Morphit

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

“abbabba”

“abbabba” doesn't match the original regex but “abbaabba” does

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

They're not converting it back into electricity, this is for industrial process heat. They have 100 units of electrical energy and 98 units go into whatever the industry needs to heat.

Lots of industries use ovens, kilns or furnaces. Mostly fueled by gas at the moment. Using electricity would be very expensive unless they can timeshift usage and get low spot prices. Since they need heat anyway, thermal storage is pretty cheap and efficient.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It's heat though. They're turning electricity into heat then moving that heat to where it's needed, when it's needed. Making heat from electricity is nearly 100% efficient, and pumping losses for moving fluids are going to be tiny compared to the the amount of heat they can move. They quote the heat loss in storage seperately as 1% per day. It seems reasonable.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Plus it did land on the barge. Most of the debris should be there, though the remaining fuel would have mainly gone overboard. Probably the flight termination explosives also.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

I think what you want is in Firefox nightly right now: https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2024/08/07/firefox-sidebar-and-vertical-tabs-try-them-out-in-nightly-firefox-labs-131/

That expands and compacts based on the sidebar state and can be flipped to the right side of the window in the 'customise sidebar' settings.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

1xx: hold on
2xx: here you go
3xx: go away
4xx: you fucked up
5xx: I fucked up
6xx: Google fucked up

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

A balance has to be struck. The alternative isn't not getting anything better, it's being sure the benefits are worth the costs. The comment was "Why is [adding another decoder] a negative?" There is a cost to it, and while most people don't think about this stuff, someone does.

The floppy code was destined to be removed from Linux because no one wanted to maintain it and it had such a small user base. Fortunately I think some people stepped up to look after it but that could have made preserving old software significantly harder.

If image formats get abandoned, browsers are going to face hard decisions as to whether to drop support. There has to be some push-back to over-proliferation of formats or we could be in a worse position than now, where there are only two or three viable browser alternatives that can keep up with the churn of web technologies.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I mean, the comic is even in the OP. The whole point is that AVIF is already out there, like it or not. I'm not happy about Google setting the standards but that has to be supported. Does JPEGXL cross the line where it's really worth adding in addition to AVIF? It's easy to yes when you're not the one supporting it.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (4 children)

https://xkcd.com/927/

Adding more decoders means more overheads in code size, projects dependencies, maintanance, developer bandwidth and higher potential for security vulnerabilities.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago

Will you be able to handle all these panels as it becomes economically reasonable for people to replace them?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)
view more: next ›