California high speed rail has been a mess. Which is likely in part because politics dictating routes has raised the costs and timelines substantially. On a smaller scale SF was building a new subway in 2013 that had been on the drawing board for years. I remember thinking maybe I'd ride it to work one day. Opened in 2023 or 2024, after I had moved offices twice and then went to work from home. It's not a terrible line but because it had to go to the center of our Chinatown instead of 2 blocks over, it took quite a bit longer and became the deepest subway line in the city. Several other bits of stupidity too in that project but a big piece of the delayed timeline was that tunneling in SF is hard.
Plenty of other transit projects exist that have made real differences. Personally I'm a fan of the simple improvements: revised bus routes with dedicated bus lanes and improved stop & shelters, added bike lanes, etc. those sorts of projects are relatively cheap investments and while no single one is a silver bullet they add up. On a bigger scale - Caltrain's electrification was a big win. Both kinds of projects are easier than building whole new tracks or digging new tunnels. Extend and improve the existing systems. Most cities have something to start from.
The climate requirements to run at this hotter temperature still probably means it'll require more active cooling in the desert during daytime /summers. Assuming we're talking about hotter desert environments like US southwest. That might make your proposal not as economical.
Imo we should just solve the problems with data centers being near cities. Manage/regulate the noise and any waste (heat included, it shouldn't drastically impact the neighbors) and make them pay for any utility capacity/reliability upgrades needed. If this article is right and water usage can be nearly eliminated then it seems like the rest should be solvable? Especially if we can take the extra heat and use it for local power or heating needs.
Globalization wasn't a loss for all of America - the benefit of shipping manufacturing overseas was that the resulting imports were cheaper than producing domestically. After all if they weren't, people would've preferred to buy domestic. So it was a net win for the consumer via cheaper goods, but came at the expense of Detroit, Pittsburgh and other "rust belt" cities & communities.
We're still grappling with the consequences. We should've invested in transitioning those workers to comparable or better jobs but the ball got completely dropped on that.
It exists, but "works quite well" is only for a small amount of heat. It takes a big radiator to get rid of heat to ax vacuum. Much easier and cheaper to just keep the computers on earth and cool them with standard air or liquid cooling setups.
well sure not everyone needs a huge military. Especially when their large trading partner has one and is guaranteeing security.
I don't entirely buy your personalities argument - it certainly mattered, but in an alternate universe where Hitler still rose to power but e.g. FDR didn't get a 3rd term - a European war would've still caused problems for America and US/Europe trade would've likely come under fire dragging the US towards fighting in the war; in 1939 US GDP was $93.4 billion with $3.2 billion in exports and $2.3 billion in imports... far less important than today (where imports/exports are more than 10% of GDP) but still fairly substantial.
But it's hard to say how things would've turned out. With different leaders the politics of it would've mattered a lot; without US support WWII could've still easily been raging in 1944, an election year, and so an anti-war president could've been replaced. Or maybe Britain would've had a hard time holding out against constant assault without American supplies purchased with US government money, the USSR wouldn't have been able to bear the full brunt of Nazis who were less tied up on the western front, and by the time America considered joining the war under a different leader, it would've looked like a go-it-alone job. Still it's hard to imagine a world in which the Axis didn't bite off a bit more than it could chew.
In the US at least, we've gotten to the point that kids under 10 are rarely trusted to be alone and parents risk neglect charges by leaving them. Even the 10-13 range could be a risk. The problem is if someone calls the cops or social services, enough of those departments will take it seriously that as a parent, you really don't want to risk it.
It's a problem, because it's raised the bar for expected supervision effort, likely far beyond what is really needed.
Off the top of my head the purposes I've seen for them:
- building native bindings (node-sass)
- asking for funding (core-js)
... Probably a few more but the native case is probably the biggest and the packages I'm using nowadays ship precompiled blobs in optionalDependencies. Install scripts seem to be out of favor.
Why on earth would the backend function even take an email?
Or perhaps said different: use the submitted info to identify the account; send any sensitive messages (recovery codes, password resets whatever) to only the contact info on file. If the chat bot can send such email it should do so via an API that sends only to contact info on file for the associated account and not to an email that's provided by the bot.
Maybe. They had the strategic depth and political will. But that forgets that they had major amounts of supply and industrial expertise brought in from the US. With none of that, perhaps they would've lost Moscow and the rest of the East. That could've given the Nazis significant more supply - especially if they got their hands on Soviet oil in the Urals - would could've made them hard to kick out.
