Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | throw0101d's commentslogin

> I set up my own home network with a Vertiv Liebert Li-ion UPS a few years ago and was thinking about how inefficient the whole process is regarding power. The current goes from AC to DC back to AC back to DC.

With double-conversion, generally yes.

I recently ran across the (patented?) concept of a delta conversion/transformer UPS that seems to eliminate/reduce the inefficiencies:

* https://dc.mynetworkinsights.com/what-are-the-different-type...

* a bit technical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn_ydJemqCk

* Figures 6 to 8 [pdf]: https://www.totalpowersolutions.ie/wp-content/uploads/WP1-Di...

The double-conversion only occurs when there's a 'hiccup' from utility power, otherwise if power is clean the double-conversion is not done at all so the inefficiencies don't kick in.


> So, he became a priest? (Father Ted [a literary classic] reference)

Galileo had (illegitimate) daughters but was unable to find husbands for them, so their remaining options were to become nuns. One seems to have quite brilliant, but the other a drunk:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Daughter

Back in the day the Church was the social safety net of society, so many folks ended up in monasteries as a form of charity for folks that would perhaps otherwise would have no other way to support themselves.


Only if you were reasonably wealthy.

Monasteries were not orphanages. You could sometimes dump a baby off there (they had deposit bins specifically for that), but they wouldn't raise it. They would usually find somebody else to take care of it.

Monasteries did not have accept older children or adults, either. Children given to the church would often come with money for their care and feeding. The poor would often get turned away.

A monastery could be a safe place to house offspring who didn't have a family who could (publicly) support them. They were also good places for second sons and other spare children, and with enough money donated they could work their way up in the church hierarchy to do the family some good.

But it was a lousy social safety net.


Genearlly nuns would enter to convent before puberty while boys would enter the monastary after. You are right that they were not orphanages and did not take young children, thou what orphanages there were, were run by the Church. Abandoing newborns to a orphanage was not possible. Babies can't survive on cow's milk, especially the unpastuzed kind.

> Would you recommend reading the book first?

I recommended it to a co-worker, who ended up going with the audio book, and found he found it good.


See also perhaps "Mac OS X 10.0" by John Siracusa:

* https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2001/04/macos-x/


> How can you guarantee a certain income?

By investing in income-producing assets.

> Such predictability is just not possible in real life […]

Owning profitable business(es) is not possible?


> sort by worst review

Now go to IMDb again:

* https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12042730/ratings/?ref_=tt_ov_ra...

and look at the score distribution.


That is the kind of metric that got Trump elected....

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” — H.L. Mencken

Dont disagree :-)

> Consider the possibility that your opinions are not universal.

Critic and audience reactions are generally positive:

> On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 94% of 326 critics' reviews are positive. The website's consensus reads: "A visually dazzling space odyssey that's carried along effortlessly by the gravitational pull of Ryan Gosling at his most winning, Project Hail Mary is a near-miraculous fusion of smarts and heart."[47] Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 77 out of 100, based on 55 critics, indicating "generally favorable" reviews.[48] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale.[49]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Hail_Mary_(film)#Criti...


Did you watch the movie? Those reviews are manipulated...

Do you believe in the concept of objectivity? Meaning some movies are Objectively better than others, some Reviews are Objectively better than other?

If I bring a bunch of kids and teens to the movie, and at the end they all cant stop talking about how much they loved the rock, should I give an Oscar to Ryan Gosling?


> Do you believe in the concept of objectivity? Meaning some movies are Objectively better than others, some Reviews are Objectively better than other?

In this context? Absolutely not. One person's favorite movie is another's least.

> If I bring a bunch of kids and teens to the movie, and at the end they all cant stop talking about how much they loved the rock, should I give an Oscar to Ryan Gosling?

It's OK for a movie to not be an Oscar contender.


IMDB has it at a 8.5/10

I am happy we can agree those metrics mean nothing...


As I said an hour ago, to you:

> 100% of online reviews should be treated as manipulated.

IMDb is review bombed to shit, both positive and negative.


> Do you believe in the concept of objectivity?

When it comes to the concept of entertainment? No.

Is the 2003 movie The Room (written/directed/produced by Tommy Wiseau) "objectively" good or bad?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Room

If it is "objectively" 'bad' why do (many) people have such a good time watching it? Are they "objectively" happier after watching The Room? Are people "objectively" happier after watching Project Hail Mary?

What is the purpose of "art": in general and/or particular works of it?


>>When it comes to the concept of entertainment? No.

You are confusing taste and quality....

If there is no objectivity....then you would have no basis to explain why a film is better or worse than another, A student first iPhone short would be equal to The Godfather. A child banging pots would be indistinguishable from a Symphony.

The moment you say something is good or bad, we can talk about craft, skill, storytelling structure and emotional impact, all of which can be measured and compared and where this movie fails on all parameters...

You can personally dislike something excellent...for example few people can appreciate the genius of Miles Davis, and enjoy something mediocre... Too many to quote here...but Project Hail Mary is one :-)


> If there is no objectivity....then you would have no basis to explain why a film is better or worse than another, A student first iPhone short would be equal to The Godfather. A child banging pots would be indistinguishable from a Symphony.

What is the purpose of "art": in general and/or particular works of it? What makes (a work of) 'art' 'good'?

Is PHM 'good' in its purpose? Is The Room? Was 2023's Barbie? When a child is banging on pots, is he accomplishing his purpose in his 'creative act'? Is Schoenberg's atonal music objectively 'good'?

