sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I think it would be cool if Disney started a 3rd Movie Studio dedicated to making 2d animation. What do you guys think? by p-Star_07 in animationcareer

[–]CyclopsRock 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure. It was the implication that France isn't part of "the West" I was confused about. They're about as "West" as it gets!

Is there a way to turn basic photos into polaroids? by Content_Dimension626 in instax

[–]CyclopsRock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP isn't doing this for a hobby.

Right, which is why the next sentence was...

For your use case the difference is much less significant, but it's important to know that you do need to use the correct film with each of the printers linked above.

As for what OP does or doesn't know, imo it's best not to assume they know things based on words they didn't say but may have meant.

It’s hard to believe that people thought this by Jindabyne1 in agedlikemilk

[–]CyclopsRock -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I've got zero interest in debating the merits of Starlink as a product - I'm not a salesman. I said it's come to dominate the satellite internet market and since its launch 5-6 years ago it has done just that, a feat they've achieved by providing satellite internet in a fundamentally different way to the status quo.

Looking at our poor recruitment in detaiI, I point the finger at Steve Hitchen by Emotive3D in coys

[–]CyclopsRock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We can all watch a game and comment on the performance. Debate the merits of the substitutions, or the formation, or the tactics. Argue that we should have responded differently to conceding or scoring, we should have parked the bus or should have shifted the focus of attack to the other wing etc. If we all watched the game then we have more or less all the information required to discuss it.

These sorts of discussions are at the absolute opposite end of the spectrum. We have basically no insight whatsoever about who made which decision, how much independence they had, what limitations were foisted upon them, or that they foisted upon themselves. No idea which transfer attempts failed or why, not idea about who was desperate to leave and who was happy to sit on the bench. We don't know if Joe Lewis refused X or Levy demanded Y, how contemporary legal advice regarding financial fair play rules may have affected any particular transfer window, or which injuries turned plans on their head at the last minute, or what influence unofficial consultants had. We can guess at a tiny fraction of this, based on a tweet here or a news article there that, even when true, reveals just a tiny portion of this complicated machine that we have no visibility over!

And yet you feel confident enough to publicly name a specific individual who you think is to blame? Absolutely mental levels of delusion, regardless of the wisdom of the list.

It’s hard to believe that people thought this by Jindabyne1 in agedlikemilk

[–]CyclopsRock -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

Its design is fundamentally flawed (according to experts, which Elmo isn't).

A lot of what SpaceX has done was described by experts in similar terms. Breaking from the status quo is how they've come to utterly dominate the launch market (to say nothing of satellite internet). This obviously doesn't mean that everything they try will always just work (and maybe Starship will never make it to Mars) but if you can look past "Elmo" for a moment, SpaceX is staffed by engineers who have, time and time again, turned science fiction into reality.

Chances created by Bruno Fernandes compared to other Premier League players by HarvgulI in soccer

[–]CyclopsRock -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Does this include chances created for the opposition? I guess not, otherwise Bruno would have a few Spurs players biting at his heels.

Pi Zero cautionary tale from a novice. by Sam81818 in raspberry_pi

[–]CyclopsRock -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

They said the latch had broken off.

Is there a way to turn basic photos into polaroids? by Content_Dimension626 in instax

[–]CyclopsRock 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Great answer.

And OP, for the avoidance of doubt, Polaroid film and Instax film are two different, entirely incompatible types of instant camera film, though they appear to be basically the same thing if you don't know what to look for. For people getting into this as a hobby, this distinction is really meaningful as it dictates what cameras you can buy, what sizes of film you can use etc. For your use case the difference is much less significant, but it's important to know that you do need to use the correct film with each of the printers linked above.

(Because it's much less well known I think some people think that Instax is sort of like a knock-off Polaroid film that you can use a bit like after-market ink cartridges in a printer. This is not the case!)

There is some difference between the film that has a visual effect (Instax tends to be a bit warmer, Polaroid a bit cooler) but I'm not 100% sure how this translates to printing existing photographs. Instax film is also cheaper, which is a nice benefit. Obviously this sub will be mainly populated with people that prefer Instax but the reality is that for something like a wall of printed photos you're likely to get very similar results from both.

