GissaMittJobb

The cost of storage in this case is more or less irrelevant - traffic is what matters here. You're also not getting any mentionable bulk discount on the servers for that matter.

The key is that you can engineer things in completely different way when you have trivial amounts of traffic hitting your systems - you can do things that will not scale in any way, shape or form.

Their scale was also an insignificant fraction of what Netflix has, making the point even more irrelevant.

The best figure I could find on Jetflicks user count was 37k, where as Netflix has 269 million users.

At that point, you're basically just listening to podcasts. Leaning into it might be a good choice, since there's no visual element that gets lost when listening to podcasts, as compared to YouTube videos.

I don't see any good reason why the merits of hydrogen for vehicle fuel would be any better than production and disposal of batteries. The other cases I agree that hydrogen will have a useful niche.

It's hard to assess the validity of those claims as the article doesn't bring any numbers and the paper itself is paywalled. As the fossil fuel industry is pushing hard towards wedging in hydrogen as a means of keeping themselves alive for a while longer, it's vital to be able to assess the actual claims, lest they are just planted there by the fossil fuel industry.

There are some use-cases where hydrogen will be useful, but I don't think storage is one of them. Nor do I think vehicles are a particularly good use-case either, as compared to just iterating on battery technology.

and is a good way to store excess energy from solar and wind.

Is it really that good of a storage method, though? The round-trip efficiency is quite bad when compared to other methods of storage.

I don't know that I'd use 'insanely' as the modifier here as their position has weakened significantly over time, but they do certainly still play a large role in the Swedish labour market.

Consider the following:

One day we manage to reach the pinnacle of invention - we create the replicator from Star Trek. We can suddenly bring immense amounts of anything we want for everyone in the world, for very little energy (caveat: I don't know enough about Star Trek lore to know this to be true).

Now, this machine would certainly make a whole lot of business models redundant - farming, factory work, you name it - they would all no longer be able to make a living doing what they did before this invention existed.

Now for the moral question - should the fact that this invention will harm certain groups' way of life be considered enough of a motivation to prohibit the use of this invention? Despite the immense wealth we could bring upon the world?

Take a pause to form an opinion on the subject.

Now that you've formed an opinion on the replicator - consider that we already have replicators for all types of digital media. It can be infinitely replicated for trivial amounts of energy. Access to the library of all cataloged information in the world is merely a matter of bandwidth.

Now, should the fact that groups relying on copyright protection for their way of life be considered reason enough to prohibit the use of the information replicator?

To me, the answer is clear. The problem of artists, authors, actors, programmers and so on not being able to make money as easily without copyright protection does not warrant depriving the people of the world from access to the information replicator. What we should focus on is to find another model under which someone creating information can sustain themselves.

I mean, not really. This is actually a non-trivial topic, and true random is a really bad label for what someone actually wants out of a shuffling algorithm.

See the following engineering blog post on the subject: https://engineering.atspotify.com/2014/02/how-to-shuffle-songs/

Data takeouts are non-optional under the GDPR, so I would be very surprised if that happens.

True random shuffle would be a terrible idea. No one wants the same track showing up multiple times in a row, which would not be uncommon in true random shuffle.