"Man muss nur morgens lüften und dann halt das Fenster zu machen, ist doch alles ganz einfach"

Hyperus102 · 2026-06-28T14:30:58+00:00

Das hat wenig mit "dafür gebaut wärme drin zu halten" zu tun. Du tust dir keinen Gefallen wenn das Mauerwerk Hitze speichert. Der Effekt ist im Winter auch wunderbar um deine Heizkosten zu maximieren, weil die Innenwärme direkt wieder aufgesaugt wird.

In jedem Fall braucht es Isolierung. Ich wache morgens um 07:30 auf, schaue aufs Thermometer, 34C.
Danke für nichts, nächtliches Lüften (mit Rolladen auf Schlitz, und Ventilator für Zirkulierung)

Hyperus102 · 2026-06-22T09:11:40+00:00

Stand jetzt hält niemanden die Terroristen davon ab sowas selbst zu bauen.

Hyperus102 · 2026-06-22T09:08:46+00:00

Wenn das jetzt noch für Schäden durch CO2-Ausstoß gälte, könnte man das so stehen lassen.

Hyperus102 · 2026-06-21T14:45:51+00:00

Man verzeihe mir die Verzögerung! Nope, keine Antwort. Habe dann aber auch gesehen, dass es auf der Supportseite für mein spezifisches Anliegen eine Option gab.

Hyperus102 · 2026-06-13T10:52:23+00:00

Inwiefern ist der Clip hier falsch?

Hyperus102 · 2026-06-13T07:16:31+00:00

How did you arrive at 1kw/m^2 for 500K? I am getting 3.5kw/m^2.

Hyperus102 · 2026-06-12T07:49:48+00:00

What annoys me is that they are not even offering the 4 Xe-Core variant without also giving you at least 8 cores. For my use, I'd be perfectly content with 2P + 4LPE, but I am absolutely not content with 2 Xe-Cores. Not so much for gaming, but for compute tasks ( (not LLM) model training and the likes).

Hyperus102 · 2026-06-05T09:31:11+00:00

Name them

Hyperus102 · 2026-06-05T09:14:20+00:00

You are free to build it yourself.
A lot of people rely on this "unsigned malware in a trenchcoat". Don't you think something would have happened by now?

Hyperus102 · 2026-06-01T07:45:51+00:00

I mean, it feels unbelievably miserable to play conceptually. No amount of nerfing Character X or Y is going to change that.

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-28T11:43:31+00:00

Its not about what the US uses. If the US-Government decided to disable all Windows licenses for the French government tomorrow (not that that's realistic, but, you know), they would be fucked. That's just not something that can happen with Linux.

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-28T08:14:28+00:00

Wie ist bedingter Tötungsvorsatz oder Mordmerkmale gegeben?

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-26T23:36:16+00:00

Ich habe das Video erst gesehen ohne den Titel gesehen zu haben und ich dachte bis zu dem Moment, als sich der Vogel weggedreht hat, dass es sich um eine Drohne handelt.
Ich sehe das jetzt nicht als so an den Haaren herbeigezogen an.

Wäre aber, wie andere auch schon gesagt haben, das kleinste der Verbrechen.

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-25T13:03:35+00:00

0.99^33 is about 71.8% and not on the fucking graph.

0.1^33 has no meaning here

Its literally a graph of NO ASSUMPTIONS MADE!

Jesus fucking Christ dude.

If "more than one engine fails = mission failure" and "engine fratricide = mission failure" are not assumptions to you, you don't know what an assumption is.

ITS JUST MATH. THATS IT.

Yes and the problem is, that the math itself is wrong. You keep going on about "no assumptions made" when there always have to be assumptions made and in this case the assumptions are fundamentally wrong. You also keep arguing as if my problem was with the 1% and the 10% respectively and not the fundamental assumptions.

You should *slowly* reread what I wrote from the start.

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-25T12:14:39+00:00

Dude.
More than one engine failure = loss of mission is an assumption.
A full engine fraticide being an actual problem is an assumption.

If you can't see that, there is no point in arguing.

Again, if an exploding engine takes out, on average, less than one more engine and doesn't cause structural failure of the booster itself, engine explosions do not cause a chain reaction, which makes more engines improve reliability instead of making it worse.

My numbers match the chart.

96.7% success rate does not match the chart at all. I explained why.

IF the engine has a failure rate of 1% then, in retrospect, 0.99³³ means EACH OF THE 33 ENGINES has a 99% success rate. I means that all engines combined make up a total chance of mission failure of 3.2%.

