Sure, but you can do better for $3. Smaller, more powerful, similar power consumption

It wasn’t originally my claim

Sorry, I wasn’t paying attention and missed that. I apologize.

loads of modern computers don’t use DDR5 or ECC variants of older generations at all, so don’t have any error-correcting memory. If the wrong bit flips, they just crash.

Integrated memory ECC isn’t the only check, it’s an extra redundancy. The point of that paper was to show how often single bit errors occur within one part of a computer system.

memory errors are really rare

Right, because of redundancies. It takes 2 simultaneous bit flips in different regions of the memory in order to cause a memory error and it’s still ~10% chance annually according to the paper I cited.

it’s talking about machines with error correcting RAM, which most consumer devices don’t have.

It’s a paper from 2009 talking about “commodity servers” with ECC protection. Even back then it was fairly common and relatively cheap to implement though it was more often integrated into the CPU and/or memory controller. Since 2020 with DDR5 it’s mandatory to be integrated into the memory as well.

gives figures around 10% for the chance of an individual device experiencing an unrecoverable error per year, which isn’t really that often

Yes, that’s my point. Your claim of “computers have nearly no redundancy” is complete bullshit.

I think you are both overestimating the ability of biological systems and underestimating the ability of mechanical systems to be repaired.

Biological systems have incredible self-repair capabilities, but are otherwise largely unrepairable. To fix issues with biological systems you mostly have to work within the bounds of those self-repair mechanisms which are slow, poorly understood and rather limited.

Loosing a few skin cells is perfectly normal. Corrupting a few skin cells can cancer cancers or autoimmune disorders. Loosing a few Purkinje cells can lead to significant motor impairment and death.

Computers, and mechanical systems in general, can have a shit ton of redundancy. You mention ECC, but neglected to mention the layers of error connection, BIST, and redundancy that even the cheap, broken, cost-optimized, planned obsolescence consumer crap that most people are mostly familiar with make heavy use of.

A single bit flipped by a gamma ray will not cause any sort of issue in any modern computer. I cannot overstate how often this and other memory errors happen. A double bit flip can cause issues in a poorly designed system and, again, are not just caused by cosmic rays. However, it’s not usually that hard to have multiple redundancies if that is a concern, such as with high altitude, extreme environment, highly miniaturized, etc. objects. It does increase cost and complexity though so____

The huge benefit of mechanical systems is they are fully explainable and replaceable. CPU get a bunch of radiation and seems to be acting a bit weird? Replace it! Motor burnt out? Replace it! The new system will be good as new or better.

You can’t do that in a biological system. Even with autografts (using the person’s own tissues for “replacements”) the risk of scarring, rejection and malignancy remains fairly high and doesn’t result in “good as new” outcome, but is somewhere between ‘death’ and ‘minor permanent injury’. Allografts (doner tissues) often need lifelong medications and maintenance to not fail, and even “minor” transplants carry the risk of infection, necrosis and death.

And don’t forget cheaper!

Which is why its imperative that little Timmy is sent to the mines despite all the risks and occupational health hazard that will eventually kill them.

Microsoft when Bing first came out was literally like “it is highly recommended that everyone here use Bing Search”.

A lot of opioids are fairly related, Oxycodone and Oxymorphone can be used as precursors to make Nalaxone and vice versa. I recall Four Thieves Vinegar Collective doing a similar trick though I don’t remember what the actual precursor was.

The implications are the variables are conflated and the conclusions are overblown.

It should come as no surprise that acute trauma and injecting a foreign substance would cause a relatively significant immunological response. The issue is that for the “chronic phase”, which is where the novelty of this research lies, the evidence shown is far from difinitive compared to the story being told and what results are shown aren’t overly significant.

Even if you 100% believe the paper the conclusion is that the effect of getting tattooed is, arguably, similar to catching the flu once. However, the paper itself tried to obfuscate that so they have a more impactful result and the marketing/outreach/media site that was linked here doubles down on it trying to sell the story of “tattoos==illness and death”!!!

Oh honey… This is barely below average.

The full paper is here and, as usual, it’s hardly anything and decontextualized in order to get a publishable result.

This one is so bad that it doesn’t use established baselines or do any form of statistical analysis on the results instead opting for their own “baseline” measurements using very small sample sizes. It also plays a smoke and mirrors game where it shows a result for short term immunological response and then uses that to insinuate the ‘slightly reduced but still likely well within the error of the poor control’ long term effects are worth noting.

