Finally a good use for microsoft software: heating. If there is something Microsoft does good, that is heating. Teams might be slow and full of bugs, excel might be terrible but hey, the laptop is warm and this is all that counts.
While in SE Asia I would dual boot Windows specifically to drive out the ants that had found a home in my laptop. I could never get the same result with the Linux install I had at the time.
And then have a laptop filled with poison residue and dead ants? Slowly heat them up and they'll leave on their own, ideally before cooking to death inside
I love shitting on M$ as much as the next neckbeard but how is Excel terrible? It is still the world standard when it comes to GUI spreadsheet software and all of the other competitors are at best acceptable facsimiles up till they reach a certain cell count that Excel is capable of far exceeding.
No argument from me on Teams though. That is a dumpster fire.
Excel is a good spreadsheet, good data exploration tool, passable data wrangling tool, horrible data interchange format, and a completely terrible application platform.
When people are hating on Excel, they typically hate the latter two, not the former three.
No argument from me there. People should stick to using Excel for it's intended use though I would argue it's in some ways a massive credit to it that despite all of it's obvious shortcomings in many other usecases, non-programmers find it so intuitive that they try to use it as a general purpose programming platform.
i think another common assumption is that excel is for normal people, and programming is for smart people. A lot of people don't see making formulas as programming.
This might be a blessing in disguise. People are hilarious competent at complex and highly intricate tasks whenever they're unaware as to the fact that what they are doing is in fact complex and highly intricate - Minecraft being the most obvious recent manifestation of this phenomenon on mass.
As a data scientist I encounter problems all the time when someone opens up a CSV in excel and then saves it. A common thing that happens is that gene names like SEPT5 gets changed to a date
I was frustrated with this problem for a long time. And, the best solution was to use xlsx :(. Also, in nodejs xlsx package has been incredibly helpful.
How does xlsx solve this? I was pretty sure i've had to deal with this same issue with xlsx files, but maybe I am misremembering...or the problem was introduced as an xls file that was then converted to xlsx.
I can see why that would be annoying but it's a tradeoff between how many people would find the automatic categorization of a cell useful vs how many would find it a nuisance. I'm not a spreadsheet wiz but I'm pretty sure it would allow you to set a column to interpret input as raw text.
The problem is, MS thinks they know better than you what you want, and even if they guess it 95% right (and they don't), the rest causes so much frustration that its not worth it for audience like HN.
Its pain point with Office products since 90s, a classic example from that era (and 2000s) is doing a single newline in Word and reformatting whole 100 page document into useless mess. If they would make a clear easy option to just turn it off with 1 button, same for grammar corrections, it would make life easier for everybody. But no, MS knows better...
Yeah, I admit I find the tendency for MS products to autocorrect anything it can infuriating but I guess I'm just not their target audience which is why I stick to FOSS products and operating systems.
I tend to use org-mode's table feature and if I need to export stuff to common formats, pandoc.
But the only automatic characterization to a cell is always in a date. It has a 50 % hit rate and you always need a ritual to stop it: delete the contents of the cell, set the cell format to your desired format, insert the contents.
Gasoline is the world standard for fueling vehicles, but we know it's not the best option, just the incumbent. Something being the standard doesn't make it the best, and perhaps if people innovated over Excel, it could be better.
For what it's worth, I just moved a dataset out of Excel in to a pg database because what we were asking of it was just a hair more than a spreadsheet should be used for. It is great for collecting and viewing data, but as soon as the first complex filter came in, it fell apart. Something that was doable but challenging for me as a tech guy was not possible for my user, a parent. But a data grid with some simple filters and an export will get the job done, and thanks to tools like postgrest (not just postgres) and a React data grid, I was able to make something infinitely more usable than just a spreadsheet.
Well I would argue that gasoline is in fact still the "best" option if by "best" you mean the fuel source that balances energy density, ease of storage, and combustibility. Yes, it is environmentally unfriendly but so is the very notion of billions of personal vehicles to begin with, even if they were fully electric (which we are several decades from plausibly achieving).
