air source heat pumps, though they're improving won't do well in extreme cold; even if they can operate they'll still be running at much lower efficiency.
For temperatures significantly into negative territory a ground source heat pump would perform far better, where it can draw on a source of heat that will always be at least above freezing.
A hybrid system doesn't seem like a bad trade-off though..
I thought so too, but it seems reasonable considering we're 70% water, much of it flowing and actively taking stuff out and around. Plus cells are apparently way more dynamic than is typically conveyed in high school bio (I think there was a quantamagazine article a while ago). So it's perhaps surprising that a body's atoms aren't fully recycled even faster than that.
The Ca in bones is probably renewed very slowly. C H O N very fast, in particular water. Na, K and Cl are very soluble and also get renew very fast. Some rare elements like I are probably reused a lot and renewed very slowly. I'm not sure about P, my hand waving is confused. Assuming a burger per day, we ate our weight in meat every few years, but I'm not sure if all the Fe is absorved in and exchanged for the internal one.
This still exists today. For example, I am on the payments team but I have a 20% project working on protobuf. I had to get formal approval from my management chain and someone on the protobuf team. And it is tracked as part of my performance reviews. They just want to make sure I'm not building something useless that nobody wants and that I'm not just wasting the company's time.
I never worked at Google (or any other large corp for that matter), but this sounds like the exact opposite of an environment that spawned GMail.
As you think back even to the very early days of computing, you'll find individuals or small teams like Grace Hopper, the Unix gang, PARC, etc that managed to change history by "building something useless". Granted, throughout history that happened less than 1% of the time, but it will never happen if you never try.
Maybe Google no longer has any space for innovation.
Before LLMs and ChatGPT even existed ... a lot of us somehow hallucinated the idea that GMail came from Google's 20% Rule. E.g. from 2013-08-16 : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6223466
I see, thank you for debunking. But I think my general point still stands. You can progress by addressing a need, but true innovation requires adequate space.
I see why they do this, but man it almost feels like asking your boss for approval on where you go on vacation. Do people get dinged if their 20% time project doesn't pan out, or they lose interest later on?
> IMO the culling over managers over the past few years is really a way to make sure you don't have someone you can discuss career development, promotion, and pay increases with
TIL American English treats “value” in the financial sense as a countable noun
reply