>I'd love to see an investigation into fossil fuel accumulation over geological time scales - especially petroleum. From what I've seen, 10,000 barrels per year is a reasonable guestimate.

From what we know it's a very lumpy distribution. Most of the fossil fuels were created in a few specific points of history

Back of the envelope math:

  Solar panel captures energy from an 800nm wide range (300-1100nm)
  Plant captures energy from a 300nm wide range (400-700nm) 
  The solar panel could reproject and amplify the 300nm range at (800/300=) 2.7X more power than the sun

The reason plants capture energy from this range is because that's where most of sunlight's energy is concentrated, which is going to drop this quite a bit further. Glancing at a solar radiation spectrum curve makes it look a lot closer to ~1.5x. Combine that with inefficiencies of both the panel and the LEDs and it really doesn't look that good.

But solar panels are only about 30% efficient, so that kinda kills any gains.

Thanks, this is exactly the comment I was looking for. In addition to the 70% loss due to the solar panel efficiency, I think we should also lose some efficiency in the conversion to light via leds (although I expect that’s much more efficient, perhaps at like 80%).

I’m curious what is physically possible, if we assume we can achieve the max possible efficiency. I’m guessing there’s behavior like a Carnot engine, and the energy transfer can only be up to ~86% efficient (but please correct me if I’m wrong!!). In that case, conversion from light to energy via solar panels -> conversation back to light via leds should be 0.86*0.86 = 73% efficient in best case. And the full effect should be (800/300)*0.73 = 1.94, about twice as good as growing plants with the sun’s direct light. I’m surprised that seems possible!

p.s. My efficiency guesses are probably wrong. Please correct me.

By using multiple junctions and stacking them, top one converting the most energetic photons, then the second-most etc, one can approach the theoretical limit of about 95% or whatever it is. However in practice it's very expensive and difficult as I understand. AFAIK the current state of the art is about 6 stacked junctions at around 60% efficiency, at great cost.

And as you say the LEDs aren't 100% efficient either, though both deep red and bright blue are among the most efficient, about 85% there.

So that leaves you with about 50% overall just from those two.

I thought that efficiency was governed by the wavelengths they absorb? Ie absorb all wavelengths == 100% efficiency.

So that would imply they are inherently more efficient just looking at the figures provided.

$30 devices don't have apple screens.

FTA "Even a low-resolution 384x288 display has 110 thousand pixels: way too big to fit in the AVRs memory"

Retro games

Electronic devices

Fine prints in images

This website seems heavily inspired by https://lawsofux.com/

Source? It is known (and studied) that even at low power levels that do not significantly raise body temperature, short RF pulses can cause rapid, microscopic thermal expansion in the brain. This creates mechanical stress waves that can lead to TBIs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect

That's the cool thing! No one really knows, so any remotely scientific theory is indistinguishable from truth. Maybe even the more outlandish the better, so as to scare people more effectively.

Did you mean to reply to a different comment? Struggling to connect this reply with what was said before it

>Previously, a criminal could just print their own shelf tags.

Yep. For the physical "hackers" among us, a price sticker gun (those little orange or white stickers with a number on them that mom and pop shops use) was one of our first tools to mess around with

X doesnt yet have a paying customer base using AI?

Add to Cook's impeccable timing, that he stepped out of CEO role and into Chairman on exactly his 65th birthday, the very day he became first eligible for his pension

Being eligible for Medicare, Cook can finally afford to retire.

Likewise he can probably defer his Social Security payments until 70, in order to get the higher benefit...

+1 for Medicare for the non-rich, though. I'm a retiree and the monthly payment is about 1/4 of what I was paying for health insurance before I was eligible.

> defer his Social Security payments until 70, in order to get the higher benefit

People repeat this but when I ran the math on earlier Social Security payments it seems like the accrued $, by the time you're eligible for the higher benefit, is plenty similar as bonus income.

It also helps to spread your lifetime Soc Sec benefits over more tax years, thereby lowering the total tax you pay (because pushing higher payouts into fewer tax years by delayed filing will typically increase your marginal tax bracket).

Yeah it's definitely not one-size-fits-all advice. Depending on what your IRA/401k situation looks like, taking SS right at 62 may be the financially superior choice as it reduces your early draw down on the investments.

I'm not following this advice for now but a recent post about not delaying

https://nesteggcare.com/why-would-you-delay-the-start-of-soc...

> the monthly payment is about 1/4 of what I was paying for health insurance before I was eligible.

Maybe not, if you take into account the >$500/month subsidy of your Medicare Part A benefits (assuming you had the minimum number of calendar quarters paid in). And your Part B payment (the one usually deducted from your Soc Sec payment) is also partly subsidized unless your income is high enough to trigger IRMAA adjustment.

But is Medicare as good as the insurance you had before?

I can't speak for aworks, but most of the people I've spoken to on it, like my mother, say it's better than the private insurance they had before.

For general medical coverage, it was better for my Mom and now it seems better for me. Some things are not covered with traditional Medicare e.g. dental and vision.

Dental and vision aren't covered by private medical insurance either, and private dental insurance typically has max annual payouts low enough (like $1k/1.5k) to make it basically a scam unless you know you'll actually get use out of it.

I had a separate dental insurance policy but as you suggest, it didn't make much sense and I dropped it.

So yes, dental/vision was a wash versus private medical insurance. There are some other therapies I no longer have any coverage for under Medicare.

I’m going to need to buy on the individual market. Talking to a broker he said Medicare is a great deal, and you should take it if you can.

A lot depends one what you do for Part C (if you do).

With a fixed income, I'm worried he can't afford to upgrade his iPhone every year.

Humor seems difficult for people.

Don't worry, I got it.

At first I was thrown off by everyone calling him "Tim Cook"... we all know its pronounced "Tim Apple"

Gotta hold out for that bus pass