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

It has a negative price precisely because at that given moment, nobody can use it for anything else.


Yes…. And capital costs to capture that ‘moment’ productively are likely not in favor, if this situation exists long term.

For example, Free power for an hour is useless if someone is running an aluminum refinery, because you can’t just start and stop it; and it costs so much capital to make that only operating 1 hour out of 24 is not economic.

And that is for a situation where electrical power costs are one of the most dominant costs!


Yep, exactly this.

The cost of CO2 capture, and conversion into usable fuels, is in the cost of the setup of the infrastructure etc (as well as cost to run the pumps once setup, which in this case is where the free electricity goes).

The return on such an investment is likely negative, because the synthesized fuel does not sell for much (compared to the same fuel that is extracted off the ground and refined - look at natural gas as prime example). Therefore, even if electricity is negative (ala, free), you cannot make money from doing it.

Either the cost of the carbon emissions is captured as part of the cost of fossil fuel extraction (and returned to this carbon capture/conversion system) to make it break even, or something else has to happen (like massive efficiency increase in doing such conversions) in order to make it economical.


The problem here is that the production of hydrocarbons, ammonia, etc. from electricity can only make back its high upfront investment when it runs basically 24/7. This is a challenge for renewables.

In China which recently opened a large off-grid green ammonia plant in Chifeng, they use multiple tiers of energy storage to ensure constant electric power availability.


Far more Chinese think that their country is a democracy and the government serves the people than in the US.

Whether this is objectively true is another question, but from their perspective, that's what it is.


>Far more Chinese think that their country is a democracy and the government serves the people than in the US.

>Whether this is objectively true is another question, but from their perspective, that's what it is.

Correct, as a general rule, slaves think more highly of their slave owners, compared to people about their politicians/leaders who were elected by them.

( what happens behind the scenes is this: the slaves/dissidents who are rebellious are killed off by the dictator - only the most ardent supporters survive)


The average chinese netizen is approximately 100x more aware of their position in society and the propaganda being broadcast in their direction than the average american


Can buy that.


I see this so much with regard to Chinese/Russians and increasingly Americans (I know people in each camp). The point of the propaganda is just that, to make them distrust all information and fall in line by default. It makes it impossible to argue against the main narrative being broadcast because "who's to say what's true?" And frankly I'm getting real sick of it. It's not the same thing as being media literate.


This is the kind of opinion that could only issue from one of the last societies to own literal slaves.


I can hear the argument that the Chinese government serves their people better than the US gov. Not necessarily agree with it but it's worth discussing.

However I don't know by what definition of democracy a country with a unique party, with so little freedom of press, can be considered as one.


A 1 party system can still be democratic in a way. Just participation in the policymaking works differently. In China this is feedback from the public and local committees.

Also that freedom of speech is very limited is correct, and there is extensive online censorship. But that doesn't mean the government ignores what people think. Almost all domestic government policies are broadly supported by the population. And when public opposition is strong then the government is known to delay implementation or change course.

Notable examples are Covid Zero, the K Visa, and the reclassification of drug use offenses.


'Look, democratic centralism has the word democratic right there in it. How can it NOT be democratic?'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism


In China the participatory model works and citizens overwhelmingly approve of the outcomes (when it comes to domestic policy).

In US, which is a liberal democracy, you have outcomes like 20% satisfaction with Congress, yet >90% incumbent reelection rates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_th...

I'm not saying everything is good and democratic in China and bad in the US, but the answer is a bit more nuanced than some people here like to think.


>I can hear the argument that the Chinese government serves their people better than the US gov. Not necessarily agree with it but it's worth discussing.

Correct, as a general rule (true) slaves think more highly of their slave owners, compared to people about their politicians/leaders who were elected by them.

(what happens behind the scenes is this: the slaves/dissidents who are rebellious are killed off by the dictator - only the most ardent supporters survive)


Oh so like, what trump is attempting to do now by cutting programs to blue states and putting brown shirts on the streets to shoot anyone who disagrees in the face?


Good governance (stability, competence, responsiveness) is independent of democratic rule, and is generally what ordinary people care most about.


I put the blame squarely on Microsoft, how they released a turd with WP7 (a shiny one with responsive UI, but nonetheless a turd).

About phone OS upgrades, remember the HTC HD2 which originally released with WM6.5 but could be upgraded to WP7 and then to WP8 through after-market community ROMs. It was also Microsoft's decision to not officially allow that.


> In the US, Windows Phone tried for the "iPhone experience", which made carriers unhappy

Carriers were especially unhappy that Microsoft bought Skype at the time and tried to run it as a loss-making business to undermine carrier voice and messaging revenues.


Windows Vista SP2 was basically identical to Windows 7 RTM, with mostly cosmetic differences.

What changed is that by Windows 7 launch, PC specs had caught up with system requirements and WDDM drivers had matured and were no longer crashing all the time. So the first impression was very different.


It turns out rather ok without actual infinity, by limiting oneself to potential infinity. Think a Turing Machine where every time it reaches the end of its tape, an operator ("tape ape") will come and put in another reel.


UEFI specification is also over 2300 pages long now. For comparison, Open Firmware (IEEE 1275) was 268 pages.


Things are far more complicated these days vs the 90s. These specifications still seem to lack important details which you notice if you try implementing the spec.


Sony supports pairing Bluetooth devices via USB since PS3 and Apple supports this since wireless peripherals with Lightning port.

However the protocols to do that are all proprietary and mutually incompatible. At least the PS3 protocol has been sufficiently reverse engineered so you can plug a DualShock 3 controller into a Steam Deck and have it just work wirelessly afterwards.


> I think the concern here is more with the implementations (coming out of China) than the instruction set itself.

Yes that is the pretense, but what they actually want to block is RISC-V adoption.

It's a bit similar to car industry opposition to right to repair, they ran TV ads claiming dangers for safety and security if independent repair were allowed. Louis Rossmann did a series of videos on this.


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

Search: