites such as stack overflow or reddit to ask questions, get people to answer those questions, make HTML websites explaining something you learned. It doesn't matter if its being scrapped for more training. If no ones using it, or (as a better relationship) the cost of scraping and training costs more then its annual profit (which it currently is) its only a matter of time until these AI companies call it quits.

    By not posting, by not asking questions on posts, by simply using generative AI, you are doing the exact thing that works with the agi companies. If you really want to fight it, revive stack overflow by asking questions. Make posts on reddit, if you have money make a HTML website and discuss what you learned. Agree with surveillance capitalism for one moment and when they blow their budget training on our data, delete your accounts.

    This is only temporary, because AI is temporary (contrary to popular belief). Its not here to stay, it was never here to stay.

    view more: next ›