@Peter Todd
Relays (3)
- wss://nos.lol/ – read & write
- wss://nostr.mom/ – read & write
- wss://nostr.bitcoin.social/ – read & write
Recent Notes
South Africa, a country whose politics is mainly about stealing wealth from whites, also wants to steal wealth from Bitcoiners.
I'm shocked. Shocked I said!
I'm shocked. Shocked I said!
21❤️2⚡1
1❤️3🔥1🚀1🤙1🫂1
The Bob calendar is down right now because it's out of funds to pay tx fees: bob.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org
If people can send funds to bc1q83zmvtfks2dnvqfgcmxme24kah602cxr59h5v7 to get it back up that'd be much appreciated.
If people can send funds to bc1q83zmvtfks2dnvqfgcmxme24kah602cxr59h5v7 to get it back up that'd be much appreciated.
83❤️3
To put it simply, you're wrong here. They're referring to how much of the sunlight is absorbed by the panel, not how efficient they are at turning that sunlight into electricity. Those are two very di...
Obviously, solar panels are going to more sunlight into heat than highly reflective surfaces; the _study_ is not necessarily wrong. But the dumbed down journalistic description of it is clearly dumb.
The right way to describe this would be to say that 15% to 25% is turned into electricity, and the remainder of the 95% is turned into heat. That respects what's actually happening in an easy to understand way.
The right way to describe this would be to say that 15% to 25% is turned into electricity, and the remainder of the 95% is turned into heat. That respects what's actually happening in an easy to understand way.
3🤦1
The weather mechanism may be dubious, but the energy absorption claim is not.
PV panels will absorb most of the solar energy, literally why they look black. A small percentage of that is converted i...
"A small percentage"
As I said, it's about 15% to 25%. Making the 95% claim in the article obviously wrong. It's a trivial thing to get right.
Solar will of course turn a higher % into heat than many highly reflective surfaces. So the overall concept may work. But not with the numbers quoted.
As I said, it's about 15% to 25%. Making the 95% claim in the article obviously wrong. It's a trivial thing to get right.
Solar will of course turn a higher % into heat than many highly reflective surfaces. So the overall concept may work. But not with the numbers quoted.
1🤦1
https://www.techradar.com/pro/maybe-its-not-science-fiction-solar-panels-are-causing-rainwater-to-fall-in-one-of-the-driest-places-on-earth
“The researchers modeled solar panels as nearly black surfaces that absorb 95% of incoming sunlight.”
It's hilarious how easy it is to debunk this article. Typical solar panels convert about 15% to 25% of the incoming light into electricity while operating. That's energy that is removed from that location entirely, and re-released somewhere else. This is one reason why putting solar panels on your roof can keep your house cooler.
It is physically impossible for efficiently operating solar panels to absorb 95% of the incoming sunlight.
“The researchers modeled solar panels as nearly black surfaces that absorb 95% of incoming sunlight.”
It's hilarious how easy it is to debunk this article. Typical solar panels convert about 15% to 25% of the incoming light into electricity while operating. That's energy that is removed from that location entirely, and re-released somewhere else. This is one reason why putting solar panels on your roof can keep your house cooler.
It is physically impossible for efficiently operating solar panels to absorb 95% of the incoming sunlight.
14❤️1
Kramatorsk, Ukraine
12❤️2❤️2🚀1
4❤️3❤️1👍1💜1
Your daily reminder that journalists are parasites on productive society.
13❤️6❤️2👍2🥲1
“With apologies to Clarke and Dawe.
INTERVIEWER: Thank you for joining us Senator Collins. Now this OpenBSD vulnerability that was revealed earlier today–
COLLINS: The one where the kernel panicked?
INTERVIEWER: Yes
COLLINS: Yeah, it's not very typical, I'd like to make that point.
INTERVIEWER: Well how is it untypical?
COLLINS: There are a lot of these packets going around the world all the time and very seldom does anything like this happen. I don't want people thinking that C is not safe.
INTERVIEWER: Was this C code safe?
COLLINS: Well I was thinking more about the other ones.
INTERVIEWER: The ones that are safe.
COLLINS: Yeah, the ones that don't panic the kernel.
INTERVIEWER: Well if this wasn't safe, why was it running at ring zero on millions of machines?
COLLINS: Well I'm not saying it wasn't safe, it's just perhaps not quite as safe as some of the other ones.
INTERVIEWER: Why?
COLLINS: Well some of them are built so that they don't segfault at all.
INTERVIEWER: Wasn't this built so it wouldn't segfault?
COLLINS: Well obviously not.
INTERVIEWER: How do you know?
