CCP Games Inc made the following statement regarding today’s announcements: “Interested parties should contact CCP Legal and provide offer details as well as proof of financing in the form of account statements in PLEX or ISK equal or greater to the stated offer. No lowballs. I know what I got.” /s
assuming I’m worried about a smash and grab
For your specific use case, how about this:
Get a cheap USB thumb drive and a long USB cable. Put your disk unlock password on that thumb drive, and semi-permanently affix the USB drive to your building. You said you’re in a basement. Put it on top of a rafter with a metal fitting that would keep the drive from being taken without removing the screws. Run the long USB cable from the thumb driving in your rafter to the USB port on the machine. Alter your startup script to mount the thumb drive read the password from the thumb drive to unlock your main disk. Don’t forget to immediately unmount the thumbdrive in the OS after the disk is unlocked for extra safety.
If someone is doing a smash and grab, they’ll unplug all the cables (including this USB cable going to the thumb drive) and take your machine leaving the disk encryption password behind on the USB thumb drive.
If it makes you feel better, I was shocked (pun intended) to learn this too, and I live here.
Are they somehow more expensive in the US? 40A 230V rated ones cost something like 30-50 € around here which doesn’t feel that expensive to me.
In my suggested hardwired 240V 20A EV charger the total parts cost is just the regular breaker on the left at about $18.
The suggested solution you had of putting an outlet in would have parts cost of $119 + the cost of the GFCI breaker, the outlet and the receptacle cover. So that solution is 660% more expensive.
Hell, depending on local codes, you might get away with slapping in a nema 6-20 receptacle to make it even easier…
If you do a receptacle, you’ve got to then do a GFCI. Check out the price difference between a GFCI breaker and one that isn’t. If you hardware the EVSE, you don’t need GFCI because GFCI is built into nearly all EVSE. If we’re doing this exercise to keep low costs, adding GFCI outside of the EVSE jacks up the price.
#1 is a terrible idea if you ever need to hire an electrician in the future, plan on selling your house, etc. The National Electric Code prohibits using white, green, or grey wire for a hot/load connection. The 120V cable will contain a black wire for the hot connection, white for neutral, and green for ground. To properly convert it to 240V you would need a cable that consists of black & red wires for the two 120V legs.
I’ll be the first to admit I’m no certified Sparky, but wire relabeling is used in a number of situations fully in accordance with NEC. My understanding is that some of this is in NEC 200.7. It requires relabeling both ends, but I don’t think there’s any code violation with it. If what you’re saying was true, wouldn’t that mean any -2 NM (Romex) would be code incompatible with 240v loads? I don’t think that’s true.
Good video. Accurate information.
Two notes:
For North American homes: I agree with the overlooked value of a downrated circuit for EV charging, but I don’t think he talked about a possibly better option for downrating: Using an existing 120v circuit (at whatever current rating) already wired in the garage . Remove the outlet, install EVSE (charger), and swap the breaker for a 240v one (at a current rating matching the original. So if you have a 120v 15A circuit (white romex) you can use the exact same wire for a 240v at 15A. If you have a 20A (yellow romex) you would end up with a 240v 20A. You get more than double the speed of charging with zero new wires added, only changing the breaker and removing the old outlets. Note: If you have multiple outlets in your garage all fed from this same circuit, this would mean all of your outlets in the garage are now 240v and not usable for regular 120v items.
He didn’t like Smart chargers. Thats a valid opinion, but smart chargers can do some nice things that I like. Some will also talk to each other if you have two chargers, such as if you have two EVs. They can be configured to share the same wire to the breaker box, so you can plug both cars in at night, one car will charge, then when that is complete, the other will charge automatically without having to unplug one car and then plug in the other. It will charge the least charged car first ensuring the best balance of charge to both cars assuming both cars can’t be charged to full in one night. If you have solar panels, some smart chargers can talk to the solar system and be instructed to only charge when there is excess power that would otherwise go to waste. It can do this automatically so if clouds go overhead and not enough juice is available from the sun, the charging stops. As soon as the clouds clear and there is an excess again, charging resumes automatically. For outdoor charging, you can also configure most Smart chargers to only charge you authorized cars. So you don’t need to worry about someone rolling into your driveway when you’re not home (or a bad neighbor) and running up your electricity bill.
deleted by creator
A promising start, but a thousand transistors at 25 kilohertz puts it where silicon tech was 60 years ago, so they’ve a long, long way to go.
If you’re talking about the desire to replace today’s modern CPUs, sure. However, in the world of electronics there are lots and lots of support electronics and ICs that run way slower than 25kHz. All of this assumes the technology can scale for cost effective manufacturing yields at this current speed. If its both expensive AND slow, it will have far fewer use cases.
