Wobei sie das in dem Fall denke ich nicht nur zum Abgraben von Wählern, sondern leider auch aufgrund der eigenen intoleranten Gesinnung machen würden. Merkel, die ja trotz all ihrer Fehler wahrscheinlich eher dem moderaten Lager der Union angehört, hat selbst z.B. gegen die Ehe für Alle gestimmt.
golli
joined 1 year ago
Hydro is very variable power output. If drought last year then can be a huge jump this year. Hydro in general, globally, averages 45% capacity.
Yeah that could make sense, although the article doesn't have enough information to know whether or not that is a factor.
A good way to boost that is to use solar to power pumps bringing water up to the high side during the day.
Pump storage is indeed very cool. However if one would count it twice when it is produced by solar and then again when getting it back from the storage, then that would majorly distort the statistic. You'd effectively count the produced amount of energy double (minus whatever efficiency loss you have from storing it).
Europe is mostly densely populated. Onshore wind is struggling in west due to noise, but best locations are already taken is an issue as well.
That is definitely true, however at least where i am from in Germany the NIMBY mentality is still going strong regarding onshore wind turbines. So i am reasonably confident that there would still be some decent spots left.
Overall that seems like great news.
I am kind of surprised to see that hydropower grew more than solar. I'd have thought that solar with falling prices and relatively easy/flexible installation would be easier to scale, compared to hydro that probably needs specific locations and nowadays might also be under more scrutiny regarding the impact on local ecology.
Onshore only growing by 6% is disappointing and I imagine a lot of it still has to do with resistance from nimby people and the likes?
Meinem Verständnis nach ist es auch bei Nobelpreisen nicht angebracht. Die werden jährlich ungefähr im gleichen Zeitraum vergeben. Und ehrlich gesagt sehe ich jetzt keinen Allgemeinnutzen, der daraus ensteht, dass man eine Minute früher davon erfährt. Klar auf persönlicher Ebene mag es toll sein das ganze sofort zu erfahren, aber dafür muss es dann halt andere Werkzeuge geben. Zum Beispiel irgendeinem Twitter/Mastodon Account folgen der das wiedergibt (denke mal die Nobelstiftung wird das haben?) oder es sollte einen Service geben den man abonnieren kann.
Eilmeldugen sollten für wirklich wichtige Nachrichten vorbehalten werden, bei denen eine sofortige allgemeine Meldung einen großen Mehrwert erzeugt. Weltbewegende Ereignisse, große Umweltkatastrophen/Anschläge, Warnungen die Leib und Leben betreffen.
Gleichzeitig reduziert jeder Missbrauch die Nützlichkeit von "Eilmeldungen". Wenn soetwas wie "Deutsche Wirtschaft im dritten Quartal überraschend gewachsen" auf meinem Handy eine Benachrichtigung auslöst, dann stelle ich das ab, verpasse aber gleichzeitig tatsächlich potentiell relevante Informationen.
Edit: wenn ein Wissenschaftsmagazin aus der Nobelpreisvergabe eine Eilmeldung macht, dann wäre das mMn ok. Es kommt also vielleicht auch auf den Kontext an über was man generell berichtet.
Damit kann man aufmerksamkeit und Klicks generieren. Warum die Tagesschau das nötig hat? Keine Ahnung.
Aber das wird schon seit ewigkeiten Missbraucht und hat schon seit langem jegliche relevanz Verloren. Es werden auch Todesmeldungen irgendwelcher 90 jährigen Promis oder die Vergabe von Nobelpreisen als Eilmeldung deklariert.
Das tragische dabei ist, wie ineffizient der Durchschnittsdeutsche spart. Aufgrund mangelnder Finanzbildung, extrem defensiver Mentalität, bestehender Vorurteile, teurer Finanzprodukte und tiefverwurzelten Abzocker-Strukturen bleibt dabei wahrscheinlich kaum Rendite über.
Ich wüsste echt gerne wieviel % der Sparrate direkt in die Taschen irgendwelcher Berater fließt und das obwohl dadurch noch nichtmal korrekt angelegt wird.
Is YouTube doing it with small creators actually in mind? Who knows, other than them?
I am pretty confident in guessing that they are not doing it for selfless reasons. Imo the reason is that the less information they give the user, the more you are beholden to the algorithm choosing for you.
But depending how they hide it it actually might not just be users, but also companies that e.g. buy ads from them. The less information they get, the more they need to trust whatever metric google offers them
Market cap is one thing. It’s not like they have $3.2 trillion in cash. I understand that they don’t want to potentially miss out, but they have to expect a return and have at least modicum accountability on such initiatives. Moreso that Microsoft management doesn’t have a dual layer share structure like Zuck that essentially enables them to not be responsible to shareholders.
True, i guess we could also look at other numbers instead of market cap. here are their most recent results: In the last quarter alone they had 22 billion net income. If this article for example is correct with their $13.75 billion that microsoft invested, then we are talking less than 2 months of profit.
