Does it fucking matter? Take the hint. You can still log into your account and edit comments. Wipe that shit clean then close your account and never look back. Nothing there is worth participating in anymore.

So it uses 20 high power Nvidia GPU's instead of running on a single 5 watt microcontroller!

Sooooooooo standard tree search that comp science students were doing in the 80s?

The rules are written explicitly to cater to Trump's edition so they will be forced to buy only Trump's edition. Meaning they can now fund Trump's nazi grift using Oklahoma taxpayer funds legally.

Because Trump's version has these things

They're too busy driving all of their doctors away with their shithole abortion laws

On Lemmy these days it's about 25/75 for satire vs unironic idiot/tankie

"Hey, I've seen this one before!"

"What do you mean? It's brand new!"

It's both lack of competition and the end of Moores law. We've effectively reached the end of silicon gate sizes and the tooling complexity required to keep shrinking process nodes and increase transistor density is increasing exponentially, so semiconducters no longer get cheaper... and it's starting to push these cutting edge nodes outside of economic viability for consumer products. I'm sure TSMC is taking a very healthy profit cut for sure but the absolute magic they have to work to have 2nm work at all is beginning to be too much.

It's because knock-on effects of government policies take around 4-6 years to fully materialize. Republicans fully understand this and also understand that the average American dumb fuck has a political long term memory of 3 months at best. They can fuck everything up in a term or two, pass the buck to the incoming Democrat, and then blame the Democrat for everything they completely broke. Just look at the final massive deregulation that Bush pushed leading to the 2008 crash that Obama had to deal with - which they could then conveniently blame on Obama himself!

Yeah that study is probably "true" but very myopic. I believe I commented on this the last time it was posted.

Sure, total co2/ch4 emissions is likely higher. Liquefying and transporting LNG isn't energy free, while coal is typically burned closer to where it's mined. I get that's probably the tact they're trying to take, fossil fuel still bad and don't let LNG get too greenwashed.

HOWEVER. The study and article seems to intentionally completely ignore all the secondary emissions of coal. Tallying "emissions" for a picture of true environmental impact is way way way more than just X tons of co2. Burned coal creates a massive amount of atmospheric ash and particulate that is chock full of heavy metals, literal radioactivity, and sulfur/nox that generates acid rain. The tailings from mining and the fly ash from burning is also incredibly toxic and destroys all groundwater for miles and miles around it. It's just one huge bad flaming lump of cancer that sanitizes entire ecosystems and reduces life expectancy by multiple decades in places where it is heavily used.

Natural gas generates none of this, with the exception of fracking groundwater problems (which, is admittedly a problem, but still way less concentrated than the previously mentioned). A fuel stock of >95% CH4 with the remainder made up of water and longer chain hydrocarbons emits nothing but CO2 and water vapor. Also, combined cycle gas power plants have some of the highest end to end thermal efficiencies of any power plant ever built, which is another huge plus over coal.

So no, it's not perfect, and its still "bad". but it is doing a fucking bang good job of not giving people cancer and getting a dirty 18th century energy source out of our modern society where it does not belong.

So that's why he wouldn't answer it during the debate