Redjard

Ah your next novel is done? Make sure noone reads it, it would diminish the value of the tax-writeoff when we delete it.

This website is maintained by Uros Gazvoda, founder of Futuristica, to help spread uBlock Origin - free, open-source ad blocker.

Not fake, just unaffiliated. The presented links and info seem correct to me.
ubo is also warning about a different fake page on their repo but not this one.

1 Liter Wasser = 1 Kilogramm
1000 Liter = 1 Kubikmeter

You can always parallelize, this would be more beneficial for latency.

Based on the only information we have, OPs sister is two. So the sister is 2. Trivial.

Finland is the canton of Scandinavia I like second most after Sweden so far.
Though I must say Poland was nice too.

At the very least the system should initiate an emergency break when it disengages like that and there is no conflicting human input.

Keins mehr?
Zwei noch?

The modlog on your instance has a few entries with “reason: automod”.
These all aren’t present on the actual sub.
Another example here is

which still exists on lemmy.world.

This post has less than 30% vote ratio and more than 50 votes. There might be a cutoff under which shit.just.works simply removes content.
Which if true I gotta say kinda sucks. Maybe a remnant from the cp catastrophe?

You better get used to visiting the home instance of posts whenever you see a removed comment you wanna read. Most apps should have a “source link” option, usually with the fediverse symbol, which should open the post on the “ownership” instance, so the one authoritative over what the comment looks like. My app (summit) even offers that per commend conveniently.

Compare these:
https://sh.itjust.works/post/34698028/17414247
https://lemmy.world/comment/15793837

The user is on lemmy.world, where the comment is gathered by all other instances. It is visible for me on dbzer because that pulls from lemmy.world where it still exists.
I assume your instance admins deleted it locally for your instance only. Who knows why. I suggest you move to a different place that doesn’t randomly moderate external sublemmys for local users only.

Was it? I still see it.
Maybe your reader auto hides it due to the low rating?

Fossil gas was a minor energy source for germany and the eu. It was costly to replace 2 years ago but at this point the cost has been paid and the energy is sourced from other fuels.
The german car industry was bound to fall ever since they refused to research electric cars decades ago. Even before then they had been outsourcing but now they simply don’t own the profitable part of electric cars - the battery and power-train.
With or without the war in ukraine they would be disappearing.
The overall german economy is fine, there is increasingly unequal distribution of wealth like many western nations in recent decades, but the economy is ok.

Ps: I don’t recall the numbers for germany, but pre 2022 the EU generated less than 20% of their energy with fossil gas, and less than 14% of their electricity. Germany had a higher ratio, but definitely less than a third.

The first day of the naturally occuring spring, occuring naturally at a set number of days after the solstice.
You can recognize it from the skybox changing color.

Probably only sucessful ones.
Google captchas have had multiple rounds (with it faking you out claiming you failed) for probably a decade. Every round of the game updates some confidence score which if you get it high enough lets you pass.
This conversely means there is no way to fail, you just get stuck in an infinite loop of challenges if your score doesn’t get high enough.

The only other alternative means of pricing it would see even valid users consume way more than one “verification” per actual completed captcha, since so many users have low enough scores to need multiple rounds of captcha even when completing them with perfect accuracy.
I doubt they do this, but if they do it’s a scandal waiting to happen, besides also being very weird for any kind of statistic google certainly offers for their captcha.

Feel like it’s less about the masonry and more about how Brandwand sounds quite silly

Fixed a mediawiki maintenance script via a 2 char change last week.

Fair point, though there are ways to change the probabilities of fusion paths, just not ever fully to 0.
Reaction probabilities scale with reactant concentration and temperature in ways we can exploit.
I tried to find some numbers on the relative probabilities and fusion chains, and ran into The helium bubble: Prospects for 3He-fuelled nuclear fusion (2021) which I hope is a credible source.

This paper contains a figure, which gives numbers to the fusion preferences you mentioned.