At the end of the day, Excel is spreadsheet software. This is a class of product that is very old and there are few major innovations really left, which is also why Excel remains the leader. When you have a technology that has matured to such an extent, you are now chasing the margins in terms of improvement and that is where the largest and most well funded companies hold the advantage.
However the next step beyond a simple spreadsheet, the desktop database is still a sector that is quite nascent, especially in terms of products catered towards lay people. As you mentioned, currently databases are not particularly user friendly to the non-technical crowd but products like Notion are making such things more accessible. That is the area where I can envision something emerging that makes Excel or the very notion of spreadsheet software itself obsolete.
I think the main motivation for this in both Espoo and the neighbouring Helsinki is the cities' 2030 carbon neutrality pledges. From the data center's point of view, I wonder if the price they get paid for the heat is significant. Here's the public price list for recovered waste heat in Helsinki (around 30 EUR/MWh): https://www.helen.fi/en/companies/heating-for-companies/open...
In Helsinki, I'm already buying my certified zero-emission heat from a big 100MW heat pump station that uses waste water among its inputs. In June, they are also adding heat from a Telia data center as an input to the district heating system. They give some numbers too: "Using a heat pump, the data centre can produce at least 1.3 times the heat that it consumes as electricity." https://www.helen.fi/en/news/2021/konesalien-hukkal%C3%A4mm%...
Years ago I did some process and project management consulting for a big powertrain manufacturer in Maryland. They used to be (part of) an American company, but as time passed the became a unit of a Swedish one.
Power train manufacturers have, by necessity, something they called test cells. They're rooms where an engine can be attached to a dummy shaft and run to evaluate changes to design, or test assumptions, or any of a million other things.
In Maryland, no attempt was made to capture the work done by these engines, nor was any attempt made to get value from the (hot!) exhaust.
At a similar facility in Sweden, though, the test cell engine output was tied to a power generation and storage setup, and the exhaust was captured to heat the building.
They were built at the same time. It's always baffled me.
Almost certainly due to different regulatory regimes.
One would have accounted for the pollution and costs and the other wouldn't basically instructing the corporation to be wasteful and pollute unless it wanted to lose money by doing so.
This isn’t a very deep observation. We haven’t even been told that the Swedish plant’s test-engine-heater wasn’t saving them money. Maybe the Swedes are just smart and good at spotting opportunities to reuse heat? If it was due to regulation, what regulation?
I thought the commenter was indicating that both plants were built at the same time by the same Swedish company, in two different regulatory regimes. So I feel my take is plausible in this specific instance as well as generically.
I don't think that was implied, only that the Maryland plant came to be owned later by the Swedes, who then owned both plants.
I would have been interested to hear "Swedish regulation of waste heat is highly stringent and nearly every spare joule is used for generation or directly for heating. This is due in part to their climate" or whatever. Your comment was like answering "why are M1 chips faster than Intel at some very specific task" by saying "they come from a different manufacturer".
This is so obvious the real question is why this isn't the default everywhere.
Heating is one of the bigger challenges regarding the energy transition, and a big user of fossil gas (and sometimes oil, coal and talking about Finland even peat, which is really one of the dirtiest energy sources imaginable). Datacenters generate lots of "waste" heat.
It requires some planning, e.g. datacenters need to be built with connections to heat grids. But given how many new datacenters get built basically everywhere, this should be a no-brainer.
I'm guessing heating demand elsewhere is a bit less than as it would be in Finland. Also, Finland has a lot of infrastructure for heating in the form of city and district heating. So, it's pretty easy to connect to that and start dumping heat in it. That's not true everywhere and often the best places for data centers are not necessarily that close to population centers with district heating. For example in the Netherlands, Google and others operate data centers in a pretty remote area where wind energy is cheap and where there happens to be a major fiber optic cable coming into the country.
