GreyEyedGhost

joined 2 years ago
[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 53 minutes ago

There are reasonable limits. Let's say his car takes 30 minutes. Is 31 minutes total connection time acceptable? I think everyone would say yes. How about 35 minutes? 45? An hour?

Where people draw the line is going to vary. I agree with the premise that you shouldn't have to wait by your car to charge, whether it's 30 minutes or 2 hours. That is wasted time, and drastically reduces the attraction of having an EV. For myself, having to wait an extra 15 minutes isn't too bad, and extra half hour or more is probably too much. I think context also really matters. If I'm parking at a station in a garage where most of the users are there for work, I expect to be there for at least 2 hours, possibly 4 (and would pick a charger I could use most of the time). At a mall, where people are in and out, if I was going to be there much more than 30 minutes I would probably plan to be back at my car to move it when it was charged. Especially since most of the chargers I've seen bill based on connection time and not electricity used.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

And yet, I can use satellites to communicate on the other side of the world. I have a suspicion the same system would work for this.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

The two biggest problems with observatories on the far side of the moon are being limited to only half of space (the same as planetary observatories) and the cost to build it. You can mitigate the first by having observatories on opposite edges of the far side, but that also costs twice as much as building one.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 hours ago

And simply due to physics, those will be the exception and not the rule, and so not enough to cause Kessler Syndrome.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Time for a joke.

And economist and an accountant were taking a walk when they noticed a frog. The accountant says to the economist, "I'll give you $100 if you eat that frog." The economist thinks for a moment, then agrees. A little later they come across another frog, and the economist says, "I'll give you $100 to eat that frog." The accountant thinks about it for a second and also agrees. As they continue walking, the accountant says, "So I got to see you eat a frog for $100, and by eating a frog myself, I got my money back, so I understand why I did it. But you had already eaten a frog and had $100, so why did you do it?" The economist replies, "Ah, but this way it's twice as good for the economy!"

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago (4 children)

And many of those activities include consumption. If you're doing more than casual hiking, you probably aren't using second-hand shoes from the thrift store.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

While all of thos could be true, downloading on your PC should be possible to queue multiple games, and doesn't require you to leave your steam deck turned on. Go for that nostalgic overnight download vibe.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

There's this fun thing with multi-lingual environments where non-standard language may not be intentional, and some people will even go so far as to expand a complete stranger's vocabulary in a different language. Now, if this was intentional, have at it.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There is a hydrogen fusion reaction that releases beta particles, i.e., electrons. This could be used to produce electricity directly without boiling water, but I think the heat output would be such that you could also boil water for more electricity.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

That's a terrible headline - it only makes sense if you understand the context. It's an interesting article, and has valid criticisms of the government.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I honestly agree, and said as much shortly after the invasion of Ukraine. Based on the world's assessment, they should have just steamrolled them, and didn't. I also said it would behoove the world powers to reassess their nuclear capability and got a lot of downvotes. The facts as they stand now, though, is the NK can't get a nuke to American territory, not even Alaska (let's not talk about Guam and Samoa, even America barely acknowledges they're part of America). Russia, on the other hand, might be able to, and we don't know for sure they can't. All they need is one good sub with working missiles. None of this really matters for Europe, and even 10% of their stockpile working would be devastating for the world, or at least the people living on it. I'd like to think that Putin put more effort into maintaining their status as a nuclear world power, but I would have thought the same of being a military world power, too.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

pushed the package

This sounds like a translation error. The common colloquialism is "pushed the envelope."

 

Just came across this video. I've never heard of him before, but he seems to focus on facts, which I always appreciate. May showed some promising results in the import/export front for Canada. Hopefully the trends continue.

 

Basically what the title says. Sometimes something is removed, rightly or wrongly, but its removal diminishes the comments below it. The capability is already in Lemmy and it would be nice to see if one chooses to, but I can accept that the feature could promote toxic behavior.

view more: next ›