3·
2 days agoIt takes more than a name to deliver the result. MS Office365 also claims to be great for collaboration, and its a trainwreck to try to use it in that way.
partial_accumen
- 0 Posts
- 54 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 15th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
2·2 days agoHot take: companies shouldn’t get tax breaks, sweetheart deals, etc. ever, for any reason other than being non-profit public good companies. Succeed or fail on your own merits.
I understand this desire, but its a potentially simplistic view. There are times that for every $1 worth tax break to one entity generates a scaled $10 of tax revenue for the city or state. Why would it make sense to lose the overall net tax revenue to the people?
Sometimes it means that city or state has jobs that can employ their residents instead of the city or state continuing to decline when people move away for needed jobs. There are simply lots of places that companies don’t want to go and that its sometimes worth it to offer the tax break to incentivize them to come.
Other times it can be for a company to come in and offer a needed service to the community that would otherwise be unprofitable, and the residents would simply need to go without.
Unless your city or state is an extremely desirable place to be, its frequently difficult to get new employers to come or expand in less desirable places.
Probably possible to bury the tank deep enough you could grow the tomatoes on the ground above it if space is a concern.
You’re proving my point. They just started working on it 3 months ago. It will be a long time, if ever, before it is a Gsuite replacement. They even said they tried this a few years ago and abandoned it. There’s a risk they’d do it again.
So if there’s another open source effort specifically focused on an online product, its a good thing.
I like and use Libreoffice, but its a local application. This makes it fine for working by yourself and on your own hardware. Google Docs (Gstuite) is an online application with the best collaboration integration I’ve seen and works on nearly any device you can open a modern browser on. Yes, both products have a word processor and a spreadsheet, but they don’t serve all the same use cases.
If this new Euro-office can replicate the Gsuite offerings (that Libreoffice lacks), then Euro-office could be a great addition to the open source community.
The actual paper (PDF) this is based on gives much better information than the article. From that we get some really key information:
To allow FROST to measure SSD contention, the victim must perform activities that result in storage accesses to the same disk as the file used for contention measurement
This can’t ready your SSD. It can only listen in on the conversation between your CPU and SSD when something else reads it or writes to it. The whole FROST approach has a number of clever tricks to generate reads from open applications though. Further, it requires the attacker’s code to be running in an active browser session.
Also, If you have two SSDs, and your browser is on one, this FROST approach can’t see anything written to or read from on the other SSD.
Lastly, there’s a mention in the paper about hardware based SSD encryption being vulnerable, there’s no mention of Software Whole Disk Encryption. Given how the researchers are using the SSD timing exploit, I would guess that a software (not hardware) whole disk encryption might be immune to this attack because the patterns of timings would be different with encrypted data being written to the SSD (instead of the data being encrypted by the SSD when written.
something something tAx MoNeY
Nice fake quote
Idk maybe tax the fucking billionaires? Maybe instead of useless foreign wars spend it on schools? Tax the NFL? I’m just spit balling.
Get out of here with that lazy answer. Saying [paraphrased] “Have someone else pay for it somehow” is the most throwaway answer to any cited problem. If you want to contribute to the conversation looking for a solution, then contribute. What you posted here isn’t a useful or meaningful contribution.
I’m not opposed to taxing fucking billionaires, but how are you proposing? Increase on capital gains taxes? Higher taxes on non-resident properties? Wealth tax on unrealized gains? That’s a great conversation to have, but its pretty far away from school spending which is what we’re talking about here.
I’m not opposed to lowering defense spending, but in the USA you might as well try to boil the ocean than try to reform the Military Industrial Complex today. Short of revolution, that’s not happening in our lifetime. If we have revolution, school taxation will be the last of our worries.
They seem to think that what I mean is that we shouldn’t use tax money at all. No.
Incorrect. That’s not what I think. I’m seeing if you’ve thought through the consequences of your proposed change and have a solution I can’t see.
I’m happy to pay for the same education for all children. A standardized education.
