Nuclear plants need to be switched off for weeks/months at a time for the following reasons:
- refueling (regularly done, highly plannable)
- insufficient cooling water/ too warm cooling water (regular, seasonal, not very predictable short-term)
- planned maintenance (often combined with refueling)
- unplanned maintenance (accidents)
Whenever these things happen, the entire reactor is producing no power. This is why most nuclear facilities have multiple reactors, so you can rotate these tasks among them and still have some power. Unfortunately, the cooling issue is becoming more and more of a problem, and many sites that used to operate year-round now have to scale down significantly in mid-summer due to lack of cooling water.
There are many ways to improve the speed and accuracy, but it's really important in settings like these to not make changes until the input method is fully reliable, because there's the risk of complete loss of communication.
The full event streams have been published this time around, including the failed sessions. I recommend reading the article and watching the videos of the system operating - they have a video of the input calibration/training, and another video of the longest session. The sessions are few and many days apart, and not all of them demonstrate successful control, but on the days where the patient can successfully drive the system there is no doubt of the communication method's authenticity, and the researchers have no input or interpretation capability.
The previous controversy around the researchers is not about them scamming patients, it's about them publishing only the positive results of their work and not disclosing negative results, making the average success rate appear better. This is one reason they publish full event streams and list days with no attempts and failed attempts extensively in this paper. The code has also been published, and the raw potential recordings are available on request. I had a careful read and I can't find anything methodologically problematic in this publication. When you watch the video, be aware this is the longest and most successful session, and the researchers made this very clear.
Get a standalone induction plate. They're cheap and portable and they let you try it out without a huge expense. I do 90% of all my cooking on a single induction plate I paid ~$60 for. Non-induction electric hobs are trash, and induction is much closer to gas, but more controllable, less messy, and less dangerous. That said, I would strongly recommend against a builtin induction hob. They're expensive as fuck, and eat lots of counter space. The standalone induction plates are amazing, much nicer to work with, and cheaper, and you can put them away when you need the extra space. Restaurant supply shops have standalone induction plates for ~3x the cost of the consumer ones which are phenomenally good, that's what the higher end new kitchens are going for.
> They're expensive as fuck, and eat lots of counter space.
I am comfortable with the latter at least, as my default would be a 5 ring gas hob! I cannot imagine cooking with fewer than 3 rings. (Say, duck breast, mash, veg is a pretty basic meal)
> Get a standalone induction plate. They're cheap and portable and they let you try it out without a huge expense.
That is actually a good shout, and not something I had considered. Am currently "camping" kitchen'd in the utility room with a microwave and a 2 ring camping gas stove. Will have a gander, Thanks :)
You're not always allowed to put them into electric sockets and turn them on all at once, though. There's usually special electric wiring done to handle the load of electric stoves.
In the US, at least, the standard is to have outlets every 4' (I think), and have the outlets alternate circuits. So, you plug into two adjacent outlets (not the same two in the same box, but adjacent boxes) and you'll be on different circuits.
I think it is for kitchens, and it is relatively new. My 25 year old refinished kitchen has the outlets, but not the separate circuits. No nespresso + toast.
I understand Russian. Looking at ria.ru over the past few days there is barely any mention of the war, certainly no details, there's much more mention of sanctions but only some weird stories about their origin and motivation.
The foreign entity does not forbid you to use any font at all, in any sense of the term. You are told by an assembly of elected representatives that you must treat their 450 million citizens' data with care and respect.
You are perfectly allowed to self-host the fonts, use regional providers... or event block the zone entirely.
Now, let's make a poll and see how many of those 450mln citizens care. Nobody ever considered cookies or online data when they engaged with the indirectly democratic process which appointed those representatives.
Those representatives are random politicians that can be bought by the dozen by large corporations.
This is obviously another regulatory step towards guaranteeing only large companies will have the legal expertise to be on the internet, stifling competition and killing small and independent providers.
Oh look, it turns out[0][1] Europeans generally know about GDPR's effects[2] and care about their privacy online. What a shocker. In fact, I bet if you ran a similar poll of "would Americans want privacy laws equivalent to the EU's", with a simple explanation of what that would entail, you'd probably get a pretty positive response to that, too.
The problem here isn't the EU. It's US Congress, and it's insistence on shitty laws like the CLOUD Act that make it legally impossible to comply with any reasonable foreign privacy law by mandating that tech companies break them in lieu of a proper legal treaty. Bonus points to various UK and Australian[3] laws that collectively ban strong encryption in those territories, though I know of no current GDPR court ruling about that yet.
[2] Oddly enough this only extends to knowledge of GDPR's effects. Nobody seems to remember that the law that gave them these new privacy rights is called "GDPR".
Actually they're told by the commission which is elected by nobody. The EU parliament doesn't make law (i.e. it's not really a parliament). It's the civil service that does that in the EU. Parliament just rubber stamps it.
