[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

For added effect, read the right-hand side in the voice of a British aristocrat.

[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Sorry, maybe we talked past each other here. How would using an open-ended firing tube that reloads using a battery-powered "loading arm" (I.e. some kind of servo-driven mechanism), increase recoil?

[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Yes, but on a drone you have access to a battery, so there's nothing preventing you from foregoing a classic reload mechanism and using a servo of some sort to reload if you want to reduce recoil.

[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Not running any LLMs, but I do a lot of mathematical modelling, and my 32 GB RAM, M1 Pro MacBook is compiling code and crunching numbers like an absolute champ! After about a year, most of my colleagues ditched their old laptops for a MacBook themselves after just noticing that my machine out-performed theirs every day, and that it saved me a bunch of time day-to-day.

Of course, be a bit careful when buying one: Apple cranks up the price like hell if you start specing out the machine a lot. Especially for RAM.

[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

It could possibly be using some kind of recoil less/low recoil firing mechanism. All you need to fire a buckshot is a tube and a firing pin of some sort, the amount of recoil essentially just depends on how tightly you close the back end of the tube. A shoulder fired rifle obviously needs to close off the back completely, but this kind of drone could in principle have an open-ended firing tube.

The tradeoff for low/no recoil is of course less energy being imparted into the buckshot. However, I can't imagine that you need a very high-energy projectile to take down these drones, so it may well be worth the tradeoff to improve the accuracy, not to mention the increased stability allowing you to manoeuvre immediately after firing.

[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

It's working in the sense that they're gaining ground and heavily pressuring the Ukrainian defenders. However, it will only work in the long term if they're able to pressure the defenders to the point where the defending troops deteriorate over time.

If Ukraine is able to withstand the human waves while increasing training time and producing/receiving more materiel than they lose, it will eventually turn around, at the point when the human waves start being exhausted, while Ukraine has managed to scale up the quality and quantity of it's troops and materiel.

[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 71 points 2 months ago

Sorry, but I honestly don't get it. I I were to point out the crown jewel of open source, it's gcc. gcc is the backbone and survival condition for so much modern industry that it's not even remotely funny.

Take away gcc, and the world will likely burn for a substantial amount of time until people start making in-house or proprietary alternatives.

66
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by thebestaquaman@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

Suddenly I started receiving a bunch of scam mails (phishing). I suspect some bot or bot-net is involved, because I've received maybe a couple hundred e-mails at the time of writing, all from different (likely auto-generated) senders. With anything from 2-10 emails per day.

The scam is essentially just some phishing, all related to the same topic. I've mostly been able to mitigate it by filtering out mails containing certain keywords or phrases that show up in the scam mails. However, the mails change relatively often (about once a day) so every now and then something gets through, and I'll update my filter.

My question is really if there's any way I can figure out

  1. Where this is coming from,
  2. How they got hold of my email

So that I can try to go after the root cause / prevent other scammers from getting hold of it.

[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 88 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

*Breaks the law

*Is convicted

*Refuses to pay fines

*Stops receiving funds

*shockedpikachu.jpg

At this point I really can't understand what is driving Orban anymore. He obviously must have known this would happen, and is likely doing it on purpose so that he can point at the EU as the "bad guy" back home, but like... what does he gain from this? Isn't it better to just get a shitload of free money from the EU that you can funnel to your friends and family than to not do that? If he legitimately dislikes the EU he can just leave.

Maybe he's just sticking around as long as he can grab cash? It kind of seems like he's going for the "see how far you can push it before you're kicked out" play. Essentially trying to find out how much of an obstructing, law-breaking, corrupt asshole he has to be before the rest of the EU finally has enough and kicks him out, at which point he can peace out to some safe-haven (I've heard there are spare rooms in some of Putins palaces).

44
submitted 3 months ago by thebestaquaman@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

I have a friend thats setting up linux (ubuntu) on his machine. He has a windows installation. I personally use mac as my primary OS, but I've had a linux partition on my machine as well, and I'm having a slightly hard time giving him good advice as to what solution he should choose when setting up linux (I don't even know how I would partition a disk on a windows machine to prep it for dual booting).