Okay, so right now many schools are paid for by additional local income/sale/property taxes (these would be over and above any state or federal tax money that all schools would get). Those local taxes are passed by vote of the people in those localities. Under the current system, if “City A” has voters choose to tax themselves at a higher rate for better schools, then they get better schools. If “City B” has voters shoot down their tax increases, their schools pay the price and decline.
I’m happy to pay for the same education for all children. A standardized education.
I’m not trying to strawman you here. I’m trying to understand your proposal. Are you proposing to take the additional tax money generated in City A that they put on themselves and give a portion of it to City B to create your standardized education?
Here is study referenced in case interested - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967070X2600051X
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to engage on this topic, and also finding this great research paper. There’s always room for criticism in a source, but overall this is a great analysis done by the paper’s authors within the scope they define. I only have access to the abstract through the link, but may see if I can find the full paper from my library.
Pros of the paper:
- the WTW (Well-to-Well) metric the authors use does encompass nearly all of the energy/emissions from using the stated fossil fuel for transpiration. This is a great way to have an apples-to-apples comparison of the various sources of energy with regard to their pollution cost in vehicles of various types which is our core question.
- For Diesel the authors factored in emissions including not only CO2, but also Particulate Matter and oxides of Nitrogen which is much worse from diesel emissions than other forms of petroleum compared to gasoline or methane combustion. I appreciate this level of detail from the authors. However, in just the abstract I can’t see the formula for how they define a percentage of pollution on these other to inputs.
Cons of the paper:
- the WTW (Well-to-Well) metric starts at the well. There’s no accounting for the exploration pollution associated with fossil fuels (or battery materials for that matter). As an example, the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster was the largest oil spill as well as the largest release of methane in history. Deepwater Horizon was not an active production well. It was an exploration well (which is the step before production). Therefore it wouldn’t be included in the WTW metric, yet represents a huge amount of pollution that would not exist if we weren’t using oil and methane.
Also, to our question about coal derived power for EVs, we may have enough information from the authors to extrapolate the coal figure. Since the paper includes detailed analysis of methane generated power, we can likely get the efficiency and emissions numbers for that power source. This will let us use the author’s methods for defining the percentage of efficiency for comparrison once we get the coal inputs. We can likely get the coal inputs from looking at an existing coal power plant and getting its ingested coal, CO2 cost for extraction of that amount of coal, then the published emissions numbers from the plant for the KWh of electrical energy generated over a set period.
Overall, this paper, and your read of it is a fantastic contribution to the conversation. Thank you!
Last I read the only time ICE beat EV in emissions was when electric came from coal fired plants.
I’d be interested in your source on that as it contradicts my understanding.
For the ICE vehicle did your source include all of the environmental costs associated with producing the gasoline or did it just consider the tailpipe emissions. Or worse, did it include all the Coal costs as a environmental burden on the EV, but exclude all of the petroleum value chain environmental burden (besides the tailipe emissions)?
And then the battery production/disposal of course…
I’d guess the entire environmental damage of petroleum exploration, extraction, refinement, distribution, and combustion is greater than the entire environmental damage from battery material exploration, extraction, refinement, manufacturing, and eventual battery disposal when talking about a single ICE car vs a single BEV.
All of the ICE vs BEV pollution metrics I have seen to-date include the environmental cost of the battery, but only include ICE tail pipe emissions and exclude the environmental cost of everything needed to bring petroleum to market.
Did you include the loan payment, assuming you have one?
What about the lease payment for the solar panels?
I’m not the person you’re responding to, but I’m in the same situation of driving an EV and have solar panels.
I bought the solar panel system outright with no lease/loan. It is very much paying for itself and the full payback of the solar system continues to get shorter as electricity prices rise. When installed I had an 11 year payback. That has dropped to a 9 year payback now. I’m in a mostly red state that is is 20 years behind California in solar deployments. This means most of the rules that benefited early California solar buyers are still in place in my state. Full 1:1 net metering, option for discounted Time-of-use rates available only on EV charging.
As I’m posting this I’m pushing a KWh back to the grid and getting the full value of that KWh. I can draw back that KWh later tonight after the sun goes down. Even better, with the EV TOU I charge my EV not on sunlight, but instead after midnight and pay 75% only the cost of the KWh. All this banked money/energy I end up using later in the year when the home heating costs go up.
I know this won’t last forever. As my state catches up to the rest of the advanced blue states and we have a solar surplus during the sunlight hours I’ll be in the same situation as California solar users. However that still looks to be potentially 10 years out.
Yup. We knew this. But they won’t let us buy the affordable cars because that sort of free market would put US companies out of business.
While I mostly agree with you, the Chevy Bolt brand new can be had for $29,990. We really should have the option to buy Chinese EVs since the majority of other US car makers have abandoned the EV segment, and therefore deserve no protection from a market they are not in anymore.
The way to fix this is to make the entirety of the school experience the same. Not by going cheap. But by giving more money to poorer schools to subsidize education so it’s up to the exact same standard across the board.
Where are you proposing the tax money come from for this? While there are certainly areas of poverty that lack funds, I’m not even sure that’s the majority of the lack of funds. Another is today’s senior citizens that were fine with their children’s education being subsidize by yesterday’s senior citizens and the childless tax payments, but as soon as their children are grown they vote down any tax increases to fund schools.
Another point: I know a number of families that have intentionally moved out of good school, well funded, districts seeking lower taxes, and hence, worse funded schools. They would fight you on getting better funding even for their own schools if it meant the necessary tax increases. Teachers don’t, and shouldn’t work for free.
Once you’ve pumped an oil well dry, it stays dry. It doesn’t refill with oil, at least not on human timescales.
To underscore your point even more, you’re statement starts from a found well. Resource exploration is expensive in and of itself. Extraction companies have to go and find places in the world where there are resources and set up the expensive logistics for extraction and transportation of that fuel to markets. All of that has to happen before a well can be eventually run dry.
Alternatively, Finding good spots for new wind or solar deployments is fairly trivial.
I’m not a kobo owner, but I’ve bought multiple hundreds of dollars of fully legal ebooks off Humble Bundle. Some of these collections are actually sourced through the Kobo ebook store for the backend delivery. Other collections are non-DRM epubs. I’m currently reading through the Martha Wells collection (Murderbot, Ile-Rien series). It was $18 for 14 of her novels/novellas. Prior to that was a collection of Hugh Howey (Dust, Sand) and Neil Stephenson (Seveneves) There’s currently a Robert Silverberg collection of 32 books for $18 I’ll probably pick up.
It does not, it states that a person can’t lie on an a form to purchase a weapon by stating they are purchasing the weapon for themselves when they are not. This doesn’t criminalize all straw purchases, it simply agrees with the fact that lying on these forms is a crime. If a person answers truthfully, recieveds a weapon, and resells it, no crime is commuted by that individual.
The form itself already covers all the scenarios which would meet the legal definition of Straw Purchase of a firearm. The form has questions that eliminate Straw Purchases if answered truthfully. Lying on the form is illegal. I see no path for a legal Straw Purchase. The lengths the ATF went through explaining what is and is not allowed is extensive.
I’ll admit, I don’t know if you legally need to answer that specific question in all states or any for that matter so you may be right.
You can read the complete ATF Form 4473 (Question 11a covers what we’re talking about here) for yourself. ATF is Federal, which supersedes any state laws with regard to the sale of firearms so state laws on this point are irrelevant.
I’m only really taking issue with the idea that straw purchases are a crime in and of themselves. They are not
Where, with the clear described scenarios listed for Question 11a (and the expanded text for that question elsewhere in that form), do you see a scenario where the actions which meet the legal definition of a Straw Purchase of a firearm are allowed?
This doesn’t criminalize all straw purchases, it simply agrees with the fact that lying on these forms is a crime. If a person answers truthfully, recieveds a weapon, and resells it, no crime is commuted by that individual.
Literally “Rules for thee, and not for me”.
No one can live without a Liver, which is exactly what hepatitis attacks and kills. Tweakers will steal your catalytic converter off your car for $40. When a market exists with a $20,000 street value for a liver, and there’s a liver in every jerk walking around in public, random kidnapping and organ theft is going to be a thing regular thing in about 20 years in the USA.