COLLINS: Well because a selective ACK block placed 2^31 bytes away from the receive window, causing an int comparison to overflow, so the kernel concluded the same byte was simultaneously above and below the acknowledged sequence number, deleted the only hole in its SACK list, appended to a null pointer, panicking the kernel and pulling down the entire machine. It's a bit of a giveaway, I just like to make the point that that is not normal.
INTERVIEWER: Well what sort of standards is this C code written with?
COLLINS: Oh very rigorous software engineering standards.
INTERVIEWER: What sort of thing?
COLLINS: Well it's not supposed to crash, for a start.
INTERVIEWER: What other things?
COLLINS: Well, there are regulations governing which functions you're allowed to call.
INTERVIEWER: What regulations?
COLLINS: Well, gets() is out.
INTERVIEWER: And?
COLLINS: No strcpy. No strcat.
INTERVIEWER: sprintf?
COLLINS: Look, sprintf is fine if you're careful.
INTERVIEWER: Are people careful?
COLLINS: For the most part.
INTERVIEWER: What else?
COLLINS: Code's gotta be in source control. There's a test suite.
INTERVIEWER: What does it test for?
COLLINS: That it compiles I suppose.
INTERVIEWER: So the allegations that it's a dangerous language that does next to nothing to check whether code is doing what it's supposed to, that's ludicrous?
COLLINS: Absolutely ludicrous. C is a serious production language.
INTERVIEWER: Well what happened in this case?
COLLINS: Well the kernel crashed in this case by all means but it's very unusual.
INTERVIEWER: But Senator Collins, why did the kernel crash?
COLLINS: Well it got a packet.
INTERVIEWER: It got a packet?
COLLINS: The kernel received a packet.
INTERVIEWER: Is that unusual?
COLLINS: Oh yeah. Online? Chance in a million!
INTERVIEWER: So what do you do to protect the internet in cases like this?
COLLINS: Well we patched the bug upstream.
INTERVIEWER: …leaving other vulnerabilities no doubt unfixed.
COLLINS: No no no the bug has been patched. You might need to deploy it but–
INTERVIEWER: But this class of vulnerability–
COLLINS: It's not a class of vulnerability, it's a one-off bug caused by programmer error.
INTERVIEWER: Well what else is out there?
COLLINS: Nothing's out there.
INTERVIEWER: There must be something.
COLLINS: There is nothing out there. All there is, is code, and programmers, and fixes.
INTERVIEWER: And?
COLLINS: And untold numbers of exploitable kernel-level exploits.
INTERVIEWER: And what else?
COLLINS: And a 27 year old integer overflow.
INTERVIEWER: And anything else?
COLLINS: And large private models at AI labs discovering more vulnerabilities in secret. But there's nothing else out there.
INTERVIEWER: Senator Collins, thank you for joining us.
COLLINS: It's a complete void. Nothing worth thinking about. Oh, we're out of time? Could you call me a cab?
INTERVIEWER: But didn't you come in a self-driving car?
COLLINS: Yeah I did but…
INTERVIEWER: What happened?
COLLINS: Well the kernel panicked.”
https://x.com/i/status/2041711892159484172
INTERVIEWER: Thank you for joining us Senator Collins. Now this OpenBSD vulnerability that was revealed earlier today–
COLLINS: The one where the kernel panicked?
INTERVIEWER: Yes
COLLINS: Yeah, it's not very typical, I'd like to make that point.
INTERVIEWER: Well how is it untypical?
COLLINS: There are a lot of these packets going around the world all the time and very seldom does anything like this happen. I don't want people thinking that C is not safe.
INTERVIEWER: Was this C code safe?
COLLINS: Well I was thinking more about the other ones.
INTERVIEWER: The ones that are safe.
COLLINS: Yeah, the ones that don't panic the kernel.
INTERVIEWER: Well if this wasn't safe, why was it running at ring zero on millions of machines?
COLLINS: Well I'm not saying it wasn't safe, it's just perhaps not quite as safe as some of the other ones.
INTERVIEWER: Why?
COLLINS: Well some of them are built so that they don't segfault at all.
INTERVIEWER: Wasn't this built so it wouldn't segfault?
COLLINS: Well obviously not.
INTERVIEWER: How do you know?
COLLINS: Well because a selective ACK block placed 2^31 bytes away from the receive window, causing an int comparison to overflow, so the kernel concluded the same byte was simultaneously above and below the acknowledged sequence number, deleted the only hole in its SACK list, appended to a null pointer, panicking the kernel and pulling down the entire machine. It's a bit of a giveaway, I just like to make the point that that is not normal.
INTERVIEWER: Well what sort of standards is this C code written with?
COLLINS: Oh very rigorous software engineering standards.
INTERVIEWER: What sort of thing?