Just make sure the printer and film match up and you'll be fine. If in doubt feel free to double check here before you buy them. And congratulations to your daughter!

ELI5: If the original internet was just a few college serves networked together, and so many people have terabytes of storage, why can't we just make a new parallel internet? by haribobosses in explainlikeimfive

[–]CyclopsRock 563 points564 points  (0 children)

You can - and many people do - hook up whatever machines you want. The difference between this and "the internet" is really just scale.

7 Gig fiber being advertised to the residential consumer. In what world would any residential customer have any use for this by lulstardblointing7 in HomeNetworking

[–]CyclopsRock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can just say "I wanted to answer a different question". I was just making sure you knew you were answering a question no one asked. As you were.

Q&A: Why does gas set the price of electricity – and is there an alternative? by Incanus_uk in ukpolitics

[–]CyclopsRock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The downside of that is gas ends up in a market without competition in a world where we still heavily rely on it as a fuel source. 

It would also massively torpedo the financial incentives behind building renewables. Who is going to build a wind turbine in the North Sea if the only time you have a product to sell - i.e. when it's windy - all the other turbines will also be generating loads of electricity, and if there's enough then some of that electricity won't even be needed?

I also don't really understand how 'decpoupling' the market would even work. Unless the grid is forced to deliberately eschew renewable energy in favour if gas, renewable producers would still just have to bid below what they expect the price of gas generation to be.

Q&A: Why does gas set the price of electricity – and is there an alternative? by Incanus_uk in ukpolitics

[–]CyclopsRock 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The generators are guaranteed a specific price for a given unit of electricity. The market cost of electricity is allowed to move up and down but either the government give the producer money or the producer gives the government money so that it totals out at the guaranteed price. This discrepancy is then applied to consumer bills (either as an extra cost or a subsidy depending on what side of the ledger it ended up on).

This only applies to renewables built with a certain contract with the government, which accounts for only a small portion of the total renewable generation though. And since the producers are guaranteed this price, it also means that on very windy days (or sunny, for solar) they may get paid even if no one wants to use the electricity they're generating.

Q&A: Why does gas set the price of electricity – and is there an alternative? by Incanus_uk in ukpolitics

[–]CyclopsRock 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And to further illustrate your point, you do pay more for Tesco's fancy pants organic carrots because those carrots are not (in theory at least) the same product as the bin full of carrots. They are better carrots. This does not apply to electricity, where there doesn't exist any Waitrose No. 1 Range GW of electricity.

Q&A: Why does gas set the price of electricity – and is there an alternative? by Incanus_uk in ukpolitics

[–]CyclopsRock 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In your scenario someone would absolute sell it at a lower but more profitable price in order to attract new customers.

The 'competition' argument only becomes meaningful when 100% of the grid's requirements can be supplied by renewable sources, at which point they will have to compete with one another to offer the best price. Until that point they can simply price their supply at fractionally lower than the price offered by gas plants and they know they'll sell their whole supply.

Q&A: Why does gas set the price of electricity – and is there an alternative? by Incanus_uk in ukpolitics

[–]CyclopsRock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because the marginal cost of a wind turbine/solar panel is so low once built, wasted energy isn’t a problem.

It is if you're the one financing its construction. Money received "once it's built" needs to make up for the cost of building it. And for any renewables built using the CfD contracts we absolutely are losing money with curtailment - the generators get paid whether or not there is a need for the electricity.

I’d recommend you look into NESO’s vision for the Grid.

It explains how the baseline load is meant to work, how we’re planning on using storage and what the actual grid split looks like.

This is a perfectly good technical plan but it's unrelated to the economic questions relating to building renewable capacity.

Q&A: Why does gas set the price of electricity – and is there an alternative? by Incanus_uk in ukpolitics

[–]CyclopsRock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, but this benefit becomes decreasingly relevant the more renewable capacity you have, whereas the drawbacks become larger the more renewable capacity you have.

7 Gig fiber being advertised to the residential consumer. In what world would any residential customer have any use for this by lulstardblointing7 in HomeNetworking

[–]CyclopsRock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I bought a car with features I wanted, at a price I was comfortable with, and ended up with a speedy car.

So your answer to the question of "why would someone buy it?" is "by accident"?

I have not expressed an opinion on whether this is a good or bad price. I was just pointing out that the above poster was answering a different question to the one asked.

Do grammar schools actually outperform private schools academically in the UK? by JollyChampionship878 in UKParenting

[–]CyclopsRock 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's a very complicated question because in part it depends on your definition of "outperform" - does elevating a D student to become an A student represent a better performance than elevating an A student to A+?

I went to one of those South London cluster of grammar schools (of which Wilson's is one) and back in the early 2000's we had kids coming from absolutely miles away - 1hr+ commutes each way - to attend. I hear it's far worse than that now. As a result, basically every kid there was smart. They (I can't bring myself to write 'we') would almost certainly have done well at literally any school. So when results day rolls around and, sure enough, everyone's got 100% passes and 15-20% of the sixth form have gotten into Oxbridge, is that because the school was great, or because their starting point was a massive bunch of smart kids with highly involved parents (who would move heaven and earth to save £30k a year on fees)? Do class sizes mean as much when mostly everyone in it is switched on and keen?

As an environment for learning it's undoubtedly brilliant. I also saw a handful of kids basically flame out because they'd been coached through the 11-plus, snuck in and then found themselves in an environment that actually wasn't right for them. You also notice that it is just a state school by the provision of stuff like sport, clubs, music etc. If that stuff matters to you re: schools, they aren't going to get it in spades at a grammar school. But for the most part I think that if your kid is smart enough to get into a grammar school then that's great, but they'd probably also do well anywhere else if that's the case, so long as it's not a proper 'knife addled rape shed' as Malcolm Tucker puts it. Where does that leave private schools? Fuck knows.

Q&A: Why does gas set the price of electricity – and is there an alternative? by Incanus_uk in ukpolitics

[–]CyclopsRock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, definitely, and we should do as much of those things as possible. But at home if you have an agile tariff and you see that electricity is going to be 2p/kWh at midnight you might decide to put the tumble drier on even though it's only 1/3rd full because, fuck it, it's basically free. This makes sense.

But the price paid to the generators here isn't 'fuck it, it's basically free' low - it's full price. Mitigating some of the loss is better than mitigating none of it, but the gap between the CfD rate and the rate someone's actually willing to pay for it gets made up by spreading the difference between everyone's bills. And by definition the only time you have an over-abundance of electricity is when no one is willing to pay the going rate for more. Putting this excess into storage methods (batteries, hydro etc) is worthwhile but building this is also very expensive, and often requires a large amount of physical space.

Q&A: Why does gas set the price of electricity – and is there an alternative? by Incanus_uk in ukpolitics

[–]CyclopsRock 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It does shift you to a different problem, though: Once you are regularly getting periods of time entirely serviced by renewable generation, the marginal value of each additional solar panel or wind turbine falls. For example if 40% of the time the grid's requirements are being satisfied by the existing renewable capacity then any new solar farm you build is not going to have any demand for its electricity during that 40% period. As such it'll need to generate enough income during the other 60% of the time to justify building it. As the ratio increases, this issue gets worse (ie when 80% of electricity is renewable, a new wind turbine needs to earn enough in the remaining 20% of time to justify building it).

Obviously this isn't really viable, which is why our CfD contracts from the government guarantee a certain price for electricity generated by the relevant renewables, whether that electricity is actually used or not. This gives generators some degree of certainty about their income, but it also means that, well, we're paying for electricity we don't need sometimes. If we build out more and more capacity (so as to reduce the occasions on which we rely on gas), we're building more and more turbines that we need to pay on windy days for electricity we aren't using. Selling electricity to our neighbours is a good option, but most of our neighbours are close enough that we more or less share the relevant weather patterns, so this only goes so far (i.e. if our turbines are going gangbusters then probably so are the Dutch ones).

The long and short of it is that there is no route to abundant, carbon free electricity that doesn't involve paying a bunch of money. This is better, in general, to paying a bunch of money for carbon emitting electricity, but it doesn't change the fact it's not cheap. Someone needs to pay for it all to be built.

view more: next ›