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJg4XbzSV9Q

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonality

> I think Michael Bay sometimes sucks (“Pearl Harbor,” “Armageddon,” “Bad Boys II“) but I find it possible to love him for a movie like “Transformers.” It’s goofy fun with a lot of stuff that blows up real good, and it has the grace not only to realize how preposterous it is, but to make that into an asset.

* https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/transformers-2007


>> What is the purpose of "art": in general and/or particular works of it? What makes (a work of) 'art' 'good'?

So many things...But anybody at The Juilliard School or Berklee College of Music can tell you if you are good or bad on your musicianship...Anybody at the California School of Cinematic Arts or American Film Institute Conservatory can advise you on your future as a future Director...and anybody at the Pratt Institute can comment on your quality as an Artist.

Why do you dismiss the concept of Quality?


> So many things...But anybody at The Juilliard School or Berklee College of Music can tell you if you are good or bad on your musicianship...Anybody at the California School of Cinematic Arts or American Film Institute Conservatory can advise you on your future as a future Director...and anybody at the Pratt Institute can comment on your quality as an Artist.

Can anyone else tell us that, or only certain 'gatekeepers'? Who gets to judge the amount of Quality in a thing, or whether something is Good for its Purpose?

> Why do you dismiss the concept of Quality?

"Quality" as in the amount of 'Goodness' something has?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_(philosophy)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good

An Axe is a bad Chair because it does not have the Qualities for (e.g.) sitting, but that is not its Purpose.

Were the folks that made PHM trying to make Art or Entertainment (or a mix of the two)? If PHM was made to be Entertainment, and people were entertained, was it not Good at its desired Purpose? Did 2007's Transformers have the Quality of Entertainment that it set out to have? Roger Ebert seems to have thought so.


> If there is no objectivity....then you would have no basis to explain why a film is better or worse than another

This is indeed the case. You can consult many film experts and get very different top ten lists. Some critics may hate The Godfather. Some won't get Citizen Kane. Some love a good popcorn fluff movie and find this year's Oscar contenders pretentious.

It becomes a matter of general consensus. And that consensus appears to be that it's a pretty satisfying movie; https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/project_hail_mary. (High art? No. But that wasn't its goal.)


You say there is no objectivity, but then you immediately appeal to consensus, Rotten Tomatoes scores, and whether the film achieved its goal :-))

Those are all attempts at objective measurement. You are using objective frameworks to argue objectivity does not exist. :-)

The fact that critics disagree does not prove there is no objectivity. People disagree about scientific questions too, but that does not mean science is purely subjective. Disagreement just means the question is hard, not that there is no answer...

The whole reason you cited that score is because you believe it points to something real about the film quality. That is an appeal to objectivity whether you realize it or not. :-)

I argue those manipulated reviews [1] are not...

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47520761


> You say there is no objectivity, but then you immediately appeal to consensus…

Yes? Consensus is frequently how we handle things that don't have an objective answer. Which restaurant is the best in your city? Who knows? But you can say "a lot of people like restaurant X" just fine.

> The whole reason you cited that score is because you believe it points to something real about the film quality.

Opinions are real. They're just not objective. Objectively, most of the vetted reviewers RT tracks seem to hold positive opinions of the film, as do their (much less trustworthy) regular old users.

If it's a box office flop after a few weeks, that'll be good evidence for your theory. I'll be surprised, though.


Somewhat related, nature photographer/youtuber Danni Connor had her recording of a red squirrel used in the movie Dune (Part 1) for the sound of the desert mouse (muad'dib). Her interviewing with (Oscar-winning) sound designer Mark Mangini on it:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtfzjehDg74

* transcript: https://otter.ai/u/PA9dbWFA7BgPgLZN9CSo1WFAjXk

* https://www.iflscience.com/wildlife-photographers-viral-squi...

* https://markmangini.com/Mark_Mangini/Blog/Entries/2021/11/7_...

Story of her 'adopting' the squirrels:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tDlh62AVPo

The name of the squirrel is "Baby Pear"; her viral tweet:

* https://twitter.com/DaniConnorWild/status/127534941750838476...


> If bad actors can create valid tls certs they can solve the dnssec problem.

I think you have it backwards: by not running DNSSEC it can mean bad actors (at least a certain level) can MITM the DNS queries that are used to validate ACME certs.

It is now mandated that public CAs have to verify DNSSEC before issuing a cert:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47392510

So if you want to reduce the risk of someone creating a fake cert for one of your properties, you want to protect your DNS responses.


If you mean MITM between DNS Server and CA (e.g. letsencrypt), thats on a level of BGP hacking (means for me government involved) and means they can just use a CA (e.g. Fina CA 2025 with cloudflare).

I think the risk didn't change much (except for big corp/bank).


> I don't understand why new houses don't just have one high quality AC/DC converter so you can just use LED lighting without every bulb needing its own AC/DC converter.

IEEE 802.3bt can deliver up to 71W at the destination: just pull Cat 5/6 everywhere.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_over_Ethernet#Standard_i...

* https://www.usailighting.com/poe-lighting


And pay $60 per Ethernet POE+ light bulb.

> And pay $60 per Ethernet POE+ light bulb.

In the commercial/industrial space this may be worth it: how long do these bulbs last? how much (per hour (equivalent)) do you pay your facilities folks? how much time does it take for employees or tenants to report an outage and for your folks to get a ladder (or scissor lift) to change the bulb?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: