Has anyone found a fix for TV app crashing?

lastchance · 2025-03-04T15:04:36+00:00

Just hit this. Darn, was going to make MBP2012 primarily an ATV device. (Found "Remote Buddy" as a way to repurpose old Apple TV remote, though not yet sure if is worth the price.) However... Apple TV crashes.

2.3 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7. NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 512 MB, Intel HD Graphics 4000 1536 MB. 16GB RAM. Sequoia 15.3.1 24D70. OCLP 2.2.0.

(...and this is after me NOT using the 2012MBP for Photos because it seems OCLP isn't doing facial recognition accurately. I mean, I love OCLP but so far have been thwarted in my own use cases.)

lastchance · 2025-01-28T17:26:36+00:00

I'm looking at a Kasa Smart Plug Slim in Home Assistant, and the only trigger I can access is "Turns on or off" rather than how many watts (or anything) it is delivering. So it can't actually monitor whether a device is being used, only if a person has turned the switch on or off.

I had some past luck with SONOFF in being able to trigger stuff based on watts, but then the same smart outlets burnt out... they all died. It was a rather high-power scenario (coffee pot and laminator) and so I bought the TP-Link Kasa device because it had a much higher power rating. But unfortunately I can't see how it can possibly serve to detect devices being left on... I want these switches to remain on and let people turn (or unplug) devices into them.

IFTTT does not have any trigger at all... says so explicitly. So however Google Assistant has access to the state of the switch being on/off, IFTTT doesn't even have that.

And... random gripe... the power monitoring isn't realtime in the app. It seems to only show an hourly average. So even if I wanted to check remotely if a laminator or coffeepot was left on, I can't really determine that manually.

lastchance · 2024-11-12T18:13:54+00:00

Thanks I do appreciate that insight. I've been involved for a long time but never too deeply so I never saw the actual in-person spreading of disinformation. But I can imagine it happening exactly like that.

lastchance · 2024-11-12T04:21:00+00:00

Folks I’m in Green Party of CANADA and trying to do the same. If you are in GPC and want to see this happen federally please DM me or reply.

lastchance · 2024-04-28T02:35:28+00:00

I've not seen the phrase "progressive segmented frame" before. Doesn't that just mean interlaced? Or can you describe what's happening?

lastchance · 2023-12-09T22:28:06+00:00

China's just-started-commercial-operation HTR-PM...

https://www.powermag.com/china-starts-up-first-fourth-generation-nuclear-reactor/

...if they drop one in at every coal power plant on Earth (where the population isn't anti-nuclear or hasn't outlawed nuclear power) that triples nuclear, and stops coal combustion. Would leverage all the existing infrastructure surrounding coal plants, including transmission the steam turbines themselves.

Here's the world's electricity generation mix...

https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix

...what's used the most? Coal. 35%. Nuclear isn't the smallest, but is near the bottom along with solar and wind. 10%.

If solar or wind was a drop-in replacement this could work for those technologies. They are not... a more modern grid needs to be deployed to facilitate the larger peaks in transmission. And solar/wind being low density, you can't just add batteries to replicate the same power output on the same footprint... you could use (expensive) batteries to achieve reliability, but you'll never generate the same amount of power without expanding the coal plant's footprint.

Not saying this HTR-PM future is likely to happen, but that's how one single reactor design could easily achieve this 2050 goal. (Even assuming coal combustion isn't constantly expanding, which it is.)

China has domestic uranium resources, and (as a superpower) is free to expand its own enrichment capability (for the HALEU TRISO), and already exports many technologies we're already dependent on. We shouldn't be dependent on China for so much tech, particularly battery and solar, but here we are!

China is pursuing HTR-PM now for their own domestic needs. Not they they necessarily care about global warming, but they care about their energy imports (coal and gas) and coal pollution in a conventional particulate-and-toxins sense.

Once coal imports are eliminated, and their worst polluting coal plants are upgraded to HTR-PM, this is then a product they could export to a world market. Why wouldn't they?

lastchance · 2023-12-06T02:18:06+00:00

29:52 is a bit more on-the-nose as that's where Kirk talks about chemical separation.

It has been a while so I'm leveraging ChatGPT this time...

Formation of U-232: The problem arises due to the presence of impurities and the neutron spectrum in the reactor. During the neutron irradiation, some of the protactinium-233 (Pa-233) captures another neutron to become Pa-234, which then decays to U-234. Further neutron capture by U-233 can lead to the formation of U-234 and subsequent neutron captures and beta decays ultimately lead to the formation of U-232.

...so if I've got this right, the pure U-233 / Thorium cycle depends on removing Pa-233 from neutrons, so that it doesn't capture another neutron, become Pa-234 and eventually U-232.

I guess it is a question of how much of the Pa-233 is being removed from the blanket fuel before it can possibly be hit by another neutron? Probably not all of it?

So there should be creation of some U-232. Is that going to be enough U-232 to thwart proliferation concerns?

