Essentially none of this is true. The war of the currents was between Edison and Westinghouse, not Tesla. Tesla's downfall was that he turned into a crackpot who rejected modern science, such as Maxwell's equations, and started defrauding investors. Edison was an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, and the electric chair used AC simply because it is much more deadly.
Westinghouse was using Tesla's patents. Get your facts right.
Every so often, I see or hear a new narrative of history that does not align with reality. I used to wonder how this could happen, but one of my sons explained to me that in his college history courses (in multiple accredited universities), the professors would teach their version of history, using their notes as the course material. They circularly cite other like-minded revisionist material, and most of their students just accept what the professor says as fact. He has seen this again and again in both lower and upper division courses.
This is a disturbing trend, and aside from "woke culture" indoctrination, I don't know what's behind it, or why these professors are not held to basic academic standards.
> The war of the currents was between Edison and Westinghouse [...]
Thank you for quashing the gross misinformation. I was going to post this, but searched and found your comment. `\m/`
(I learned of the "Current War" in the 70's, since the Edison Museum was in my "backyard" -- and was a common destination of local school field trips.)
The French energy sector is more than 50% fossil [1]. If France decarbonizes over the next decades, it will be due to renewables, not nuclear. While the government and population have been extremely pro-nuclear for a long time, the economics just don't work out. The current plan is to barely build enough reactors to replace old ones going off-line over the next decades.
That seems to be mostly because of oil use which is coming from transportation. Electrical generation is dominated by nuclear and renewables. Electrification of transport will help, provided they don't generate the additional electricity needed by burning gas or coal...
That's why I used the word electricity and not energy. It isn't perfect, but still much better than the majority if the world and even Europe. The fact that even the French themselves cannot replicate it anymore speaks volumes about the weakness of the current political system. As a counter example, the Chinese can and do.
In 2024, China produced 8 times more electricity from renewables that from nuclear [1], and the renewable share is growing much more quickly. Nuclear is as dead in China as it is elsewhere in the world.
China has a huge advantage over the majority of Europe: abundance of mostly empty land with a lot of sunlight, it's unrealistic in places like Norther Europe. But I'm not talking about nuclear alone, it was the best answer in the 70s and 80s, nowadays we need a healthy mix of nuclear, solar and wind. But above everything else we need a government willing to make significant changes and make them fast.
Chinese population is concentrated in the East. The Western half of the country is pretty much empty. Lots of sunny semi-desertic/desertic areas, too so they do have a lot of actually empty land well suited for solar (China is more to the South compared to Europe: Beijing is about same latitude as Madrid...) and wind.
The real problem are transport and heating. In most countries, those consume significantly more primary energy than the electricity sector and are still mostly fossil fueled. For example, more than half of the primary energy consumed in France is oil and gas. Heat pumps and electric vehicles or trains can now finally change this, but the transition is very slow.
You have to look at useful energy vs. primary energy. An ICE is 10-30% thermally efficient. Then you have all the energy wasted on getting the fuel into the tank.
For ground transport this is already solved by BEVs and rail. For ferries running fixed routes batteries also already solve it.
What we have left is aviation and longer maritime shipping. They will likely need chemical fuels for the foreseeable future, but to get to them we need to start with the easier applications first and develop the technology.
Meh. I get the annoyance, but it's a one time cost for a small subset of their users. I would prefer if there was a flow during device setup that allowed you to opt into developer mode (with all the attendant big scary warnings), but it's a pretty reasonable balance for the vast majority of their users. (I suspect the number of scammers that are able to get a victim to buy a whole new device and onboard it is probably very low).
Good point, having a once off advanced option to completely bypass this at device setup would be good.
Also, other commenters have mentioned that adb is unaffected by this which makes it seem like less of a problem, to me at least. Still inconvenient that even if you adb install fdroid you can't install apps directly from it.
Output (minus a lot of emojis): BIG NEWS: We’re excited to share a game-changing structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.)! This model introduces some truly novel features that are going to have a massive impact on the biological space.
We know Pauling and Corey previously proposed a model (shoutout to them for sharing the manuscript early! ), but after a deep dive, we found a few pain points:
1. The X-ray data suggests it’s a salt, not a free acid—without those hydrogen atoms, the structure just doesn't hold up under pressure.
2. Some of those van der Waals distances are a bit too tight for comfort.
Fraser also suggested a three-chain approach, but it was a bit too "vague" for us to provide actionable feedback on.
So, we’re pivoting to something radically different: A double helix! Two helical chains coiled around the same axis. We’re talking:
Phosphate di-ester groups
Right-handed helices
Bases on the inside, phosphates on the outside (optimized for cation access! )
The structure repeats every 10 residues (34 A), keeping everything perfectly aligned. We’re leaning into the standard configuration to ensure maximum stability and biological interest.
The future of genetics is here. Let’s disrupt the fibre axis together! #DNA #Innovation #Biology #Science #DoubleHelix #GameChanger
On the contrary, displays are commodity components. So much so that motivated enthusiasts have managed to swap better panels into their ThinkPads for a long time. Manufacturers don't prioritize display quality in cheap devices because it doesn't show up on the spec sheet and most customers don't care that much.
Consumers don't read spec sheets. My mother doesn't even know the difference between RAM and SSD - it's all just "memory" right? But she knows that when she goes to the Apple Store the computers are built to an impressive standard.
Quality speaks for itself, and the way that people buy computers is through their eyes and fingertips, not their heads.
Go to the Apple Store and just observe how people make their buying decisions. They don't just look at the spec sheet, they lift, type on, caress the computers. They want to know how it will feel to own one.
People already in the Apple Store have already chosen to probably buy an Apple computer, and they all have approximately equally great displays to the layperson (myself included -- I can't tell an important difference between my M1 MacBook Air's screen and the one on the nicest MacBook Pro in the Apple Store).
Go into a non-Apple space though, where money is not "no object," and see how many people would choose a 16-17" 1920x1080 screen over a 13" MacBook Neo purely because of the big screen, nevermind that the Mac has roughly 4x the number of pixels. I guarantee you, it's more than you think.
My only point was that yes, the MacBook Neo wins on quality construction and aesthetics (but I'll argue NOT on durability since plastic laptops can take a lot more incidental bumps than Macs will), cool factor/perceived eliteness, and screen quality. I am sure there are plenty of people who care about those things, but I think most of those people are already buying a Mac today.
I suspect we'll actually see a modest cannibalization of those casual but cheap Mac users from the MacBook Air, since most people don't really understand how to evaluate RAM and storage size, but a lot of them will have a bad experience after filling the disk.
Apple has way more stringent quality gates for panel uniformity compared to even high end Windows laptops. And uniformity is hard to achieve on LCD; the probably refuse at least half of the panels.
Would it be easier, though? Medical records (in the US) are covered by HIPAA and, to my knowledge, there is no anonymized canonical record, similar to what we have for legal decision. Without that, how difficult would it be to just "make shit up"?
Obviously just sending it via email to the reviewers works just fine in practice anyway, the problem is really that they published a summary piece about research that was later retracted, but didn't take down their own article.
reply