frezik

I'm guessing that only works if the file is smaller than the RAM cache of the drives. Transfer a file that's bigger than that, and it will go fast at first, but then fill the cache and the rate starts to drop closer to 100 MB/s.

My data hoarder drives are a pair of WD ultrastar 18TB SAS drives on RAID1, and that's how they tend to behave.

Right, I think the future isn't Intel v AMD, it's AMD v ARM v RISC-V. Might be hard to break into the desktop and laptop space, but Linux servers don't have the same backwards compatibility issues with x86. That's a huge market.

It was also a big surprise when Intel just gave up. The industry was getting settled in for a David v Goliath battle, and then Goliath said this David kid was right.

There's some streaming video sites that deliberately block Firefox. It used to be that Firefox didn't support the necessary web standards, but now it does. The site put up blocks telling you to use Chrome, and never got around to taking them down.

WinRAR did make piles of money by focusing on the commercial market. They really didn't care if home users went past the free trial period, but they did care if you were a business.

I don't know what WinAmp does, or ever did.

It's more likely to survive the company if it's FOSS. The app was dormant for a long time.

The Samsung Galaxy is 15 years old, and it was excellent. First Android device I felt had decent performance. I think my first one was an Galaxy S III, which would have been 2012.

The Zenphone that's out now uses a Snapdragon. There's probably a good reason for that.

As it exists now, no. The models are reaching their limit, and they aren't good enough. They can't absorb any more information than they have, and more training iterations aren't making them better. They'll do some useful things; a recent find of the longest black hole jet ever found was done in part from AI classification of astronomy data. It's going to get implemented into existing tools and that's about it. It won't be enough to justify the money that's already been dumped in.

Historically, the field has been very bursty. Lots of money gets dumped into it, it makes some big improvements, and then hits a wall. Funding dries up because it's not meeting goals anymore, and the whole thing goes into slumber for a decade or two. A new breakthrough eventually comes, and then money gets dumped in again. We've about maxed out what the last breakthrough can give us. I expect we'll need at least one more cycle of this before AGI works out.

Sounds like demand shaping is already done, but not in a way that's helpful to renewables.

One of the things with AI is that it's a largely constant load factor. Nuclear is really good for that.

However, I highly doubt any of these new nuclear plants are finished before the AI bubble bursts. SMRs haven't even been proven in practice yet, and this is the first good news they've had in a while. Restarting Three Mile Island isn't expected to work before 2028. The hype bubble could easily burst in the next year, and even if it doesn't, keeping it going to 2028 is highly unlikely.

So we'll probably have some new nuclear around that isn't going into AI, because those datacenters will be dead when the hype passes. Might as well use them, I guess.

Nuclear is an excellent compliment to renewables and as a companion source to support the grid they are actually really effective.

No, it isn't. The nuclear industry wants this to be true, but an overview of the benefits and problems with wind, solar, and nuclear put it to rest.

What nuclear is really good at is providing baseload power; it runs for 30+ years at the same output with relatively little maintenance and fuel costs. Wind is good at being cheap when the wind is blowing. Solar is good at being cheap when the sun is shining.

The problem with nuclear is it has incredibly high up front costs, which need to be amortized over its lifetime; you can ramp it down, but you're cutting into your profits by doing so. The problem with wind is that the wind doesn't always blow, and the problem with solar is that the sun doesn't always shine.

Solar and wind are both incredibly cheap when they work. So cheap that we wouldn't want to use anything else if we can avoid it. Meaning we'd need to ramp down what nuclear and anything else is doing. Except now we're just making nuclear's up front cost issue worse; we can't amortize the cost as well when it's ramped down. You could try adding storage capacity so you can run all three at once and use it later, but then we could just use that storage for wind and solar on their own.

What you can do is take historical data on wind and sun patterns for a given region. The wind is often blowing when the sun isn't shining, and vice versa. We have lots of data on that, and we can calculate the maximum length of lull when neither will provide enough. So what you can do is put in enough storage capacity to handle that lull, and double it as a safety factor.

This ends up being a lot less storage than you might think. Getting to 95% renewables would be relatively cheap; Australia almost has enough storage capacity under construction right now to pull that off. That last 5% is harder, but even getting to 95% in industrialized nation states would be a big fucking deal.

Add in HVDC lines to this, and you've really got something. The longest one right now is in Brazil, and is 1300 miles long. That kind of distance in the US would mean solar panels in Arizona could power Chicago, and wind in Nebraska could power New York. At that point, the wind is always blowing somewhere, and sun is always shining somewhere else. You can also take advantage of existing hydro pumped storage anywhere you like--there may be enough of it right now that we wouldn't need to build any other storage.

It shouldn't rupture a tank just because of a splashdown, no. Even if they're able to chopstick catch the upper stage, or land it like Falcon 9's boosters, a splashdown may be needed in emergencies.