My question is quite simple: What are the pros/cons of WSL vs. Dual Booting vs. Virtualbox, both with regards to setup and with regards to usage?

[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 83 points 4 months ago

"Enshittification will continue until revenue improves"

63

I don't really know if this fits in this community, if not just take it down. The map is from the BlackBird group.

Regarding the recent strikes on the Seim river crossings, I've been speculating what Ukraines plans are. Not too long ago, the Ukranian advance around Korenevo slowed a bit. Then they started systematically hitting the Seim river crossings, of which ISW assesses there is only one left.

If the goal was to encircle and trap Russian units, I would assume that Ukraine would make a hard push through Korenevo to the river. As it looks now, it seems like they are leaving a small corridor open. Whether that is due to Russian resistance or Ukrainian planning I have no idea.

This makes me wonder whether they are intentionally leaving a small opening (See: Sun Tzu) to try to make Russian forces low on resources funnel through the opening where they can inflict heavy casualties, or whether they are trying to force the Russians to expend resources trying to prevent being cut off before they close the net.

In any case, I can see Ukraine wanting to secure another major road towards Korenevo that they can use to supply the offensive.

Of course, I don't want anyone to reveal anything that could violate OPSEC, everything I read is based on OSINT. I'm just interested and would like to hear other peoples speculations.

23

I'm looking to set up a server of some kind that I can use to store more or less arbitrary files on demand.

While I have quite a bit of programming experience, I have little-to-no experience in the server-space, so I don't really know where I should be getting started/what kind of pitfalls I should be looking out for/what kind of design choices I should be making early on.

In short: I want some system that allows me to take more or less arbitrary files, send them from either my laptop or phone, and have them stored on a drive that I can have lying around somewhere hooked up to some setup. I don't need any automatic backing up, sending files manually is sufficient. The individual files I'll be sending probably won't be exceeding the MB range of sizes. Remotely downloading files from the storage is not an immediate requirement, if I need to retrieve them I can plug directly into the disk. What I want to protect myself against is the "freak accident" type of thing where all the devices I currently have copies of a file on are lost in a fire, while travelling, or something like that.

Does anyone here have any tips for where I should be looking to get started?

[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 55 points 5 months ago

I'm straight, 100%. I know because I've been very close to trying, and figured out I was too straight to go through with it. If you had asked me when I was 18-24, I would probably not be so sure. Being "bicurious" around that age seems to be quite common, but is probably (my speculation) not closely linked to the proportion of people who are actually not straight.

[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 75 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Assuming

  • cylindrical human, 2m tall, 25 cm diameter.
  • air displaced from the point you teleport to is instantly moved to form a monolayer (1 molecule thick) on your surface.
  • The displacement of air is adiabatic (no heat is transferred, which will be true if the displacement is instantaneous)

Volume of displaced air: ≈ 100L = 0.1m^3 At atmospheric conditions: ≈ 4 mol

Surface area of cylindrical human: ≈ 1.58 m^2 Diameter of nitrogen molecule (which is roughly the same as for an oxygen molecule) : ≈ 3 Å Volume of monolayer: ≈ 4.7e-10 m^3

Treating the air as an ideal gas (terrible approximation for this process) gives us a post-compression pressure of ≈ 45 PPa (you read that right: Peta-pascal) or 450 Gbar, and a temperature of roughly 650 000 K.

These conditions are definitely in the range where fusion might be possible (see: solar conditions). So to the people saying you are only "trying to science", I would say I agree with your initial assessment.

I'm on my phone now, but I can run the numbers using something more accurate than ideal gas when I get my computer. However, this is so extreme that I don't really think it will change anything.

Edit: We'll just look at how densely packed the monolayer is. Our cylindrical person has an area of 1.58 m^2, which, assuming an optimally packed monolayer gives us about 48 micro Å^2 per particle, or an average inter-particle distance of about 3.9 milli Å. For reference, that means the average distance between molecules is about 0.1 % of the diameter of the molecules (roughly 3 Å) I think we can safely say that fusion is a possible or even likely outcome of this procedure.

[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One of the beautiful things with the fediverse is that I've just created an alt account on another instance, so I can

1: Reduce the load on lemmy.world servers

2: use the alt account if lemmy.world is down

267

Back in the day, on other forums than this one, there were tags to differentiate between porn (nsfw) and gore (nsfl). This was nice for people browsing new that had no problem seeing tits, but wanted to avoid degloved hands.

