babyyodaisamazing98

babyyodaisamazing98 t1_j9z9sxv wrote

Reply to DLC customers: Did you get a notice from Nextera energy recently? Read it! by [deleted]

I really don’t understand how they could possibly make it any easier to understand. They tell you the rate and length of term in giant letters on the sign up page. They are required to send 3 separate warnings starting three months before your term ends. They have no early cancellation fees, and you can switch at any time.

Do people just pay no attention at all to their mail, their finances, or their utility bills?

I honestly can’t understand how anyone could be confused or shocked by this.

A yearly signup for 30% lower rates is like the simplest thing possible.

10

babyyodaisamazing98 t1_j9pzpu7 wrote

Reply to comment by Vozegro in Pittsburgh driverless truck startup Locomation to close by 69FunnyNumberGuy420

Hardly improved is a classic acclimation bias. It’s like when people say battery tech hasn’t improved.

The technology has made giant leaps and bounds over the last 20 years.

Blind spot sensors, automatic parking, auto lane changing, automatic emergency braking, and full self driving in geofenced areas are all standard technology now that didn’t exist 15 years ago.

It might not be as far along as some people would like, but it’s made huge progress in a short time.

27

babyyodaisamazing98 t1_j9n5cj1 wrote

Reply to Honest question, what if we accepted the assumption that God created the universe 6,000 years ago, could this explain away dark matter and galaxy rotation? by DrMilzie

People seem very irrationally angry at your question.

The answer however is no it wouldn’t explain it away. Dark matter is used to explain why galaxy rotation doesn’t match expectation. It doesn’t matter how long ago the galaxy started rotating, dark matter is still needed to explain the rotation we do see.

In a similar vein the universe accelerating is explained by dark energy, which also doesn’t care about the age of the universe. The fact that it accelerating at all is where the explanation for dark energy comes in.

4

babyyodaisamazing98 t1_j7zo3yb wrote

Reply to North American companies notch another record year for robot orders by darth_nadoma

Robots are just getting better. We’ve raised wages at my company 4 times in the last 2 years and we still haven’t been able to attract good people. Our yield from a human operator is about 80% and we can’t find anyone at any profitable price to work overnight or weekends.

We recently switched one of our machines to an automated robot instead. It has 95% yield and runs 24/7. It was available with a 4 week lead time and cost less than a years worker salary.

We need one engineer to maintain 6 robots.

157

babyyodaisamazing98 t1_j7qsej0 wrote

Reply to What's your estimation for the minimum size of global population required for preserving modern civilization with advanced technology and medicine, and even progressing further? by Evgeneey

I think we can estimate an upper bound pretty easy. North America for instance, particularly the USA currently produces enough food, water, and oil to fuel its whole society. It also has the ability to do all the manufacturing needed for modern society even if some of it is currently run cheaper in other countries. Outside of a few resources that are more easily acquired elsewhere it could be a pretty self contained country. It already produces more than half of the total research papers and R&D in the world.

You could easily eliminate the rest of the worlds population and still maintain the same standard of living with a few adjustments. So I’d put the upper bound at the current US population of about 300,000,000 people.

Now could you go lower than that? Probably. You wouldn’t need anyone over the age of 70 to keep the country going, so kill everyone over 70 and reduce that number by 60 million to 240 million.

You obviously need workers and children so no chance for reduction there.

The bottom 10% ish of the population is likely a net drain so eliminate another 40 million.

That puts us at 200,000,000 people left without a huge loss of function.

I don’t think you could go much lower without impacting luxury high end living.

So I’ll say 200,000,000 is about as low as you could go.

2

babyyodaisamazing98 t1_j2wphnz wrote

Reply to comment by Save-Ferris1 in What is the lowest-carbon protein? by abercravest

It’s because they assume the most carbon intensive route possible at every step. They grow corn in Texas, ship it to Brazil to raise a cow, import water, and then ship the beef to New York. Of course it comes out to some absurd number.

That isn’t how most people actually get beef though. The beef I get comes from the cow eating grass in the field at the end of my street and the water comes out of the local well.

3