The Daily Mail (yes, god knows) have traced the guy who seems to be a completely innocent long term immigrant / working man / father.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...

Note, not an "asylum seeker" from a small boat as claimed and the police say there's no evidence of him having tried to harm anyone. Mad racist trouble makers causing problems as ever.

I know that it has become impossible to tell, but I think it was meant as a joke. If so, it's making the pertinent point that "right to repair" is not a real "right" because companies have opposed it and managed to limit it, even in the few places where there are laws trying to protect it.

Which makes no difference. The only action that you take is speech. If you had all the same intent, but did not speak you would not be punished.

Put another way, if you shoot an innocent man, but persuade the jury your intent was to save him from a robber, you will be innocent of murder. If the jury believes you intended to kill him then it will be at least second degree homicide. The need for intent is normal in prosecution of most crimes.

Are you trying to imply that spammers and developers of spamming software are not human? I see that as hopeful but naive.

This is (un)fortunately true and Boeing is absolutely critical to the success of the US. However relying on this is not safe because China will eventually buy their way through whatever they need to do, even making things that are properly engineered and more or less apparently safe. That's the reason that the Trump regime's decision to undermine the various investigations into what happened at Boeing are really really bad.

Damnit AC. How can we recruit you as the new CEO of Boeing if we don't know who you are?

Boeing "already agreed to plead guilty" in a deal where they had to "admit to conspiracy to obstruct and impede the lawful operation of the Federal Aviation Administration Aircraft Evaluation Group". They have now been let off their guilty plea by the Trump administration which means we actually know they did it but we also know it will never get fixed if it hasn't already been made public.

You cannot get a bigger fiasco than that. There can be components in Boeing planes which are under-specified for their, lets say, 20 year lifetime but will instead start failing after 12 or 15 years and suddenly cause Boeing aircraft to drop out of the sky. There can be software which didn't pass tests but was approved anyway. There could even be things like control surfaces for which the mechanical controls from the pilots don't have sufficient leverage to force movement. There could be people producing planes who don't check their tools and leave them inside fuel tanks where they could cause sudden loss of power. However, we would never know because we can never trust there to be verification of this.

That's not the important criticism. The important criticism is that just because it's targeting poor black communities doesn't mean it is racism. It could be simple economics or it could be classism. The article with it's "most affected by" fails to go beyond correlation to actually reach causation. I don't specifically see why the poor rural white communities of the Appalachians should not also be affected by pollution from transport and exploration of oil.

However, the article might also be right. Maybe some oil executive really did decide that black communities are less likely to fight back so it's better to put refining next to them. Some actual evidence might be nice.

I mean, the hype was discussed in all mainstream media. The end result is being discussed on slashdot. Could we say 99.99% of the population (verified by the OMUS)?

I think the definition of "reason" being used by the grandparent is "apply intelligence and good judgement to decisions and ensure that they make sense".

LLMs clearly have the skill of "provide reasoning about how to solve this problem" and the skill of "follow the reasoning previously generated" however that doesn't mean that they actually reason about the problem themselves. They just match patterns of reasoning that exist in the language of their training data and apply them to the situations they are presented with.

Four year old reading comprehension too.

Except I didn't. I went from "starts to be delivered within about 2 seconds" to "is 100% delivered after 30 seconds". Now, I can see how it might be difficult for someone with no engineering background, an inability to read beyond primary school age and the arrogance of a total prick to see how those statements could be compatible, however they actually are.

If you think that "rotating mass" is a substitute for "rotational inertia" or even "moment of inertia" then I hope to god you have never been allowed near a mechanical device. Let's just say that, even if I give you that "rotating mass" is a term of the art in power networks and allow you to get away with ignoring speed, the distribution of the rotating mass has as large an effect on the moment of inertia as the actual mass itself. Something that you would have been taught if only you had ever made it out of grade school.

In fact it is exactly that distribution of mass which makes a pumped storage hydro turbine with long blades ideal for quick starts whilst a typical gas turbine, with a much larger core and much shorter blades, often rotating at much higher speed, is much more suitable as a store of inertia.

I accept your capitulation.

There are actually pretty passable non-sparkling white wines made from grapes grown in Essex (part of the East Anglia "desert"). Some are bad, of course, but there are some really good wine makers who make wines that are really worth trying.

As opposed to your arguments such as "you think" "how long do you think" and "how do you think".

I'm not going to put in the effort to actually check the specifics of a statistical sample of different hydro plants and their detailed startup profiles for someone who starts with speculation and then is rude and now, finally shows his true colours by attacking exactly what he did himself.

In my previous comment I literally named a specific 440MW plant that can go from zero to 100% power in 30 seconds. This is disproof by contradiction of your whole argument. In fact, you may think you are so deep in your hole that you will be able to escape through China, but that's only because you also seem ignorant of exactly how far it can be through the world.

Large scale hydro gets around this by using many turbines rather than one, something made easy by the fact that they are using water movement which is easy to split with little loss of efficiency. That means that the moment inertia for a correctly designed pumped storage hydro plant is much much lower than that of a standard thermal plant.

You reached bedrock. Will you keep digging? Oh yes!!!!

the spade scrapes sparks of the granite, but still he hopes to eat crab soup in Shanghai soon. Keep digging "young" hero. Maybe someone will hear your scraping and have mercy on your soul.

I think that the gates start moving within mili-seconds and that since it's a pre-filled system the power likely starts to be delivered within about 2 seconds. In that time the central computer will have already checked multiple other alternatives and determined not only that the Hydro system is the best but also that other systems are going to be stable in the meantime. On the Hydro power end the computer will have consulted a table for the appropriate position required for a given output and then

Yes, if this was all done by phone (including multiple calls) then I believe that this would take approximately 5 minutes. In fact, there is a very specific reason that the grid used to work in 15 minute stabilization periods.

Prior to 2000 there were many fewer inverter based systems delivering power to the grid and a far greater percentage that worked using actual physical metal turbine shafts driving physical generators. Grid stability was largely provided by relying on the rotational inertia of those metal shafts in the short term (5 minute scale) and then compensating by adding and removing power in the longer term (15 minute and greater). This has been gradually changing, first when nuclear plants were added which have less local ability to adjust their output to maintain inertia and then later as renewable systems started adding large numbers of inverters to the grid. Grid balancing becomes more difficult in this situation to the extent that some inverters have a "synthetic inertia" feature where they sacrifice some power output for the ability to drive grid stability.

You show signs of loud ignorance. Things have been changing in the past decades whilst your undergraduate knowledge has been sleeping.

The Cruachan Hydro power system can go from zero to full output (440 megaWatts!!) in less than 30 seconds. Typical phone time reaction would probably delay the first delivery of power by two orders of magnitude.