Are you saying that they cant explain the contents of machine code in human readable format? Are you saying that they can’t be used in a system that iteratively evaluates combinations of inputs and check their results?
It's a static site/document generator that supports bibliographies, jupyter notebooks, and good old fashioned markdown. It works well for complex academic resumes and CV's, as well as blogs and library documentation.
Western Australia and Queensland have a good deal of Monazite sands that one can extract Thorium from. This would greatly reduce the need for more complex safety and disposal regulations necessary with larger fission reactors.
There is a valley of death between something that works in a research lab and something that world in the real world.
A research reactor does not have to produce electricity at anything close to an economic price, just as the fusion reactors.
A Thorium reactor might work, and might be built in some future, and it might even not come super over budget or over time like more or less every fission reactor we've built. In the meantime, wind/solar/batteries are being continuously delivered on time, on budget, are getting continuously cheaper, and are available today.
* What is the figure on the magnitude of power Australia needs?
* How many 2MW molten salt reactors like the built and being tested TMSR-LF1 reactor would Australia need to meet that figure? What would be the cost and time to construct that number in parallel?
* There's a 10MW version planned - what's the cost | timeline | number for those?
* Eventually there might be a ~ 300MW version built and tested .. what's the timeline on that?
The CSIRO GenCost report seems to think the costs of batteries + renewables will be far less overall and more immediately available in Australia as we scale them out .. rather than waiting decades and still having to fudge about in the meantime .. thoughts?
Australia's electricity consumption in 2021 was approximately 265 TWh (terawatt-hours) per year. Napkin math works out to:
Annual energy production of one 2 MW reactor: 2 MW * 8760 hours/year = 17,520 MWh/year = 17.52 GWh/year.
Number of reactors required: 265,000 GWh/year / 17.52 GWh/year = ~15,130 reactors.
This is of course a silly computation for scaling a research grade molten salt reactor. 300+ MW reactors knocks things down to a few dozen.
Now, how about if we apply this same requirement to solar power? How many solar panels will we need to get the same power gain?
Total energy required: 265,000 GWh/year = 265,000,000 MWh/year = 265,000,000,000 kWh/year.
Number of panels needed: 265,000,000,000 kWh/year / 584 kWh/year per panel ≈ 453,767,123 panels.
I know Chinese panels are cheap and all, but the notion that Australia will maintain a network of 450M panels is silly, and this is just to replace what we have now, not what is needed in the future.
That's an unsourced and unbacked assertion, not at argument.
And I have seen no convincing argument for why this would be even remotely true.
As a counter argument, consider how poorly such predictions have done in the past (i.e. early 2023) [0]. For over a decade the IEA has been saying the same thing, and for every year in that decade they have been wrong, comically wrong.
So if you want to make your argument, you'll have to explain why the literally exponential curve is going to not just flatten, but go to zero.
PCRE2 is specified through its implementation, which has so many edge cases and special flags that most people can't reason about what kinds of problems it could cause.
I really wish more people used PEG parsing. I wrote a library for it in Haxe that was surprisingly fast despite being interpreted : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtNQvjyioGQ
ripgrep uses the PCRE2 library directly. Otherwise ripgrep is "pure" Rust. (To the extent that is plausible at present. e.g., ripgrep relies on libc indirectly via Rust's standard library.)
Healthcare is a slippery slope. Don’t tax hospitals, but tax pharmaceutical companies? Don’t tax pharmaceutical companies, but tax the income of doctors?
I think the point of the article is that it’s really hard to make these judgments and doing way with the whole system entirely makes the most sense, which seems reasonable to me.
"Best I can do is tax you like you have socialized medicine[0], then force you to pay 2 - 4 fold what those other counties private systems cost to actually get care for most of your life." - Every politician in my entire life time
Quite a few politicians suggest we take one of the various approaches the rest of the OECD countries do, as they're clearly more cost-efficient... but that gets derided as socialism.
They also never make the point that we are already paying for it. They want to tax me more, when if they were as efficient as the NHS I'd have two healthcare systems with money left over.
Medicare for all will never see the floor until everyone currently over 60 is gone, at a minimum. They are all in on it.
The US can clearly afford both, as your chart demonstrates. It shows we pay more in tax than the other OECD countries pay in total, including taxes for healthcare.
We've picked the least efficient worst-of-both-worlds scenario out of a fear of anything that sounds like socialism ("public option", "Medicare for All", etc.).
Its corruption. Explain it in the terms I have on the national debate stage, everyone is on board. NHS style healthcare AND lower taxes. You'd win every election, but you'll never see that stage.
> The US can clearly afford both, as your chart demonstrates.
The chart doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort. By definition, sovereign governments can afford literally anything, since they can print the currency within the country. It will just cause inflation.
That statement is complete and utter reductionist nonsense.
The US government is currently paying as much per capita for healthcare as socialized systems, then individuals pay again. If we can afford what we're doing now, it's obvious that we could afford a socialized system. It costs less.
The reason we don't have one is because Democratic politicians, funded by healthcare and drugs, are so willing to lie about the math for money, and the media, funded by ads for healthcare and drugs, are so willing to help them.
The fact that our current setup costs 2-3x any other OECD nation indicates reform to be more like their systems is likely to reduce costs, not increase them.
> Don’t tax hospitals, but tax pharmaceutical companies?
Hospitals, to maintain their nonprofit status, have to provide charitable contributions. One way is when patients apply for payment reduction or discharge because they can not afford to pay. Patients need to apply for this so they have documentation to give the IRS.
> Don’t tax pharmaceutical companies, but tax the income of doctors?
How often do you ask a doctor to work for free? They still get paid by the hospital.
Yes, pharmaceutical companies, which as far as I know are private, also have something like this. This is preventing media coverage and Congress imposing max cap on prices on public assistance programs (prices private insurance will use for leverage) so they can keep charging what they want.
> I think the point of the article is that it’s really hard to make these judgments and doing way with the whole system entirely makes the most sense, which seems reasonable to me.
The point of this article is to attack the nonprofit competitors to their due paying members. They gloss over many details and as I posted elsewhere; they even defensive of the tax loopholes of their due paying members.
> How often do you ask a doctor to work for free? They still get paid by the hospital.
Oftentimes, physicians are not paid by the hospital at all. They will form consulting groups and work for the consulting group which will have a contract with the hospital, or they'll do something C2C.
> Oftentimes, physicians are not paid by the hospital at all. They will form consulting groups and work for the consulting group which will have a contract with the hospital, or they'll do something C2C.
This is a red herring. The hospital still pays for a service (doctors or a group representing them) while being required to make charitable contributions to keep it's nonprofit status. These charitable contributions are very important for people in poorer and rural areas of the United States that for profit entities do not want to operate in (or would demand subsidies from the government to operate in).
I think mostly what we need is transparency for nonprofits, list of all salaries, expenses, capital expenditures, bonuses, etc before one can really say what makes sense. Including for “customers” (patients). If you know how much it takes to run a nonprofit then people will begin to understand if they are price gouging or if there’s some huge expense that the general public is unaware of. We need the light of day put on these ventures so they can’t hide info AND keep their nonprofit status. For example, I wish we were much harsher on religious non profits that get mixed up in politics and support candidates and parties, they should lose their tax free status immediately.
Or you could look at Kaiser Permanente, which is the exact opposite of this and the biggest nonprofit cited in this paper.
Unless you go to 3rd party provider for a non-emergency, you will never get hit with this type of nonsense. Everything is reasonably priced.
It’s a nonprofit organization that handles the financing and providing healthcare services which gives them an incentive to manage costs.
The ACA marketplace gives them an incentive to provide good service because you can always sign up for different insurance at the end of the year if you don’t like the care they provide.
Personally, I suspect this study was sponsored by the big health insurance companies who want to get in the same game.
It's called universal government provided healthcare. We have it in Canada. Gets rid of that nasty, unnecessary, "for profit" medical sector.
Though, I think that may actually be as-large or a larger problem for America than non-profit taxation/exemption policies.
You have to admit, you could clamp down on the other crap easier if healthcare being a "non-profit" wasn't such a big deal due it just being managed by the government.
It's hard watching venerable institutions rot into "just avoid administerial short term blame" death loops. You have to have skin in the game, not just hire a temporary manager for it.
Always a pass from me, gets things off on the wrong foot right away.
reply