This take makes sense but isn't really accurate. A lot of companies have stock buy back programs in lieu of dividends; essentially, using their cash flow to manipulate their stock price instead of returning money to every investor. Now this doesn't guarantee a particular price usually, but does help push the price up when they are buying a significant amount from the market.
The economics almost certainly play a role, but I think the better way to think about it is how we economize time too.
if you are chasing a career, putting in 40,50,60 hours a week - how can you take time off to have a kid? who is going to take care of the kid?
Increasingly having kids has gotten more expensive - housing, childcare costs, and general expected investment/supervision of children. In agricultural societies, kids often helped out with the farming; send them to school and they are around less to help. Say that kids can't roam around outdoors unsupervised, and caregivers have to spend even more time watching (older) children. Etc. And as people increasingly move further from where they grew up to chase good jobs, that means they are on average further from their families who would have helped with childcare in previous generations.
The economic realities factor in too - people are waiting longer to get married because they want to date financially stable people, and financial stability is on average taking longer to achieve. But if you had to move to a more expensive city, further from family... that's a recipe for couples where both work and perhaps have to work to make their finances work. Babies have become a luxury item in these higher cost of living places.
if we want more children, we need to make it easier to be a parent. Cheaper / free childcare, better parental leave policies, and cheaper cost of living so that people who want to be stay at home parents can have that option.
> I believe there was another power to first capture Berlin (that also was good at mass producing).
US sent tons of war material to the USSR as well as experts to help them get their manufacturing up and running. The success on the eastern front was partially due to US support. I just saw a video claiming something like 2/3 of vehicles the Russians used were made in the US.
also as far as who was first to capture Berlin... pretty sure the western front commanders decided/were ordered to slow down and let the USSR get some parts of Germany for themselves.
yep... other factors do matter in determining the length of the war, whether the manufacturing base can be defended / get the raw materials it needs, etc. The enigma machine is estimated to have reduced WWII by a few years.
but there's really no winning when the enemy can put more planes, tanks, guns, boats and troops than you by a large factor, if they are even somewhat competent at using them.
I wouldn't say "only". But the industrial advantage that the US brought to the allies made an Allied victory almost inevitable - in hindsight, the only way the Allies could've lost was if the situation looked so hopeless that the US chose to stop fighting - or never entered the war in the first place. Maybe if the Nazis had overrun Britain and either avoided engaging the USSR until they were ready to give it undivided attention, or somehow have conquered it, then maybe the US could've looked and said "we don't want to pick this fight" ... of course the moment Hitler declares war without actually being ready to invade the US, he's made a huge mistake.
Perhaps there's an alternative history where Germany was less incompetent with their production and had less stupid leadership. But even in those, as long as the US got into the war and the war continued until one side or the other was fully conquered - I think it would've been Nazi Germany being conquered. The US started at a huge disadvantage of not having much of a military, weapons or ammunition ready, but we got to ramp up production for a good ~4 years before going over to Europe to kick ass and ran circles around the Axis powers with our production.
perhaps the US would be mostly safe from violence, but not consequences. We're heavily dependent on international trade and any major war in another part of the world will impact us if it involves any important trading partners or their ability to trade with us.
Even in the 19th century the US was sucked into Europe's wars - the war of 1812 was essentially the American theater of the Napoleanic war - US merchants were attacked trying to trade with France/Europe, the US Navy tried to protect them saying "we're neutral let us trade" and Britain said "there's no such thing as neutral" and sent armies. Over time foreign powers got more wary of fighting the US but we still got dragged into European and Pacific wars (WWI, WWII), in large part because we kept trading with our European and Asian partners.
Some won't ask for details and just reject. Which of course sucks but they may view it as less risky than trying to evaluate the details and make a judgement call.
That said if you do go into circumstances - "I did it to get arrested and get a payout" could also be viewed as a red flag - says "may screw you/the company for money". Probably not the employee / tenant / etc you might want.
Plenty of other transit projects exist that have made real differences. Personally I'm a fan of the simple improvements: revised bus routes with dedicated bus lanes and improved stop & shelters, added bike lanes, etc. those sorts of projects are relatively cheap investments and while no single one is a silver bullet they add up. On a bigger scale - Caltrain's electrification was a big win. Both kinds of projects are easier than building whole new tracks or digging new tunnels. Extend and improve the existing systems. Most cities have something to start from.