pahkah · HackerTrans

2개월 전discuss

Oh I don't know — I travel the Boston-DC route a lot and fly only because it's significantly cheaper than taking the train. If prices were comparable I would take the train even without it being "high speed", I think there's a market for high speed rail if the prices were as low as flights!

pahkah

5개월 전discuss

I think there are two different definitions of "significant information" at play here. I interpreted the GP comment to mean "information about the thing being advertised".

The point of the flyer is that you need to get the person to process one bit of information in the first 200ms: scroll or stay. GP's point is that that has little, if anything, to do with the ostensible purpose of advertising, informing people about a product.

pahkah

9개월 전discuss

As someone who's interested in all this, I agree it would be nice to have more precision around capacity. Especially as it relates to longer term storage. But! In this context, output is more salient than capacity. You'll see a lot of stories about grid-scale storage that use output. (https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/854999 offers a fuller explanation than what I'll give here.)

This is because grid operators are most concerned with immediate power output. They need to keep the grid balanced, and if they need a gigawatt to do it, it doesn't matter if the batteries have 100 GWh if they can only discharge at 1 MW.

Since the batteries described here are used primarily to handle the peak of the duck curve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve) it seems like 4 hours of capacity (the article mentions that the lithium-ion batteries have 4-6 hours of capacity) is sufficient to get over that difficult hump.

Anyway, to get back to your question of how many GWh, if we assume that the batteries have 4 hours of storage, then we're looking at around 4h * 15.7 GW = 63 GWh of battery capacity. (4 hours is what I've seen as standard for lithium-ion, conservative if the article's claim of "four to six hours" is true.)

Hope this helps ease the peeve!

pahkah

10개월 전discuss

And as you're implying, this action began under the "Biden-Harris FTC": https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/...

pahkah

11개월 전discuss

This seems like a case of tunnel vision and confirmation bias, the nasty combo that sycophantic LLMs make easy to fall prey to. Someone gets an idea, asks about it, and the LLM doesn’t ask about the context or say that doesn’t make sense, it just plays along, “confirming” that that the idea was correct.

I’ve caught myself with this a few times when I sort of suggest a technical solution that, in hindsight, was the wrong way to approach a problem. The LLM will try to find a way to make that work without taking a step back and suggesting that I didn’t understand the problem I was looking at.

pahkah

11개월 전discuss

This particular bribe was reported on over a year ago, when Trump was raising money from oil execs for his campaign. It seems likely that the overall push against clean energy (pushing for dispatchable generation, canceling tax credits for green energy projects) is related. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/09/trump-asks-oil-exec...

comments