I don't understand why that is such a huge problem. The alternatives have much more severe problems, all from reusing a wildcard in many places to running your own PKI.
It depends on your risk profile, but there are definitely people who'd rather run their own PKI than permit threat actor reconnaissance by publishing internal hostnames to CT logs.
When this information is useful you've either got fundamental security related issues that needs to be addressed long before this, or you're dealing with threat actors with significant capabilities. In the latter case you've probably already taking this into account when you're creating your stuff, or you have the capability and technical understanding to know how to properly roll out your own PKI.
The overlap of people that suggest that you either run your own PKI or just distribute a wildcard certificate and have the technical understanding on how to do this in a secure way is minuscule. The rest of those people are probably better off using something like Lets Encrypt.
I'm mostly happy with my Apple Watch, but you better hope that it doesn't calibrate itself poorly. There's no way to force it to recalibrate and it persists through full reset and even full replacement of the Apple Watch itself. I've more or less given up trying to fix it. So according to Apple I've been standing upright all waking hours for the last 3-4 years.
I've heard similar issues for people using crutches. They get like 3-5x the amount of steps, or not steps at all, and you've guessed it, no way to calibrate it.
(I'm sort of posting this in the hope that someone actually know how to force it to recalibrate)
I'm going to chalk this up to the decline in Google search to save my embarrassment, because that was very straight forward, and I don't understand how I didn't find that. Admittedly, it's a couple of years since I looked and it could be a new feature.
Funnily enough one of the demonstrated use-cases of Apple Intelligence was looking up information like this.
I understand this will reset motion calibration data but does anyone know if heart rate measurements also use calibration data? My Ultra 2 always seems to undercount my heart rate compared to my older Series 6. This is especially noticeable during higher intensity workouts.
I get the point you're trying to make here, and the sarcastic undertone, but I'd have issues living with myself if people died because of something that I was able to identify and that was preventable, and I did nothing.
The whole case strikes me as odd. Not only did the higher ups know about the problem, they also left a paper trail about keeping a lid on it and getting rid of the guy. This opens them up to a lot of scenarios, like:
- As demonstrated by this case, the information came out because of the wrongful termination
- If an accident had happened there's a fairly high chance that the investigators would uncover it, either because the engineer in question came forward or because they think they should have known about this, and cracks appear when they start asking questions.
An unspoken rule in a lot of fields is that you make sure that this kind of information never reaches the people that could be held liable for it. The people that are likely to be held responsible at least have to make it appear that they're not trying to suppress information like this. You quickly lose that ability if you actively try to get rid of people that tries to raise an issue. So they surround themselves with middle management that knows to not bring things up to them, without being explicitly told so.
The point is that there are many people sleeping fine or not, that kept their livelihood by not whistleblowing. solely due to the misaligned incentives and lack of accountability
I think that depends a lot on how the data is going to be used. It sounds like you're not really using EBS volumes for what they're great at; Durability.
While instance storage is ephemeral nothing really stop you from using it as a local cache in a clustered filesystem. If you have a somewhat read intensive workload then you might see performance close to matching that of using instance storage directly.
There are some fundamental limits to how fast a clustered filesystem can be, based on things like network latency and block size. Things like locking is an order of magnitude slower on a clustered filesystem compared to locally attached storage.
Having a low child mortality is important, and we've done so many good things in the last couple of decades, but I'm starting to think we're at the point now where the money you have to spend to make a meaningful difference is better spent in other areas of health care.
A classical example of this is in Norway. There's nothing that gives you access to more resources than being pregnant or being in care of a newborn. You can suffer from all kinds of mental health issues for your entire life, struggle to be a productive member of society and be in and out of temporary treatment and be on social benefits. But the moment someone is pregnant they get will be top priority for anything that is even remotely connected with child mortality, almost regardless of how benign something is.
I personally know several people that finally got the help they had been so desperately been begging for, just because they got pregnant. We could have saved them from literal decades of suffering by just providing good treatment early. I'm willing to bet that we'd even be in a position to spend even more money on reducing child mortality, because when you start doing the math of how much they ended up costing society it really adds up.
They don't even seem to specify what kind of charger they've tested. But I wouldn't be surprised if they found that a quarter of public L2-chargers were out of service. They have tons of failure points and usually very little internal logic to self-report.
Some of the early fast chargers (outside of Tesla) were notoriously bad, and a lot of them are still around, for better or worse. Many of the early AC and DC chargers were also without any kind of connectivity, making it hard to properly manage them. In the early days even some of the fast chargers at gas station weren't really network connected, and if they were it was poorly implemented. Not that different from pumps at the forecourt.
Making a wild guess that it was a Circle K-station that you went to? They were quite early to the market with fast chargers, and had a lot of reliability issues with some of the chargers. Like you suggested, it's usually software related, and you can often get them to work by just power-cycling them using the emergency stop button. If you hear the loud click from the metal contacts or the charger latches with the port and it doesn't start charging it's almost always a software glitch that a restart will fix.
For regular AC-charging all the logic is in the car, so the only thing you really need is some safety features on the outside, typically some ground fault protection and so on. But when you use a DC fast charger the charger itself and the cars battery management system has to work together, which I imagine can cause all kinds of edge cases where people have interpreted the standards differently. It didn't help that there were multiple different standards early on.
There's a lower bound to how cheap electricity can be, the infrastructure to distribute it isn't free. Every country price this differently, but one way to solve this is to split the cost per kWh in use and transport, which is common in Europe.
In Norway we have a model like that, and it effectively sets a lower boundary of (depending a little on the region) around 0.50NOK/kWh, around 0.05$/kWh. The price for electricity quite often go into the negative during summer, but you still end up paying for the distribution.
This is clearly a good point in that infrastructure is a cost and needs continual upgrade and maintenance.