Study co-author Maitreyee Wairagkar, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Davis, and her colleagues trained deep-learning algorithms to capture the signals in his brain every 10 milliseconds. Their system decodes, in real time, the sounds the man attempts to produce rather than his intended words or the constituent phonemes — the subunits of speech that form spoken words.
This is a really cool approach. They’re not having to determine speech meaning, but instead picking up signals after the person’s brain has already done that part and is just trying to vocalize. I’m guessing they can capture nerve impulses that would be moving muscles in the face, mouth, lips, and possibly larynx and then using the AI to quickly determine which sounds that would produce in those few milliseconds those conditions exist. Then the machine to produces the sounds artificially. Because they’re able to do this so fast (in 10 milliseconds) it can get close to human body response and reproduction of the specific sounds.
I think this highlight the problem with this approach. $500 MSRP would likely not be cost effective for a phone manufacturer to invest in the design, construction, inventory of replacement parts, and multi-year long support of the rugged and long lasting phone. An important part of the premise of the author is that the phone lasts a long time, and your stated desire for long software support.
This is likely a money loser for a phone manufacturer from day one. My guess is that this phone would likely have to cost $2000 to $3000 for a chance to be economically viable. The biggest expenses are going to be on the human labor parts of a staff to provide the regular software updates, maintaining humans that run the manufacturing lines for the replacement parts, and the repair staff to effect the repairs over time for customers. Considering the only time the phone manufacturer gets money is from the initial sale of the phone, they have to price it high enough to cover many years of these support operations.
At the higher, more realistic, phone sale price it likely drops the number of potential customers so low to not even pay for the initial design and tooling to be created.
This is likely why no manufacturer makes this theoretical phone.
How much money would you pay for this dream rugged smartphone of yours?
The article is disappointing. It appears author of that article only has one narrow view and assumes the rest of the world has the same.
They buy the most fragile and aesthetically pleasing phones, and complain they are fragile. They advocate for manufacturers to stop making fragile aesthetically pleasing phones, and only make rugged or repairable phones instead. They make an inference that phones should be repairable like cars with accessible parts and non-proprietary tools, but they appear to not know that today’s cars have difficulty getting replacement parts and absolutely contain mechanical and electronic proprietary tools to repair the cars.
Mr/Ms author, if you want a phone that doesn’t break so easily when dropped, you can buy such a thing right now. Something like CAT phones:
… or other ruggedized Android phones.
I think the last time I dropped a phone an broke the screen on it was maybe 2007. I don’t even use phone cases. If your particular use case has you dropping your phone more, buy one that exists and is designed to take those kind of conditions. There’s no shame in that, but don’t advocate for an entire industry shift because of just your own use case.
Smartphones/technology are still incredibly young in the grand scheme of things. Each of the new generation of devices that comes out adds more functionality for features that people want. Until that stops, it doesn’t make sense to try to switch everyone to a “buy it for life” approach. My Commodore 64 computer still works, and is very easy to service, however I wouldn’t have wanted technology to stop back then just because its a sturdy built machine. Today I have the paper thin laptops with 8 hours of battery and high speed CPUs are not as rugged or repairable as my venerable C64, but I’m quite glad to have the fragile laptop instead.
I don’t have a recommendation for you, but if you exhaust your leads there is a large comparrison table with all kinds (and ages) of remote access solutions that you could search against for your criteria (open source, supported, etc) here:
Sue for defamation that Youtube are alleging he is promoting criminal activity of piracy.
Every couple weeks or so I seem to find myself behind someone that’s always either accelerating, or braking, with the brake lights repeatedly flashing on momentarily for no apparent reason.
In many EVs and Hybrids the “letting off the accelerator” engages the regeneration drag which slows the car. A number of vehicle makers with particularly aggressive drag (which gets higher regen rates) automatically illuminate the brake lights. So if you’re behind one of these it will look like they are braking when they may have no foot on any pedal (brake or accelerator).
Its an animated gif. Are you looking at it through an app? I know some don’t support animated gifs. Try viewing this lemmy post in a browser.
Not an impact drill, a hammer drill.
An impact driver would impart rotational shocks, which is bad enough. A hammer drill imparts straight-ahead shocks into the drill hole, which if we’re talking shock to the cabinet holding spinning hard drives would be murder on them. These are typically used to drill through things like multiple feet/cm of concrete. Watch the drill bit in this animation punch into the hole and back out with the hammer action. It happens much faster in real life of course, probably 5-10 times a second I’d guess
This is apparently the type of drill this guys used.
Time to start posting reviews with:
Who knows? Maybe the Russian military is out of tactical ideas and trying to crowdsource a military strategy from gamers to take Ukraine because they can’t do it themselves.
Its been quite a few years, but used Selenium to interact with GUIs for these kind of things. This included onboarding/offboarding tasks.