whateveryou381

I know that people say this but I have questions: 1. Are there concrete examples where drugs have been discovered from protein folding structures? What are the biggest ones? 2. Is there machinery that already exists to take in 3D protein structures and create drugs? or is this yet another issue? 3. How does folding of a protein in the current state impacting the use of the protein when it is used? Presumably these proteins are similar to polymers where they are not super rigid in all environments, how does the environment effect the protein folding?

From the article the pad produces 30 MW-hr/year/m2. This implies that you need 292533 m2 for this to produce more power than a 1 GW nuclear reactor.

For an idea of the scale of this water based power reactor that would produce this energy, I compare to the amount of space required for a large surface area reactor such as a CO2 chemical scrubber. These reactors have effective surface area of about 500sq meters of surface area per 1 meter3 of volume. This implies that you are looking at a reactor that has about 600 meters3 of volume. This is smaller than a typical olympic sized swimming pool, which is about 1700cm3.

I don't know if these comparisons are fair, but it implies that there are some questions about heat removal and how it might be as dense of a source as claimed.

Half-life is longer for uranium, but I would say they are just as radioactive, as they are in secular equilibrium and apart of the same decay chain [1]. They are just as "radioactive" in this configuration, as they go through the same number of decays. Their concentrations can change.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain#/media/File:Decay_...

Is he alive or dead? Cause of death? There are of course the radiothor incidents (where people actually died from eating uranium and thorium products, note this is selectively consumed for many years at concentrated levels, much higher than in rocks)[1]. Also the Baltimore Radium girls, who ingested concentrated radium to make glow in the dark watches.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor

From 2015, scare mongering with little content other than vague statements like

"Before treatment, Westport's water tested up to four times state and federal limits. After treatment, it's safe for the children, teachers and staff to drink."

This does not point to a specific limit such as Maxiumum Contanminant Level (MCL) or Maximum Contaminant Limit Goal (MCLG). MCLG is a non-legally binding limit, which is as it states is a goal. MCLG for urainum contaminants is 0 ug/L. Any measurement of any drinking water will always have more uranium than this limit. The MCL is 30ug/L for uranium.

Additionally, the EPA has changed the way in which they have approached limits, previously they quoted something like the World Health Organization limits [3], which are average daily consumption limits. Average implies that some measurements could be high or low. WHO estimates natural concentration of uranium in drinking water is 0.08 ug/L (0.001 Bq/L), which is obviously above the EPAs MCLG.

WHO is a much better resource for information on these limits, and the EPA appears to just take their limits and do a divide by ten.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Contaminant_Level [2] https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=30006644.txt [3] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272995/9789...

Thanks for the reply, I was confusing negative yield curves[1] with negative yield bonds (in the EU) [2].

It seems like if you already have high yield bonds, the value will continue to rise, as people exhaust other low yield options... however isn't this total value capped by the yield+face value? I don't really know how bond pricing works, but if you bottom out the yeild, or anticipated yeild... you should only be able to make the face value back or someone is buying negative yields.

EDIT: I _guess_ the bond reaches "maturity" in a much shorter time, which is perhaps your point. "1.68%" over 10 years is shit compared to "1.68%" over 1 year.

EDITEDIT: Also assumes you are not going to be eaten by inflation, which could push you into negative yeilds.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/invertedyieldcurve.asp [2] https://qz.com/1647791/12-trillion-of-negative-yielding-bond...

Why does low or negative yield bonds mean that you are going to be ok with govt bonds? This is exactly the problem, where bonds are no longer providing interest payments.

I agree that being more conservative is probably necessary, however I think other than specific investments and... burying your cash might be the "conservative" options. Bonds were those, and no longer are now.

2015

TDP="Thermal design power"... (the amount of designed cooling power to get max cpu performance). ̶W̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶y̶s̶t̶e̶r̶y̶?̶

Mystery might be also in the nuance of turbo vs base frequency draw. So even if you design for TDP as the "max thermal dissipation" you might get only base frequency performance.

On a side note people often confuse TDP with the max power draw of the processor. Intel does not specify total power draw probably because processor scaling is such an important consideration. If you have a system, the easiest way to figure out what max draw from the power source is to consult the power brick.

"The death of Intel..."

What nonsense! Congrats engineers who have nothing else better to do.

Not every person that _starts_ and _makes_ a project successful grows _with_ the project. Being the person you were yesterday doesn't guarantee that fit the pattern tomorrow. I think that Linus should be the person to make this call. Perhaps Linux is where it is today because of Linus's low tolerance for BS, and he just notices that the components of the 'old' Linus are no longer acceptable/necessary going forward.

He should be the judge of that.

e.g. Cottage industries that 'monetize' everything.

Site purchasing does not work. Leads to a page "oops" that has one button "return to magic"

Sharing code is not always the answer. Independent thinking implies independence, in code and more abstractly.

The real 'mistake' is allowing the drama to escalate to the point that it is toxic. People who are truly interested don't care about who is right and who is wrong.

When disagreements like this come up, having common and good test cases are probably the most important (and is indeed the way in which the problem, generation of non-Boltzman behavior, was found).

In the end ST2 itself is flawed, and Princeton admitted that the discussion of water was not significantly advanced through this drama. Is it worth it?

Understanding the argument and its importance should be the focus.

Another way to see this problem is: you have too much energy at the wrong time of day. This is a fundamental problem with unmitigated installation of green technologies without grid level storage mechanisms. The green plants are losing money while this is happening.

Solar/wind energy aren't delivering enough power in non-peak operation to shutdown other traditional sources. It is just the coal/traditional power industry optimizing for total profit...