Save? Where are you getting this idea from? Move from buttons to touchscreen raised the price because touchscreens are expensive. Return to buttons will raise the price once again because buttons are extra parts.
A switch requires a physical and tangible thing to be produced. A touchscreen button is done in software and costs nothing extra to produce. You already know this I'm sure.
>The first phase, which just went live, has a capacity of 200MW. The second phase, scheduled for 2026, will add an additional 100MW, bringing the total capacity to 300MW/600MWh.
Love the capacity transition from megawatts to megawatthours. This journalist definitely understands the topic
It’s industry standard due to historical reasons, not because a primary concern is not how much storage (how long a given source can provide the nameplate power for) there is. Until recently the nameplate on a power source could be generally expected to run at its rated capacity factor indefinitely.
Battery storage has almost been exclusively used for ancillary services, where storage was almost irrelevant. Now that it’s starting to be expected to provide actually useful power to consumers it will slowly become the primary metric that matters.
Usually power capacity is used in press releases to greenwash things and be purposefully misleading to a naive audience. Nice to see this finally starting to change.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see it as a greenwashing conspiracy, and I especially don't see it as a journalistic error as the parent claimed.
Just because someone doesn't know industry terms doesn't mean those terms are incorrect.
Regarding your point about nameplate power, dispatchable sources have existed for almost a century using this convention.
Do you think the fact that new cars have engines that are not rebuildable but only replaceable is just a coincidence? With every year car manufacturers get more insight in how and when things break, thus allowing the use of more plastic parts in the engine bay
Almost any car can go 200,000 miles these days and exceptions (Hyundai/Kia engines, Nissan transmissions) are well known and excoriated.
Pre OBD2 cars just didn’t do that. 100k was a significant milestone for the life of the car. Today, it’s a preventative maintenance milestone.
Shitty plastic parts aren’t a feature of modern cars, just lousy companies. I had a 1991 Dodge Spirit in college and high school that had a little plastic part in the distributor that broke when it got hot.
When it did, the car would just stop if you hit a puddle or turned right quickly. It did so enough that I kept two spares in the trunk. One time the car died on the ramp from the GW Bridge to the West Side Drive. I just stopped on the ramp and fixed it, pissing off hundreds of people in the process.
Great story. The GW bridge is one of the most stressful driving-in-city-you-don’t-know-well experiences I’ve ever had. We were literally shouting at google maps as it blithely delivered nonsense while we were surrounded by cars who wanted very much not to let us change lanes.
>Almost any car can go 200,000 miles these days and exceptions
Doubt that
>Pre OBD2 cars just didn’t do that
In Eastern Europe, if the car has 200k-300k km on the odomoter, it only means one thing - the odometer is turned back. Pre OBD2 doing 500k and up is pretty normal here.
>little plastic part in the distributor
Distributor was always plastic, afaik. I'm talking about plastic water pumps on the new BMWs
The Bureau of Transportation indicates that the average age across the board for vehicles still on the road is just over 11 years according to Autotrader, and the average may be approaching 12 years. Standard cars in this day and age are expected to keep running up to 200,000 miles, while cars with electric engines are expected to last for up to 300,000 miles."
It's not a coincidence - new cars have turbochargers and electronic engine control that provide huge performance/efficiency gains and necessarily are harder to repair.
Your average shitty 4-banger from the 80s or 90s is not remotely comparable to a new engine - in almost every respect (including reliability!) the new one is better.
Yes, and who exactly is going to rebuild a $2000 engine instead of buying a new one?
The labor costs ALONE make that a horrible idea for anyone who isn't a mechanic already - and if an engine lasts ten years the depreciation on the car is intense enough that it doesn't matter.
A lot of depends on where your price point is. Do you compete with Temu or do you sell expensive things. People rarely expect cheap things to last, but if you don't compete on being the cheapest, than the product is expected to be made to last
It implies maintaining the browser would better fund the mission in the long run than selling user data to adtech now as the user count continues to decline.
Google pays Apple 18 billion dollars per year to be the default search engine on Safari. If Firefox had managed to stay just as popular imagine how much more money they'd have been making on search deals these last 5 years and how much of that could have went to whatever mission they wanted. Instead they've got a whole lot of noise adding up to about nothing for income + a much smaller search deal than they should have. That's why "having a social mission" isn't inherently the issue, it's all about the management around balancing how the investment for the social mission is done.
I think GPs numbers are off by an order of magnitude or so though. I remember reading something like Mozilla spending 200 million/year on software development (not all Firefox) so it might take 300+ million/year just on Firefox to really have a big impact from status quo. Someone with the real numbers is invited to correct me on that. Browsers have huge teams of people, even Ladybird is using large components like Skia developed by other browser teams.
Firefox can't compete with iOS or Android for what should be obvious reasons - it is structurally impossible. Also, the competing browsers are way better today than in Firefox's heyday. There is very little reason to use Firefox today outside of ideological.
Firefox (and its derivatives) is swiftly becoming the only place you can run full uBlock Origin. That's a good reason right there.
Ignoring adblock, I think you could flip it. Chrome and Firefox are basically interchangeable, so if there's little reason to choose Firefox, there's also little reason to choose Chrome.
Not a lawyer, but: When you order food at a restaurant, the law assumes an implied contract—you agree to pay for what you consume. Even without a written agreement, courts recognize this as a valid contract based on common practice.
I wonder if a future society can allow geniuses like you to opt-out of the social contract, and there'd be outlaws roaming the lands, ready to rob you that evening, hey you agreed to opt out of police protection!
once again, this is an implication that I ordered it. If you put a gun to my face and demand that I order a McBurger, that does not mean that we entered a contract.
You still need GPU passthrough if you want to use ant actual GPU instead of llvmpipe or whatever else renderer. Mind you, QubeOS is virtualization OS, Linux on QubesOS does not have access to GPU by default
reply