However i am not sure if that is the right metric either. If i remember correctly they didn't use cash to pay for their stake either, but instead gave openAI compute credits to train their model on Microsofts cloud. At least for some of it.
In any case as the article above also mentions the whole ownership structure is pretty complicated, but unless the AI bubble bursts and openAI's valuation drops, their investment so far has grown on paper.
Have you read about some of the internal discussions on metaverse in FB? They didn’t want to use their own products for meetings because it was a hassle and it was easier to just do a video/audio conference call.
They’ve spent over $46 billion on metaverse initiatives - can you point to any promising products or viable use cases that have come out of this initiative? Surely there has to be something, I understand it takes time, but after 3 years and $46 billion, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have something to show.
Yeah, i've read some articles on the topic. Their quest headsets are pretty solid and the Orion glasses they recently showcased seem like a step in the right direction. But i do share your criticism that it is hard to see where all that money went. Which i also tried to convey above by qualifying my opinion with "in theory i can see the appeal " and " (and i still don’t quite understand where all that money goes)"
But companies like microsoft? Is their plan to keep plowing tens of billions of dollars into “AI” in hopes of eventually discovering/creating the “next IT revolution”?
Microsoft has roughly a market cap of 3.2 trillion dollar, so while tens of billions certainly isn't cheap, it also isn't going all in. I think one has to approach it from a betting perspective. Burning a few billion dollar is certainly not great, but also doesn't fundamentally hurt the company. Missing out on a major trend on the other hand is something even large companies can't afford. So it is at least as much about risk management as it is about returns.
Even Zuck eventually stopped burning billions on his metaverse fetish
He hasn't given up on it though, just maybe scaled back a bit. And honestly in theory i can see the appeal of what he is trying to do. Seems like he is trying to stay ahead and eventually become the default platform for ar/vr devices, similar to microsoft with windows and google with android. So while the costs are huge (and i still don't quite understand where all that money goes), the reward could be worth it in retrospective, if he succeeds.
Es sind Online-Glücksspiele wie Wetten, Lotterien, Pokerrunden und selbst Bingo
Überraschend, dass hier nicht auf Computerspiele eingegangen wird. Eigentlich sind die doch eine beliebte Zielscheibe für Kritik und hier wäre sie sogar mehr als gerechtfertigt. Lootboxen sind letztlich nichts anderes und werden auch an Kinder vermarktet.
It was more the relation between them (40x) that struck me as bigger than I expected given the relative performance between photovoltaic and photosynthetic efficiency.
Honestly i was suprised aswell by the difference. I did some further digging and while i think i found the german source they used, it was a bit harder to comprehend.
But i also looked at this paper which forexample seems to support the rough numbers for energy/hectare biomass (it's also on scihub if you dont have institutional access). It's using fast growing tropical tree varieties as an example, but i imagine that if anything this would influence results favorably for biomass. If you look at figure 5 the yield is between 15-25 MWh/hectare.
As a swede, energy usage in the winter is warm at heart which is something that is hard to compare and muddles the numbers. In Dec-Jan energy (kWh) output from solar is at best 9-10% of their peak output during summer at my latitudes, (further north, this goes towards zero as there is no sunlight in winter), so with that in mind, the stored 20MWh/hectare, available round the clock, looks apetizing until we find a better solution to store energy.
Yeah, in the end there probably isn't one solution. In Sweden for example area efficiency probably doesn't matter as much due to your low population and large areas of woodland (that wouldn't be suitable for much else). And you are right that PV probably wouldn't work, so wind/hydro or maybe even tidal power generation would be the more appropriate competitors to compare biomass to, although those have more specific needs in terms of location.
I actually think all the posts talking about the size of communities, amount of memes on the frontpage and so on are wrong, since those will naturally change over time and are not fixed.
Every platform will see changes in their user base to some degree. Reddit now is very different to Reddit 10 years ago. The same thing will happen to Lemmy: If growth continues we will see more engagement in niche communities, but also more low effort posts and reposts.
Considering it doesn't do anything fundamentally different to reddit in the way of being a content aggregator with comment section it will be a similar experience. It would be different if it e.g. had a function to make older posts resurface and stay relevant longer to foster longer conversations, or structure comments differently since right now the further down a chain you go, the less people will engage with it.
Even if the average user doesn't care about open source or federation, they'll still benefit (and suffer) from the consequences.
On a centralised platform like Reddit you are beholden to their will for better or worse, and incentives might change over time such in their case with taking investor money and going public. This can have consequences such as forcing out third party software (one of the events that brought a lot of people here), but also censoring specific content or taking away powers from moderators.
There are downsides to it, since smaller, less professionally run instances might disappear at some point or have less reliability. But The upside is the option to choose and the resilience that should things change at one instance/community, you can switch without having to leave the whole ecosystem. And for that you do not have to be a moderator or volunteer
The existence of different instances also to some degree helps identify users to some degree, the obvious choice being political instances like hexbear.
That's an assumption i'll challenge. Looking at the amount of porn on the internet, the average person most definitely is looking for it. But that is probably a bit offtopic.