Throughout the years, the NSFL tag went out of use. What happened?

90

Inspired by the linked XKCD. Using 60% instead of 50% because that's an easy filter to apply on rottentomatoes.

I'll go first: I think "Sherlock Holmes: A game of Shadows" was awesome, from the plot to the characters ,and especially how they used screen-play to highlight how Sherlocks head works in these absurd ways.

2

I'm immediately sceptical to the idea of ruining even more areas of nature than we already are, but at the same time I recognise that if we want to build feasible green energy and storage, we need rare-earth metals and heavy metals. This might be a good alternative to massive deforestation.

Since the article is paywalled:

Pushed by the threat of climate change, rich countries are embarking on a grand electrification project. Britain, France and Norway, among others, plan to ban the sale of new internal-combustion cars. Even where bans are not on the statute books, electric-car sales are growing rapidly. Power grids are changing too, as wind turbines and solar panels displace fossil-fuelled power plants. The International Energy Agency (iea) reckons the world will add as much renewable power in the coming five years as it did in the past 20.

All that means batteries, and lots of them—both to propel the cars and to store energy from intermittent renewable power stations. Demand for the minerals from which those batteries are made is soaring. Nickel in particular is in short supply. The element is used in the cathodes of high-quality electric-car batteries to boost capacity and cut weight. The iea calculates that, if it is to meet its decarbonisation goals, the world will need to be producing 6.3m tonnes of nickel a year by 2040, roughly double what it managed in 2022. That adds up to some 80m tonnes of nickel in total between now and then.

Over the past five years most of the growth in demand has been met by Indonesia, which has been bulldozing rainforests to get at the ore beneath. In 2017 the country produced just 17% of the world’s nickel, according to cru, a metals research firm. Today it is responsible for around half, or 1.6m tonnes a year, and that number is rising. cru thinks Indonesia will account for 85% of production growth between now and 2027. Even so, that is unlikely to be enough to meet rising demand. And as Indonesian nickel production increases, it is expected to replace palm-oil production as the primary cause of deforestation in the country.

But there is an alternative. A patch of Pacific Ocean seabed called the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (ccz) is dotted with trillions of potato-sized lumps of nickel, cobalt, manganese and copper, all of which are of interest to battery-makers (see map). Collectively the nodules hold an estimated 340m tonnes of nickel alone—more than three times the United States Geological Survey’s estimate of the world’s land-based reserves. Companies have been keen to mine them for several years. With the coming expiry, on July 9th, of an international bureaucratic deadline, that prospect looks more likely than ever.

It’s better down where it’s wetter That date marks two years since the island nation of Nauru, on behalf of a mining company it sponsors called The Metals Company (tmc), told the International Seabed Authority (isa), an appendage of the United Nations, that it wanted to mine a part of the ccz to which it has been granted access. That triggered a requirement for the isa to complete rules on commercial use of the deposits. If those regulations are not ready by July 9th—and it seems they will not be—then the isa is required to “consider and provisionally approve” tmc’s application. (The firm itself says it hopes to wait until rules can be agreed.)

tmc’s plan is about as straightforward as underwater mining can be. Its first target is a patch of the ccz called nori-d, which covers about 2.5m hectares of ocean floor (an area about 20% bigger than Wales). Gerard Barron, tmc’s boss, estimates there are about 3.8m tonnes of nickel in the area. Since the nodules are simply sitting on the bottom of the ocean, the firm plans to send a large robot to the seabed to hoover them up. The gathered nodules will then be sucked up to a support ship on the surface through a high-tech pipe, similar to ones used in the oil-and-gas industry. Mr Barron says that his firm can break even on nodule collection at nickel prices as low as $6,000 per tonne; nickel currently sells for about $22,000 per tonne.

The support ship will wash off any sediment, then offload the nodules to a second ship which will ferry them back to shore for processing. The surplus sediment, meanwhile, will be released back into the sea at a depth of around 1,500 metres, far below most ocean life. And tmc is not the only firm interested. A Belgian firm called Global Sea Mineral Resources—a subsidiary of Deme, a dredging giant—is also keen, and has tested a sea-floor robot and riser system similar to tmc’s. Three Chinese firms—Beijing Pioneer, China Merchants and China Minmetals—are circling too, though they are reckoned to be further behind technologically.

