Yes all the time actually, especially when making system migrations. Uncle Bob writes about this in Clean Code. It is actually extremely common since it's the most apparent course of action to look at hard-coded values in maintenance and backport it as specs to new system.
They can typically operate indefinitely on diesel generators and have hot supply contracts with multiple suppliers. Even our small rinky dink datacenter had that.
So, it would generally be more effective to hit the actual datacenter than try to cut the power.
Several gulf state oil companies have declared force majeure on contracts they have to supply various customers due to the war. Good luck on getting diesel deliveries when things really hit the fan.
None of our new hires the last few years had anything to do with Linkedin though. As for myself, I deleted my account around the time when it started to try to look like a Facebook feed.
I get why people without jobs need a LinkedIn, but I don't get why they post there constantly. Like reposting stuff, writing random thoughts, posting rocket ship emojis, has anyone ever gotten a job that way?
I've heard it makes you more visible on things like search results. Linkdin, of course, is trying to encourage interaction on their site so sounds believable that they'd do that, but i've been lucky enough to not need to care.
That makes sense. I'm curious if it's proven though. Guess I'm lucky to have a job and credentials, recruiters are contacting me despite 0 public LinkedIn activity.
i mean, technically this is once per millisecond, so this would happen 1000x more. In your case due to the kernel overhead you would likely not even be able to do it (300% CPU?).
Either way this does seem like a very large overhead due to the fact that there's just no other way to do it without a deeper kernel integration which might be outside the scope of what sqlite is trying to do.
$5.6B actually sounds like a good deal. It outputs 2GW+ of power. While solar is definitely cheaper for 2GW of power, you still need batteries for when the sun is down. So you probably need approximately 30GWh of batteries to just replace this one power plant. The batteries alone would cost nearly $7B of grid-scale batteries that must be replaced every 20 years.
Ignoring the fact that the nuclear plant already exists, this still seems like the right way to go mostly because it's impossible to build this nuclear power plant for $16B in the US anymore (or so it seems).
Due to increased regulation etc you cannot just translate 1985 $, £ or Euro to a 2026 one. There is an actual example in the UK Hinkley Point C current estimate $43b, (£35b) where as sizewell B commissioned in 1987 was $3.2b billion (£2b) or about $7b in todays $. This is probably the worst example but makes the point.
> $5.6B actually sounds like a good deal. It outputs 2GW+ of power.
I don't understand. Are you talking about 1985 dollars of 2026 dollars?
After some research, I learned that thermal powerplants (coal/gas/oil) completed in 1985 cost about 0.8B to 1.2B USD per GW. 5.6B USD in 1985 for 2GW sounds like a terrible price -- at least twice the cost.
Nuclear is high capex low opex. It needs such a miniscule amount of fissile material per year, whereas purchasing coal is an eternal ongoing cost.
Just to put some numbers on it, a 1GW conventional reactor consumes about 25 tonnes of enriched uranium per year, while a 1GW coal plant goes through 3.3 million tonnes of coal.
I'd double my electricity bill if that means saving somewhere between 3 and 9 million lives per year[1], better health for myself and the people around me, and that's completely ignoring climate change benefits where prevention both saves money and reduces deaths/displacement/poverty in the long term
Either short-term solution is fine (nuclear or full renewable), but we're currently doing everything piecemeal. Plopping down a few big reactors in 20 years while people (in countries without salt planes, at least) are still trying to get permits for the remaining reasonable wind turbine and pumped hydro locations... it just feels like seven-mile boots for the energy transition
If we can make seven-mile steps by plopping down wind/solar plus the required storage in gigawatt quantities, all the better, but that hasn't been happening. We'll run out of uranium eventually but, for now, such reactors buy time. Of course, this discussion has been happening for so long that the "it takes too long to build" naysayers will get their way soon, even at the slow pace we're currently going full renewable at. It's now or never, we need to commit to an option, no matter which one
> Google, Cloudflare, VPN providers, and other entities facilitating piracy are responsible for the illegal activities they enable and profit from.
Why wouldn't ISPs be responsible too? or the cable modem providers? or the computer providers? or your eyes. Let's just blame all those things and not the person that made it or the person that consumes it.
Not true, they just proxy the pirating sites to their true host. They have about the same responsability as the ISP themselves. Maybe you want Cloudflare to decide what to proxy and what to block without a judge ordering it.
My ISP obfuscates my location by replacing it with an IP address . However, if the government wants to know my location, they can ask my ISP to find out a physical address based on an IP address. They can also ask Cloudflare to find out an origin IP address based on a domain name. This is normal. It's also slow. The Spanish government doesn't want to bother arresting pirates, it would rather be seen doing something about the problem, without doing something about the problem.
reply