Paraphrasing the paper in chapter “Technical feasibility of D-3He fusion” here, first we see that up to 2 billion K, the discrepancy between ²H-³He and ²H-²H fusion grows, up to about 10x. ²H-²H reactions will either produce a ¹n (neutron) and a ³He, or produce an ¹H and an ³H, with the ³H then (effectively) immediately undergoing the much more reactive ²H-³H producing a neutron too.
In addition to picking an ideal temperature (2GK), we can also further, for the price of less than a factor 2 increase of pressure, use a 10:90 mixture of ²H:³He, or even more. This will proportionally make the ²H-²H branch a factor 10/90 ≈ 11% as likely as the ²H-³He correcting for reaction crossection.
Past that, reactivity goes about with the square of pressure and the inverse of ²H concentration, so another 10x in fusion plasma pressure would net another 100x decrease in neutron emission at equal energy output.
Given how quickly fusion reactivity rises with better fusion devices, we can probably expect to work with much higher concentrations than 10:90 when the technology matures, but 10:90 at 2GK would still have about 1/100ᵗʰ the neutrons per reaction and less than 1/100ᵗʰ per energy produced compared to fully neutronic fusion like ²H-³H.

The problem is solvable, but there is definitely a potential for taking shortcuts and performing ²H-³He with much higher neutron emissions.

It’s nlt mentioned in the text very clearly, but look at the link.
They were confused about what I said for hydro and wind, which I have now rewritten.

Kind of, it’s more complicated.

There are different fusion reactions, one example would be ²H-³He fusion used by Helion.
²H-³He is aneutronic, so doesn’t produce chargeless particles (every clump of stuff is either an electron or contains a proton). It is also an easy to achieve fusion reaction with good energy yield, with the downside that we don’t have ³He. Helion therefore has to split their fusion into two steps, producing ³He via ²H-²H fusion in a breeder-reactor and then fusing it in their energy-reactor. The first step would then emit neutrons and not really produce energy, the neutrons here could be used to further breed fuels.
Not having neutron emissions is quite useful because it allows you to make your fusion generator a lot smaller and safer around people, so it’s certainly something you want to avoid for far more valuable reasons than improving efficiency.

If we get very good with fusion we could also use the much harder to achieve ¹H-¹¹B reaction, which produces some neutrons but at very low energy (0.1% of total energy output), and is effectively aneutronic for safety concerns (neutrons have low penetration power and don’t really activate material, so can’t be used to breed say weapons-grade fission material). ¹H and ¹¹B are common so require no further steps to produce them.

There might still be directly-to-electricity pinch-fusion approaches that use neutronic fusion, I tried looking for any but didn’t find an example. We’ll see what ends up being done in practice, but close to 100% energy utilization is at least possible using pinch-fusion.

On the other hand, the losses in heat-conversion are inevitably huge. The higher the temperature of the heated fluid compared to the environment the higher the efficiency, but given that our environment has like 300 K we can’t really escape losing significant amounts of our energy even if we use liquid metal (like general fusion) and manage to get up to 1000 K. The losses of going through heat are <environment temperature>/<internal temperature> (carnot efficiency), so would still amount to 30% energy loss if we manage to use 1000K liquid metal or supercritical steam to capture the fusion energy and drive a turbine. In practice supercritical steam turbines as used in nuclear plants hover around 50% efficiency at the high end.

The magnetic field in pinch-fusion interacts with the (charged) particles directly, which are emitted at (many many) millions of K. Therefore this theoretical efficiency will be at over 99.99%. In effect in heat-based fusion we loose a lot of that energy by mixing the extremely hot fusion results with the much colder working fluid.

Yeah, not the right words. I intended to say no steam turbine.
Instead of turning energy into heat into turbinable fluid flow in form of steam, they directly use turbinable fluid flow.
The difference is really the lack of steps up to the turbine.