However it's not clear that the appropriate way to pay for that is usage based: looking at domestic supply for example it's roughly the same cost per house to connect to the grid, so it doesn't really make sense to pay more if you have more usage.
I'm not sure what alternative models look like for this and I'm not sure they are better or worse. But there probably is room for innovation on billing this part.
For the last mile you're probably right, but the electricity has to come from somewhere. So you also need to size the production capacity, distribution network, sub-stations and whatnot to match the installed capacity. Things get really bad, really quickly, when demand and availability doens't match.
I recently learned that electricity meters cost ~150USD.
At that sort of price, for low usage users it might be multiple years simply to pay back the cost of the meter.
One can buy a $3 meter from China, but obviously it is less accurate. I'd like to see a system where less accurate meters are used, but you pay a small premium to cover any inaccuracies in metering.
Are you sure you want less accurate meters? There's a lot of losses in the network itself, and without accurate meters it's hard to pinpoint where they are and if they can be fixed.
In Norway we quite recently switched to more accurate networked meters and at that time they said that as much as 30% of all electricity produced wasn't accounted for, which you end up paying for, one way or another. Some of these losses are from the network itself. But a not insignificant part was from people illegally tapping the grid or last-mile losses due to poorly maintained infrastructure that was hard to pinpoint without using expensive manpower to physically check every single connection.
Meter inaccuracies are sometimes over and sometimes under. Losses are always under.
Across enough thousands of meters, you should be able to separate the effects. I suspect the hundreds of millions saved if a country switched to cheap less accurate meters would easily pay for other methods of policing/detecting theft.
For example, 'radar' down the electricity cables can see how far away every switch, device and wire is. It would be pretty straightforward to put radar devices at a few places on the public network, then effectively triangulate to some house who is stealing power because when they turn stuff on and off (which the radar can see, together with the cable length), no nearby customers meter sees the increased load.
I don't really understand the argument you're trying to make. You want us to use less accurate meters and then pay a premium to cover those inaccuracies, which is supposed to be cheaper than just buying accurate meters? And then use some technology that doesn't seem to exist to detect losses and theft? If it was this easy we'd already be doing it.
These meters are more expensive, but not that much more expensive. The majority of the cost, by a long shot, comes from installing them. These meters also offer a lot of other capabilities, which greatly improves the reliability of the network. If you spread the cost of these meters over the projected lifespan we're talking about cents per month.
Your infrastructure doesn’t have to be so beefy when you produce and cache it locally. In my climate, 500W vs 15kW wood be enough boost for winters. That’s 30x reduction in pricy infrastructure.
Energy storage via batteries is ridiculously expensive if the storage is greater than 24 hours. Hydrogen tanks (or salt caverns) might be the solution, but there is still the capital cost of the electrolyzers and fuel cells.
Everything I read seems to suggest that hydrogen is a pipe dream for energy storage, as the output efficiency is so low. And that's before accounting for all the issues of just storing and distributing it.
Solar panels and wind turbines produce electricity, the highest form of energy, directly. Instead of converting that to thermal or chemical energy for storage and then back to electricity for distribution, you're better off just storing it at as thermal energy at the destination. I think we often forget that thermal energy means everything from ~0 Kelvin. A heat exchanger can be very efficient.
I think there's going to be a lot of interesting stuff happening with dual-use PV panels and thermal heat exchangers. In some cold climates you generally want as much thermal energy as you can get your hands on.
10kWh would be enough for my house (on top of constant 500W and few kWh from solar) and costs about $2000 USD. That’s probably few centimetres worth of underground cabling or orders of magnitude less than street transformer.
Teslas "virtual power plant" is only for Tesla Powerwall. There's no V2G capabilities in any Teslas to date, and I don't think there's even hardware support for it. The Tesla Cybertruck has V2L capability, so it might have the necessary hardware to do V2G with some software updates, but I kinda doubt it.
The Tesla "virtual power plant" does reserve some capacity for you, and technically you can charge your car with that. A single Tesla Powerwall is "only" 10kWh, and with inverter losses and such you're likely seeing closer to 8kWh of usable energy if you charge your car with it. You're probably much better off just using it to run your appliances so you mitigate some of the losses with more inverters in the mix.
The battery chemistry used in most EV batteries are not really optimized for a lot of cycles, and they're somewhat expensive to replace, so you're much better off just buying batteries that are made for the purpose. You also have fairly limited inverter capacity in most EVs, as the inverter installed is scaled to run the cars AC and infotainment system, which doesn't really need that much.
You also have to deal with either having beefy automatic/manual transfer switch or separate isolated circuits to prevent back feeding the grid electricity in an outage or during maintenance.
There's a lot of people repurposing used Nissan Leaf-batteries for what you're describing.
The numbers in the post are 2.2 and 3.6 kW. Even 2.2kW would cover virtually all of my use.
I don't want to buy a battery for the purpose because it doesn't make sense economically. If I could get a car with this functionality though for a similar price as cars without it, that would be a big bonus.
I'm not going to pretend that there aren't edge cases and personal situations that would make it viable, but my initial comment was on consumers as a whole.
And we're talking about averages. So sure, if you have gas boiler you probably could get by with a 2,2kW or 3,6kW inverter, but just powering a simple kettle would likely trip a fuse. You can get around it with just being a little conscious about what you power up, and when you power things up, but I'd argue that most people don't want to deal with that.
And remember, if you're grid connected you either have to have a transfer switch or separate circuits if you want to use this as a backup when the grid goes down. It complicates things a whole lot.
> so you're much better off just buying batteries that are made for the purpose
Or even just used EV batteries. I personally don't think that battery recycling is as big of an issue as some people say. But, if I'm wrong, a cheap worn-out EV battery with "only" 50% capacity is still very useful as a home backup.
