That’s July question: the article even points that out. If previously the private key was in hardware, never exposed, but now it has to be available to software. Does it open any potential attacks?
Even if it is less secure, this is probably a good thing to prevent vendor lock-in. I know that’s one reason I rarely use passkeys
Time doesn’t care. Neither does the rate of climate change.
More renewables.
We’re at the beginnings of having useful levels of storage and can keep building out renewables while we develop storage. At the current rates of adoption, we’ll need true grid storage in about ten years.
However, note that one option for “grid” storage is a battery in every home. Another is a battery in every vehicle. Neither is the best option but those are options we already know and just need to scale up
They are better for the environment in some ways. They’re just worse in others and it’s plausible that wasn’t apparent until they got into the environment at scale
put all the egg into the basket of private enterprises.
Kind of the opposite - instead of the one rocket program NASA could have done, we have ULA, Blue Origin, and SpaceX. There’s multiple baskets now
You might check your research a bit, go beyond Facebook GeForce your “facts”
Plus NASA can’t afford the risk. If SpaceX failed, no big deal. We would have lost some money and everyone would ridicule Musk. If NASA tried it and failed, they would not only have lost five times the money, but would be parylized by investigations, audits, cutbacks. NASA does a LOT more than just rockets and it would all be at risk
Plus notice NASA has been investing in multiple commercial programs where possible. 3 big rocket programs. Two crew capsules and multiple cargo capsules. Multiple space stations, etc. NASA could not have created this redundancy on their own
A lot of people pointed out a lot of firsts, huge cost reductions, regular flights, but let’s look from the opposite direction ……
Mass to orbit. SpaceX came from nowhere not too many years ago, jumped ahead of established manufacturers, until now they launch most of the worlds satellite mass to orbit, with an unparalleled success record, even with the recent failures. And this is with a rapidly growing space market
Everything they’ve achieved has not only let them scale up far surpassing the rest of the industry across the world, combined, but with reliability and cost to attract all that business
I don’t know what it would take for you to call it a revolution, but the impact on space business is revolutionary
We’re talking 11 years for 7 “small” reactors. The first decade just to establish a business, but no real difference in the overall picture. How many years, decades after that to make a noticeable difference?
Meanwhile we’re building out more power generation in renewables every year. Renewables are already well developed, can be deployed quickly, and are already scaling up, renewables make a difference NOW.
Plus time. My perspective was that building a new nuclear power industry and any significant number of reactors would take too long: we need to have fixed climate change in less time.
So seven “small” reactors over the next eleven years …… faster than I expected but still takes decades to make a noticeable difference.
Consider especially huge infrastructure like refineries, pipelines, shipping terminals, that take many years to break a profit. Why would anyone build those anymore?
At this point, new exploration and drilling too. I don’t know how long it takes for those to be profitable, but if countries follow through with EV and other targets for renewable energy, we should expect a huge surplus and price drops in less than a decade
The trick is figuring out how to make that happen. Today.
You could easily argue that practically non-existent passenger trains and slow adoption of EVs in the US is primarily caused by cheap gasoline. Maybe if we fixed prices to be higher, we’d be able to make the progress we need
Apple Watch
No longer would I have to get out my phone to pay for something, or pause music, or adjust the Temperature. The early models didn’t have health sensors but I still get excited every September for Apples announcement to see what sensor they add next
My company has a vending machine for computer accessories. For example, if you need a replacement mouse, just go over to the machine, wave your badge in front of the sensor, select the mouse, and wait for it to drop
Yep, $2B/launch now
I was not trying to argue it, but I can’t see that being allowed where I am. Certainly the parochial school I went to and the ones I sent my kids to, taught actual science. As a science and technology nerd, I know i received an excellent science education from a religious school
This is a good use for standardized testing: my state takes action against schools where kids aren’t up to grade level. Before anyone squawks that this mostly benefits high income: they do adjust it and the action doesn’t just further starve schools in trouble by withholding funds. In the case of parochial schools, they risk losing accreditation
I’d like to see a study going a step or two farther than your article, to develop comprehensive data on where that BS is allowed, where it happens, and authorize the department of education to stomp that out
Yes, even religious schools need to teach kids to the same standards as all other schools. I don’t know if your response is hyperbole, but that absolutely should not exist.
those that do offer different education are in largely high income districts where they have the money to offer those in addition
The first thing I’d want to know is actual data on this. What districts offer these? What percentage? Where? I don’t know enough about this to see a pattern but I know at least one district that is not high income. Is it rare or common? Is it because my state has among the best education systems in the country? Is it because we’re willing to spend more on our kids? Is it because a high cost of living area means that even low income is not low relative to other parts of the country? Gotta ask, but is it political?
Chances are the best answer is to do the hard work, spend the money to improve public education everywhere. I know that’s not always practical, and it would take too long to benefit current kids, but we really need to find a way.
School vouchers have the appearance of helping individual students immediately, but starving the school system just makes the overall problem worse
And here’s the magic choice …… “time of use metering”. As we electrify everything and add “smart” controls, we can be much more dynamic with time of use metering to adjust the load.
When the sun doesn’t shine at night, already has much lower electrical load than daytime. Early analog efforts at time of use metering tried to shift more load to the night so “base load” wouldn’t have to adjust, and max load wouldn’t be as high
Now we can develop smart time of use metering to shift more load to “when the sun shines”. I’m not aware of anything to quantify this so let me just make shit up: if the load “when the sun doesn’t shine” is half what it is when solar is producing, that’s a crap load of grid storage or base load that magically never has to exist