Read up on the Koch method. To be exact: Koch method with Farnsworth timing. You'll have to keep the letters in a certain speed so your brain does not have enough time to decode dots and dashes. So only the length between the letters is extended to lower the difficulty. The idea is that the lowest unit of comprehension are letters. After training you'll hear a -.- and don't even think of it as dots and dashes, it's just a K obviously.
You start just distinguishing two letters (usually K and M).
I would recommend using a trainer app that gives you a string of letters by sound, and to write them down on paper. Then you can check how many you got correct. Do not try to replay letters multiple times, just skip it and move on. If your result is better than 95% or so you can continue and introduce a third letter, and so on.
There is a certain order of letters considered more or less canonical for use in the Koch method which you can look up.
Edit: Back then I learnt it with https://lcwo.net/, it's distraction-free and quite nice.
HAM was a nice rabbit hole to fall into, but unfortunately I couldn't muster enough interest to actually get good enough to go "on air".
Some other things that surprised me and may be interesting for other people:
Learning Morse code is like learning a new language. The unit of understanding is not dots and dashes but rather every letter is a unit that one (in modern training) learns to recognize intuitively as such before doing anything else.
On top of that, telegraphy has these three letter Q-Codes where one would assume that these abbreviations are for line efficiency, but also it's because three letters is a nice length that still decodes intuitively as a "word".
(Also Q was probably chosen because it so seldomly comes up in "normal" words, so it's like a little attention signal? But that is my speculation.)
One can see in conversation that these three-letter codes often only have to be transmitted once, whereas free text (e.g. proper names) are often sent with redundancy so it's easier to transcribe them as you have to fall back to decoding individual letters. (My ears still sometimes perk up suddenly when hearing Morse code from movies because suddenly I pick up something like CQ without even paying attention.)
People therefore use terms like "musicality" (at least in my language, not sure if that translates to English) to refer to the quality of one's transmission. There is a certain art to it.
One funny exception to the three letter codes that gets used in Germany. If somebody signs off for a lunch break, they'll key ESSEN (translates to "eating"/"food") which would be considered "too long" to decode intuitively but it has a nice drumroll to it so it still works :)
The normalization of the age variable still looks problematic, as it requires that there is a linear dependency between age and incidence.
Both the scatter plot and also the probability graph seem to be curving upwards w.r.t age, i.e. the incidence of dementia cases seems to accelerate with age. Which at least makes a lot of intuitive sense, and would forbid just plotting in a regression line.
Having a more or less circumstantial point to arbitrarily cut your regression line in half also just begs for introducing Simpson's Paradox.
I think when thinking about progress as a society, people need to internalize better that we all without exception are on this world for the first time.
We may have collectively filled libraries full of books, and created yottabytes of digital data, but in the end to create something novel somebody has to read and understand all of this stuff. Obviously this is not possible. Read one book per day from birth to death and you still only get to consume like 80*365=29200 books in the best case, from the millions upon millions of books that have been written.
So these "few tricks" are the accumulation of a lifetime of mathematical training, the culmination of the slice of knowledge that the respective mathematician immersed themselves into.
To discover new math and become famous you need both the talent and skill to apply your knowledge in novel ways, but also be lucky that you picked a field of math that has novel things with interesting applications to discover plus you picked up the right tools and right mental model that allows you to discover these things.
This does not go for math only, but also for pretty much all other non-trivial fields. There is a reason why history repeats.
And it's actually a compelling argument why AI is still a big deal even though it's at its core a parrot. It's a parrot yes, but compared to a human, it actually was able to ingest the entirety of human knowledge.
Yes, that is plausible indeed, but the problem is that there are many explanations which are plausible, but there doesn't seem to be a smoking gun.
Strange about that explanation for example is that the time correlation is backwards.
First the solar generation started to drop out and only then central generator stations tripped. Also the on-going frequency oscillations had already stabilized. If it was related to frequency issues, the solar inverters would either have shut down 15 minutes earlier (while the frequency oscillations were at the peak) OR 1-2 minutes later (when power stations tripped and frequency would have dipped)
Yes, I think it's wrong, or at least way over-exaggerated.
You can run a grid to supply approximately 80% renewables (long-term average) without significant technical changes.
Only if you want to get the last 20% to renewables, you get technical challenges, e.g. related to synchronization and load-matching. But that is also not unsolvable problems, e.g. instead of relying on the inertia of steam turbines you can "just" build specific-purpose fly-wheels to do the same thing. It's just less elegant.
Source: Volker Quaschning "Understanding Renewable Energy Systems", too lazy right now to look up the exact page.
This is also consistent with the section they quoted.
Generally, the load matching in grids is done by the system itself.
If you add more wind and solar, which depends on the weather and location, you have to more large-scale intervention, e.g. allow generation re-dispatch. But that doesn't immediately imply that this is a dangerous process.
> Only those working closely in that profession have any knowledge of the underlying causes.
This report is literally from the ENTSO-E which is the main regulatory body for the grid in Europe.
> Crap quote from the report "but no significant oscillations with amplitudes above 20 mHz".
What is the "crap" about that?
An amplitude can still be measured in Hz, if you are looking at oscillating frequency deviations, if that is what you mean.
That being said, I was apparently also under the impression of outdated or just plain wrong information.
While the report I listed mentions the sudden loss of decentralized generation as starting point of the blackout, and also specifically mentions small-scale rooftop PV, it says that the cause for that sudden synchronized drop-off is actually unknown.
> It's not that easy, and the 2025 blackout good evidence of that. Renewables need a grid that's engineered for them and that require significative investments.
The outage in spain had multiple complex causes.
While the grid had a rather routine instability/oscillation on-going during time of the incident, the actual point-of-no-return was completely non-technical: Prices crossed into the negatives, which caused generation to drop by hundreds of megawatts and load to increase likewise within a minute (!) because the price acted as a non-technical synchronized drop-off signal for the grid.
In grids where the price action is not forwarded directly to the generators and consumers there would be no incentive to suddenly drop off decentralized generation. So for example in Germany a black-out would not happen like this.
Unfortunately, to have an informed opinion, you pretty much have to read all these pages, because the situation is just so complex. Otherwise, you just fall for agenda pushing from all sides.
Then we are just talking about two different things.
On ISP level, routing tables are built via BGP. BGP needs Autonomous Systems (AS) as organization unit to work. If you are not an AS you are never a peer as you are not on equal footing.
As a rule of thumb, if your edge router has a default route set, we are very likely talking about different scales.
> This also describes transit and describes getting internet service at home.
Well no. Transit means that you use another AS (usually by a larger ISP) to get connectivity to a certain AS. And as for your internet service at home, unless you announce an AS, you are not peering with anyone.
Well, there is always a regulatory measure that would be a lot easier to implement: Lawmakers could just disallow Tier 1 carriers to provide consumer Internet access. (This forced separation of business domain already has precedent in other sectors, e.g. energy companies having to separate network upkeep from energy trading or banks having to split their investment branch from the credit branch)
And I have a feeling that as soon as that is seriously discussed, the current exploitation of market power will stop rather quickly, without any need for actual regulation.
Peering just means that two AS physically connect to each other directly. Whether this peering is paid or not is independent from the technical implementation.
Just nearly everybody except Telekom is doing this on a liberal and informal not-even-handshake basis. On ISP scale, you either invest in infrastructure, or pay rent for network ports or cross-links, and you generally want your traffic usage to be smooth without spikes, and also go to the destination without going through your expensive ports more than once. So general connectivity is more important than any kind of traffic metering.
DTAG are also a consumer ISP. A consumer ISP should be considered a utility, and utilities can also be forced to provide certain services. In addition, Internet Exchanges have become so critical for the Internet architecture that they should also have some privileged status.
Legislation could focus on the following general rules, without favoring some providers over the others:
* If you participate on an IX node, there is no reasonable technical or financial reason not to peer with the other participants at that node. Of course this would also mean that participants have to be protected against price-gouging of IXs when they need to scale up their uplink for that reason.
* Alternatively, you could conditionally allow paid peering, but in that case require certain availability guarantees on your general transit connection.
* If you do not want to do business with a certain party, it should be all or nothing. Blacklist them organization-wide. No misleading to consumers that a content provider just appears slow, announce that you do not want to play with e.g. Netflix anymore and if your customers do not like it, they will switch.
* If you want to opt out of all of this regulation, you are free to run fiber yourself and just directly connect with everybody you are interested in. That is expensive? Too bad.
Regulating peering within the EU would already be a win.
The providers are then free to either move out of the EU market, or let their non-EU traffic flow via the (then likely larger) unrestricted pipes at DECIX and AMSIX. If they think that routing everything via EU is cheaper instead of just peering better in the other parts of the world to deliver traffic locally, then be it, that is their own economic freedom to decide so.
But they will realistically not do that. Also, SDNs will likely never go back to serving content in Europe from e.g. the US. Good connectivity is just generally the economically better option.
That being said, T1 companies like Deutsche Telekom who also serve a large consumer base via broadband and mobile and not just other large business networks are probably more vulnerable to such legislation than an exclusive transit provider.
Small tangent, but I feel like it is a good time to drop the term "net neutrality", which covers way too much ground. In the past in political discussions, the term "violation of net neutrality" was used to protest multiple different issues:
* Traffic shaping (e.g. slowing down Bittorrent traffic)
* Traffic fast lanes (pay for priority access to some content providers)
* Selective zero-rating (exclude some providers from counting towards a traffic limit)
* Artificial peering restriction (what Telekom is doing, usually via forcing content providers into paid peering agreements)
I think people should start using more specific terms that are understandable for non-technical people, because otherwise the discussion becomes confused, which helps the providers.
Lots of semi-technical people think that "violating net neutrality" refers to traffic fast lanes, because the last time this discussion entered the public was when the US social media was in uproar about FCC rules 10 years ago.
What Telekom is doing looks similar to the outside (some content providers are fast, some are not), but they can just deflect by saying that they do not intentionally throttle traffic, which is pretty much true, as they hit their physical bottlenecks. If you are knowledgable enough as a lawmaker to press them on the peering issue, they could argue that forcing peering would force them to pay rent at Internet Exchanges, just so other providers have good access. Where they also kind of have a point.
And even lots of technical people have no clue about peering, transit etc. and treat their uplink as a blackbox, a cloud in their network chart where the Internet comes out.
For the Telekom case, we would need a different legislation, for example make paid peering agreements between providers illegal or at least regulated, which would then be an incentive to be generally well-connected (free mutual peering is usually considered a win-win scenario unless you are Deutsche Telekom and can use your market power to bully other market participants into another form of rent extraction). And that means that lawmakers and the public need to understand first the specific problem we are fighting.
You start just distinguishing two letters (usually K and M). I would recommend using a trainer app that gives you a string of letters by sound, and to write them down on paper. Then you can check how many you got correct. Do not try to replay letters multiple times, just skip it and move on. If your result is better than 95% or so you can continue and introduce a third letter, and so on.
There is a certain order of letters considered more or less canonical for use in the Koch method which you can look up.
Edit: Back then I learnt it with https://lcwo.net/, it's distraction-free and quite nice.