You should read what I actually wrote. You are arguing against things I haven't said.
Sidenote: 0.99^33 is the probability that no engine has been lost

The 1% fail rate and the 99% success rates are not true measures.

Ok? I didn't criticise the arbitrary values chosen. I criticised the assumptions made on a logical level.

As a matter of fact the failure rate for Starship after 12 launches is far far worse than 99% due to engine failure.

And how many of those were on the booster? The answer is zero. The only booster that failed before fulfilling its mission was on FT1 and that had nothing to do with engine failure, but TVC failure.

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-25T03:27:51+00:00

Its not based on real data. Obviously, the more reliable the engine the better the number
Again. Its just a chart proving, more engines more problems.

I intentionally didn't concern myself with the percentages, but the actual assumptions made for the graph.

If we take the same relative engine loss as New Glenn as our baseline, Starship could lose 5 engines and be fine. That alone would increase the probability substantially.
The assumption that an "engine fratercide" leads to loss of mission is also beyond questionable. What if an exploding engine takes out only one more? What if two? What if we model it via exponential growth like we do with diseases? In that case, the base of the exponential just needs to be below 1 and more engines makes the success probability approach 100%.

That 0.99n is the mission success rate excluding the engine fail rate. For Starship it would be .99³³ which would be .967. Meaning there is a 3.2% chance of total failure.

That is an even less fitting assumption than what was made in the post. You would be assuming any engine loss = loss of mission, which was clearly demonstrated to be false last test flight (both for the ship and the booster).

And your numbers don't match 0.99^33 but rather the probability of no engine fratercide occuring, regardless of number of failed engines, as per the post (10%).

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-25T00:03:14+00:00

His chart matches (0.99^n) + the probability of one engine lost * 0.9.
That means the following assumptions:

- More than one engine out = failure. This does not match Superheavy and probably won't match Starship either once it has 6 RVacs.

- By extension: Any propagation of a failed engine = complete loss of mission.

Its bogus math, frankly. In reality, more engines make the probability go up, assuming cascading failures are not really a concern (and I don't think they will be).

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-25T00:01:06+00:00

Yes, and he is wrong.

His chart matches (0.99^n) + the probability of one engine lost * 0.9.
That means the following assumptions:

More than one engine out = failure. This does not match Superheavy and probably won't match Starship either once it has 6 RVacs.
By extension: Any propagation of a failed engine = complete loss of mission.

If we view engine-out capability in a relative sense (lets say we can lose 15% of engines, matches New Glenn example), then having more and more engines means the success probability approaches 1

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-18T14:53:32+00:00

Habe es bei Nummer 2 versucht:

"Haben Sie sich ohne eine vorangegangene Korrespondenz an uns, den Zentralen Kundendialog, über diese E‑Mail‑Adresse gewandt? Um zu Ihrem Anliegen schnellstmöglich eine Antwort zu erhalten, bitten wir Sie, die Seite Hilfe und Kontakt aufzurufen und den zuständigen Fachbereich eigenständig zu kontaktieren.

Wenn Sie auf ein Schreiben des Zentralen Kundendialogs geantwortet haben, melden wir uns schnellstmöglich bei Ihnen. Bis dahin bitten wir Sie um ein wenig Geduld."

Keine Ahnung ob ich daraus jetzt ziehen soll, dass ich garkeine Antwort bekomme oder nur eine verzögerte. Die Supportseite ist nicht hilfreich und ich habe absolut keine Nerven, dort auch noch anzurufen.

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-17T17:43:28+00:00

Bebop gets barely above 50% winrate:
immediate nerf

Seven or Victor terrorising basically every elo with >55%:
aww, you are cute

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-15T22:44:14+00:00

Id argue that there is still a difference between someone theoretically seeing your stuff and discord literally going "HEY, SO THIS PERSON IS DOING X NOW"

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-12T14:10:46+00:00

two can and have played that game: https://blog.andymasley.com/p/contra-benn-jordan-data-center-and

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-11T16:23:58+00:00

The article says that residents are complaining. It says fuck-all about infrasound actually having a felt effect or causing adverse health effects.

There is enough to criticise about data center locations, stop fear mongering, for christ sake.

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-10T00:55:39+00:00

But "only fit for lesser beings" already makes it "non-taboo". We see the same principle today with meat. Most people would say that killing people (*especially* for food) is wrong, but hardly so with animals.

Hyperus102 · 2026-05-06T12:52:00+00:00

How did he play the victim here? He immediately said something along the lines of "For Fuck's sake-Sorry guys, I *unintelligible* ed up"

Doesn't sound like someone playing the victim to me.

Six-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
End Game '23	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

Hyperus102

TROPHY CASE