For new data centers, being carbon neutral or negative is pretty much a standard goal at this point for quite some time. Not only is it good for the environment but it also lowers cost and high energy costs are of course a problem if you are using lots of energy. The cheapest energy happens to be also the cleanest; hence a lot of data centers would be enthusiastic adopters of anything related to cheaper and cleaner energy. Additionally, a lot of energy is transformed into heat in the process of using it, so cooling solutions are also in scope for this.
Most data center operators are working towards carbon neutrality and have been for years. Many actually have web pages advertising their goals and current status for this. It's mainly their older data centers that are a problem on this front as those still rely on energy from the grid in places where that arguably isn't very green (like Virginia for example).
IMHO given how rich Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are, they could spend more to speed that process up and should maybe be coerced into doing so by the countries that host them under very charitable tax conditions (like my home country the Netherlands). MS seems very pleased with themselves with this data center. But of course they are still happily burning fossil fuels elsewhere.
I believe district heating is unfortunately not very common outside Northern, and to an extent, Central Europe, so there's not often anything to connect the heat output to.
IBM Zurich did something similar a few years ago. Recognising the limitations of the Carnot efficiency when trying to scavenge energy from data centres, they opted to recognise the economic value of warm water for district heating.
I reuse heat produced by my server room. Don't have to be M$ for this. Clean warm air is good for heating your house, drying your laundry, etc. etc. etc.
I am more interested in how are they doing it. Heat loss during transfer? How much Economic value coming out of it ( heating )? How far are those homes from the Data Center?
Can you expound a bit? What can they do with those heat? For rotating turbines, I think they will require steam, so it is not helpful here. There might be other applications heating nearby homes. But, that's extremely unlikely. It is just like bitcoin argument where one party says they can use those waste heat to heat the home.
Waste heat can be recovered by a heat pump in various ways, then recirculated either within a building (this is just typical HVAC heat recovery) or between buildings (district heating system) as supply system heating.
The heat is transferred to the existing district heating system by a heat exchanger. District heating is by far the most common mode of heating in Finnish urban areas.
GDR had it in a lot of places (only german: https://www.prenzlauerberg-nachrichten.de/2011/06/07/kleine-...) these isolated pipes are still quite common in eastern germany. The cause was there was no gas and most energy came from coal burning and having centralized heating was more effective - also often industries supplied heat.
If an individual country intervenes directly in a war, it doesn't trigger article 5, since they are the ones declaring the war. If, let's say, Germany does so, it may find itself in a war with Russia and may have to fight it without the support of the rest of Nato.
Now, if Russia escalates a conflict and tries to occupy Germany directly, or especially if they use nukes, that could be seen as grounds for invoking article 5, even if Germany initiated the hostilities. But simply fighting a war over a neighbour such as Ukraine or Finland may not be seen as enough qualification.
Consdier 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (second war). After 9/11, article 5 was invoked, and the USA was receiving support from most of Nato when invading Afghanistan based on that. On the other hand, when they invaded Iraq, that was not seen as covered by Article 5, so only the closest allies joined.
Of course, Germany, a country with 2x the GDP of Russia and a huge manufacturing sector _could_ have chosen to have a military powerful enough to resist Russian aggression even with most of Nato staying out of the fight, but until now, it seems that Germans have been more afraid of future German aggression than future Russian aggression. This may have changed, though.
At this time, Russia is bleeding enough in Ukraine that they probably don't want to add a front against Finland. If they fail in Ukraine, they may stay discouraged for a long time. However, if Putin does achieve his goals in Ukraine, he may want repeat his strategy over countries like Finland or Moldova, or even try to intimidate the Baltics or Poland.
If Germany (and other Central or Northern European Nato countries) restore their militaries to about cold war levels, that will change these equations significantly. Suddenly a limited conventional war against just a few neighbours may become a much greater risk, or even unwinnable for Russia.
Until then, I'm afraid that it actually IS a concern for investors that Finland is not a Nato member
Don't worry, if it ever came to that, Bill Gates himself will swoop in to protect his beloved Microsoft with his futuristic super yacht that is transformable into a giant battle mech[1].