As with mining on land, taking nickel from the sea will damage the surrounding ecosystem. Although the ccz is deep, dark and cold, it is not lifeless. tmc’s robot will destroy many organisms it drives across, as well as any that live on the nodules it collects. It will also kick up plumes of sediment, some of which will drift onto nearby organisms and kill them (though research suggests the plumes tend not to rise more than two metres above the seabed).

Adrian Glover, a marine biologist at the Natural History Museum in London, points out that, because life evolved first in the oceans and only later moved to the land, the majority of the genetic diversity on the planet is still found underwater. Although the deep-ocean floor is dark and nutrient-poor, it nevertheless supports thousands of unique species. Most are microbes, but there are also worms, sponges and other invertebrates. The diversity of life is “very high”, says Dr Glover.

Yet in several respects, mining the seabed has a smaller environmental footprint than mining in Indonesia. The harsh deep-sea environment means that, although its inhabitants may be highly diverse, they are not very abundant. A paper published in Nature in 2016 found that a given square metre of ccz supports between one and two living organisms, weighing a couple of grams at most. A square metre of Indonesian rainforest, by contrast, contains about 30,000 grams of plant biomass alone, and plenty more if you weigh up primates, birds, reptiles and insects too.

But it is not enough to simply weigh the biomass in each ecosystem. The amount of nickel that can be produced per hectare is also relevant. The 2.5m hectares of seabed that tmc hopes to exploit is expected to yield about 3.8m tonnes of nickel, or about 1.5 tonnes per hectare.

Getting hard numbers for land-based mining is tricky, for the firms that do it are less transparent than those hoping to mine the seabed. But investigative reporting from the Pulitzer Centre, a non-profit media outlet, suggests each hectare of rainforest on Sulawesi, the Indonesian island at the centre of the country’s nickel industry, will produce around 675 tonnes of nickel. (One reason land deposits produce so much more nickel, despite the lower quality of the ore, is because the ore extends far beneath the surface, whereas nodules exist only on the seabed.)

All that makes a very rough comparison possible. Around 13 kilograms of biomass would be lost for every tonne of ccz nickel mined. Each tonne mined on Sulawesi would destroy around 450kg of plants alone—plus an unknown amount of animal biomass, too.

Pick your poison There are other environmental arguments in favour of mining the seabed. The nodules contain much higher concentrations of metal than deposits on land, which means less energy is required to process them. Peter Tom Jones, the director of the ku Leuven Institute for Sustainable Metals and Materials, in Belgium, reckons that processing the nodules will produce about 40% less greenhouse-gas emissions than those from terrestrial ore.

And because the nodules must be taken away for processing anyway, companies like tmc can be encouraged to choose places where energy comes with low emissions. Indonesian nickel ore, in contrast, is uneconomic unless it is processed near where it was mined. That almost always means using electricity from coal plants or diesel generators. Alex Laugharne, an analyst at cru, reckons Indonesian nickel production emits about 60 tonnes of carbon dioxide for each tonne of nickel. An audit of tmc’s plans carried out by Benchmark Minerals Intelligence, a firm based in London, found that each tonne of nickel harvested from the seabed would produce about six tonnes of co2.

In any case, metal collected from the seabed is unlikely to entirely replace that mined from the rainforest. Battery production is growing so fast that nickel will probably be dug up from wherever it can be found. But if the ocean nodules can be brought to market affordably, the sheer volume of metal available may start to ease the pressure on Indonesian forests. The arguments are unlikely to stay theoretical for long. Mr Barron of tmc aims to start producing nickel and other metals from the seabed by the end of next year.

Correction (July 6th 2023): An earlier version of this piece said global nickel production would need to reach 48m tonnes per year by 2040, and would total 320m tonnes by 2040. The correct figures are 6.3m tonnes and 80m tonnes. Apologies for the error.

6
Guess I'll die (lemmy.world)
3

view more: next ›

thebestaquaman

joined 2 years ago