Other major flaws:

• As others have mentioned, mice are a terrible model for this as their skin is very thin and proper tattooing is near impossible.
• They mention verifying with human cadavers but don’t include any data from those.
• There was no control group, the baseline was an untreated mouse, not one with an acute foot trauma.
• Mice age very quickly, best I can tell the immunological markers weren’t age controlled. 2 months out of a <2 year lifespan is a lot of aging. Again, if there was a proper control to measure against.
• The obsfucation of the raw data into cheesy and unreadable box and whisker plots is hella suspicious.

At best it’s a very poorly communicated and poorly designed experiment but I suspect that’s due to it result hunting.

And it’s not just “overcrowded jails full of pretrial prisoners, the barefoot children carrying buckets for water in Appalachia” but the grad students in LA living out of their cars, or grandpa sleeping on a bus stop, or people in the Rockies surviving off roadkill and forage.

Seattle tent cities/tiny homes make some Favelas look real swanky.

There’s multiple ways, but as an example in a similar way as nutritional yeast is made by growing a microorganism such as Saccharomyces Cerevisiae and then extracting the products. B12 is made by growing an organism like Propionibacterium Freudenreichii and extracting and seperating those products.

You then mix the B12 from the Freudenreichii with the inactivated[dead] Cerevisiae.

Most people here are, correctly, pointing out that going fully vegan easily gets all your required nutrients except for B12. However, this is a mostly solved problem because while “naturally” humans would get it through consumption of animal products it’s synthesized via bacteria and it’s currently produced at scale via genetically modified strains, such as Propionibacterium Freudenreichii, and used to fortify things like plant based milks and nutritional yeast.

It is something to be aware of, but it’s also not the problem many on this thread are trying to paint it as.

🤛😁

It’s right there in the description, it doesn’t say “fight for the issue of human rights”.

The point wasn’t to denigrate solar, but to demonstrate the fallacious beliefs you’re operating under.

Yes, the plant owner will want to maximize the profit of their investments and get as quick a return as possible.

If gas/coal was held to the same exact safety, environmental and waste disposal standards as nuclear, and they should, then those would also need to be run at max throttle to justify the initial expense and have significantly shorter lifespans. It’s a “plant trees under whose shade you do not expect to sit” type issue.

Nothing you have said is an argument against a solar in the day + nuclear at night type of setup. It would certainly be a huge improvement over building out more CO2 based generators.

In the power grid of today (and even more so in the future), that’s fairly slow.

Not really. Reciprocating gas engines are specifically designed for balancing loads with renewables and have maneuvering capabilities in the 25-100% range with the state of the art at ~25%/minute slope.

Startup time is 15min-1hr for gas, 30min-2hr for nuclear.

You’re correct that gas is better on all these metrics, but it’s far more comparable than you’re making it out to be.

Also needs to be mentioned that these are very oversimplified metrics and things look better for nuclear the deeper in the weeds you go imo.

it needs to be able to drop to 0%.

That’s not how any kind of turbine works.

shutting it down means it’s just a hunk of a building costing money.

The same could be said of solar. ‘It’s a very expensive capitol investment and as soon as the sun goes down it’s just a stupidly expensive roof costing money’.

Nuclear can’t quickly scale up and down

It can though. Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have maneuvering capabilities in the 30-100% range with 5%/minute slope.

Historically, they were built as baseload plants without load following capability in order to keep the design simple which led to many anti-nuclear activists claiming this. It’s just not true though.

even if it could it’d make nuclear even less economically viable

Why?

It’s why currently gas plants are used as backup: they’re cheap

No. They’re not. The costs are just externalized and safety is, comparitively, neglected.

Tech bros and “no understanding of consent”, name a more iconic duo.

Institution based learning is can be unbelievably more effective.

Institution based learning also creates a bunch of barriers primarily because “learning” is not the main purpose of a modern university.

Those “professional educators” are often researchers moonlighting as educators, experts on their field, but rarely in addition to education. Their metrics are also not how well is material “taught” but to achieve a standard distribution of grades which can result in some real perverse incentives.

Those “structured courses” have the same fundamental design flaw of primary education. They aren’t designed primarily for learning, they’re designed for factory work and obedience.

That’s not touching on the more critical part of financial incentives and how financial strain, and excessive amounts of stress in general, is not conducive to a learning environment.

Source: self made electric engineer thanks to the library and the dump.