hamsterkill

joined 2 years ago
[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 4 days ago

Most fission plants transfer the heat away from the reactor before boiling water. The same can be done with fusion.

The main difference with fusion is you have to convert some of the released energy to heat first. Various elements have been proposed for this.

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 25 points 4 days ago (5 children)

They weren't trying to generate electricity in this experiment. They were trying to sustain a reaction. As you said in another comment, they are different problems.

Converting heat to electricity is a problem we already understand pretty well since we've been doing it basically the same way since the first power plant fired up. Sustaining a fusion reaction is a problem we've barely started figuring out.

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 week ago

The point of 230 was not to protect hobbyists, but rather to encourage big platforms (like CompuServe at the time) to moderate their users. The issue was that in moderating users, the platform makes themselves a publisher rather than a distributor (which were already immune from liability for the speech they distributed).

Without section 230, platforms will simply stop all moderation (including for illegal activity and content) to protect themselves from liability. Every single platform operating in the US would become 4Chan (or worse, since even 4Chan does some moderation).

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago

I'm thinking a mini-pc of some sort. The circle and yoga pose make me think Chrome (OS?) and Arch. Gaming could relate to some partnership with Steam or Xbox. Alternatively, maybe something about VR?

My first instinct is to connect it to the rumors around the Valve Fremont. But my brain thinks that's pretty unlikely.

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

The downside of Signal is that it's centralized, and thus at the whim of those who run it. Structurally, it's not really different from Whatsapp or Telegram except for who owns it.

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 weeks ago

Mostly just that it's still pretty new and thus hasn't been as polished or scrutinized yet. Haven't tried it myself. For the sake of the OP's question, it may also be notable that it's a UK company.

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The two encrypted messaging platforms I currently suggest are XMPP or Matrix. Both are usually fine and are decentralized. The main thing with them is to either self-host or choose a server you trust to set up an account — which applies to the Fediverse in general.

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 weeks ago

Hm, I could've sworn hardware video decode for AMD already was working on FF Linux...

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 29 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

The quote from the email isn't her words. They were given to her (and all agency heads) to send out to their workforce to implement the EO. It should not be taken as "embracing the new regime".

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago

But you can already message/DM someone through Mastodon, Lemmy or whatever, and that's fine. I don't see the value proposition of sup.

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Not sure I understand the motivation for an ActivityPub messenger like sup. Seems like XMPP and Matrix already take care of the federated messenger space.

 

Rant incoming:

This was spurred by having just read https://www.androidpolice.com/google-tv-streamer-questions-answered/ , particularly this bit:

When I asked directly, a Google representative told me they couldn't confirm which chipset powers the Google TV Streamer — essentially, Google declined to answer.

I've been noticing an increasing trend by device makers to not disclose the SoC their devices run on. I've been seeing it with e-readers, network routers, media streamers, etc.

It's incredibly frustrating to have devices actively exclude important information from their spec sheet and even dodge direct questions from tech news reporters. Reporters shouldn't have to theorize about what chip is in a released device. It's nuts.

If you're wondering why this infomation is important, it can be for several reasons. SoC vendor can have significant impact on the real world performance and security of a device. It also carries major implications for how open a device is as SoC vendors can have dramatically different open source support and firmware practices.

I've had to resort to inspecting the circuit board photos of FCC filings way too much lately to identify the processors being used in devices. And that's not a great workaroud in the first place as those photos are generally kept confidential by the FCC until months after the device releases (case in point the Google Streamer).

view more: next ›