COLLINS: Well it's not supposed to crash, for a start.
INTERVIEWER: What other things?
COLLINS: Well, there are regulations governing which functions you're allowed to call.
INTERVIEWER: What regulations?
COLLINS: Well, gets() is out.
INTERVIEWER: And?
COLLINS: No strcpy. No strcat.
INTERVIEWER: sprintf?
COLLINS: Look, sprintf is fine if you're careful.
INTERVIEWER: Are people careful?
COLLINS: For the most part.
INTERVIEWER: What else?
COLLINS: Code's gotta be in source control. There's a test suite.
INTERVIEWER: What does it test for?
COLLINS: That it compiles I suppose.
INTERVIEWER: So the allegations that it's a dangerous language that does next to nothing to check whether code is doing what it's supposed to, that's ludicrous?
COLLINS: Absolutely ludicrous. C is a serious production language.
INTERVIEWER: Well what happened in this case?
COLLINS: Well the kernel crashed in this case by all means but it's very unusual.
INTERVIEWER: But Senator Collins, why did the kernel crash?
COLLINS: Well it got a packet.
INTERVIEWER: It got a packet?
COLLINS: The kernel received a packet.
INTERVIEWER: Is that unusual?
COLLINS: Oh yeah. Online? Chance in a million!
INTERVIEWER: So what do you do to protect the internet in cases like this?
COLLINS: Well we patched the bug upstream.
INTERVIEWER: …leaving other vulnerabilities no doubt unfixed.
COLLINS: No no no the bug has been patched. You might need to deploy it but–
INTERVIEWER: But this class of vulnerability–
COLLINS: It's not a class of vulnerability, it's a one-off bug caused by programmer error.
INTERVIEWER: Well what else is out there?
COLLINS: Nothing's out there.
INTERVIEWER: There must be something.
COLLINS: There is nothing out there. All there is, is code, and programmers, and fixes.
INTERVIEWER: And?
COLLINS: And untold numbers of exploitable kernel-level exploits.
INTERVIEWER: And what else?
COLLINS: And a 27 year old integer overflow.
INTERVIEWER: And anything else?
COLLINS: And large private models at AI labs discovering more vulnerabilities in secret. But there's nothing else out there.
INTERVIEWER: Senator Collins, thank you for joining us.
COLLINS: It's a complete void. Nothing worth thinking about. Oh, we're out of time? Could you call me a cab?
INTERVIEWER: But didn't you come in a self-driving car?
COLLINS: Yeah I did but…
INTERVIEWER: What happened?
COLLINS: Well the kernel panicked.”
https://x.com/i/status/2041711892159484172
11❤️2😂1🧡1
https://blossom.primal.net/c7f299c25be075de7673e238f9fa0ff313ce2da3ae6870dcc7a2727c3b370536.png
In the past year I've personally raised about $15k USD in funding for Ukrainian military projects with Bitcoin. And I've barely even tried.
I could use another 850,000sats for my latest project actually, getting Flash Battalion another van: https://mempool.space/address/bc1qdds28nk2n69kc2zh0y62flnxarsp2lv80tn8t5
On a bigger scale, this is total nonsense. The biggest funders of war and violence right now are Russia and Iran. In both cases their ultimate primary funding source is oil and gas revenue; in the case of Russia a lesser funding source is the Russian government's ability to force companies to simply work for free in exchange for future promises of income that both sides know will probably never be paid. Fiat currency has nothing to do with that, and Bitcoin only fixes that problem to the extent that it allows societies to rise up.
But in Russia the population genuinely supports war. That's probably true for most of Iran too. They're infested with Islamic psychopaths.
Even if you think the US and other Western countries are the cause of "war", the argument still fails: the US only spends a small part of total GDP on their military. A Bitcoin standard doesn't change anything there.
I could use another 850,000sats for my latest project actually, getting Flash Battalion another van: https://mempool.space/address/bc1qdds28nk2n69kc2zh0y62flnxarsp2lv80tn8t5
On a bigger scale, this is total nonsense. The biggest funders of war and violence right now are Russia and Iran. In both cases their ultimate primary funding source is oil and gas revenue; in the case of Russia a lesser funding source is the Russian government's ability to force companies to simply work for free in exchange for future promises of income that both sides know will probably never be paid. Fiat currency has nothing to do with that, and Bitcoin only fixes that problem to the extent that it allows societies to rise up.
But in Russia the population genuinely supports war. That's probably true for most of Iran too. They're infested with Islamic psychopaths.
Even if you think the US and other Western countries are the cause of "war", the argument still fails: the US only spends a small part of total GDP on their military. A Bitcoin standard doesn't change anything there.
111❤️2🤙2