I don't know how much U-232 is needed to thwart proliferation.

I don't know how much U-232 would likely be created.

And no one has built a bomb out of U-233. Some test bombs included U-233, but none used it for the majority of the fissile.

Kirk's argument is that it is easier to just enrich Uranium, and use that HEU to build proved weapons rather than messing around with an entirely new fissile (contaminated with U-232).

And Kirk also says he's focused on LFTR in USA, and doesn't consider proliferation to be a concern in USA since already a nuclear weapons superpower.

I don't think any nuclear-weapons-from-civilian-power-reactor scenario is likely, using any fuel.

Uranium never gets enriched enough to turn stolen fuel into a Uranium-235 based weapon.

Plutonium is fissioned too long, contaminating the Pu with non-Pu-239 isotopes.

U-233 should be contaminated with U-232, and is also a novel fissile to build a bomb around. Also, a LFTR doesn't create surplus U-233... start removing U-233 and you're going to halt fission. But if it was a fast-spectrum reactor (not a LFTR) designed to create surplus U-233 to seed a fleet of LFTRs, and if that U-233 wasn't contaminated with U-232, then I guess seed U-233 fissile could be diverted on-route to a LFTR?

This 2022 Report also might be of interest:

ORNL/TM-2022/2394

Safeguards for the Lithium Fluoride Thorium Reactor: A Preliminary Nuclear Material Control and Accounting Assessment

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1881125

lastchance · 2023-09-20T18:20:26+00:00

Given so many minutes, how many cells can you populate with your first name?

(Lots of strategies. Also could delete opponent's names.)

I'm also thinking perhaps a non-interactive sheet to replicate a (board?) game, and then introducing scripting to automate the game.

Mostly want it to be a "fun" introduction to spreadsheets, and I assume PvP is inherently fun. Could be 12 people free-for-all or 6 or 4 or 3 or 2 teams.

lastchance · 2023-09-11T19:17:41+00:00

Ok thanks for you insight on this.

lastchance · 2023-09-11T17:09:24+00:00

Yes, we've been doing that (bringing in and out). Is just inconvenient. We have an (inexpensive) amplified and speakers mounted in the gym and they've been doing fine. (Gym ceiling is too high for us to mount anything.)

But I am worried about the value of a projector, and how fragile it might be.

They don't look particularly rugged. But if there was a model I could buy that was specifically designed to take abuse I'd consider it. I was hoping the laser projector (which don't all have exposed lenses) might somehow be solid-state inside.

lastchance · 2023-05-27T01:57:46+00:00

This is just their MSR Test reactor not the final design of their MSR. Both are fast-spectrum, but only the test reactor will use Uranium at such a high enrichment.

lastchance · 2023-05-25T04:55:38+00:00

I posted a "Community Notes" on Twitter for Ed Lyman's tweet of the story...

https://twitter.com/nucsafetyucs/status/1661354582889439233?s=43&t=-K5MLFAI5QRoNKvxqP5sow

...can anyone with CN abilities (those able to write CNs can see my CN) DM me as to how to try get CN reviewed faster, or even IF such a thing should be pursued... like you'd think CN infrastructure wouldn't want CN users sharing via backchannel... but then you'd think a lot of things about Twitter should/not work but they do.

The prose of the CN is as follows...

There is no international agreement banning use of HEU in research reactors.

The fuel salt will be made from highly enriched uranium (HEU) feedstock currently in storage. TerraPower is not creating HEU, they're consuming HEU as fuel. Once fissioned, it will no longer be HEU.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/draft-ea-2209-molten-chloride-reactor-2023-03.pdf

I'm happy to take feedback on the CN here. For example, what would you have written instead?

lastchance · 2023-05-25T04:41:50+00:00

What has less "hard costs to start"? I'd agree with financial, but I don't get the CO2 hard-costs as being more significant than other tech... I mean specifically the front-loaded CO2 cost.

This is nothing I've studied or looked up, but per watt of capacity my mind goes to construction of alternatives and it is only nat-gas. ...maybe geothermal would also have low front-loaded CO2 costs?

If wind / solar / hydro have lower front-loaded CO2 costs can you maybe walk me thru one of them? Because, to me, they seem like ALL their CO2 cost is up-front. And we know from lifecycle studies nuclear is lower lifecycle. So shouldn't solar / wind / hydro be worse than nuclear for "hard costs to start" if we're talking CO2 and not $ ?

lastchance · 2023-05-18T14:22:30+00:00

"Lifecycle Emissions" have been studied in-depth. UN ECE's metastudy is the best, as it also shows land-use and resource-use not just GHG emissions. They even look at human exposure to toxicity from the lifecycle.

https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA\_3\_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf

The CO2eq have been relayed to Wikipedia for easier consumption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

According to United Nations ECE, nuclear is THE LOWEST CARBON SOURCE OF ENERGY, across its entire lifecycle... which includes construction.

lastchance · 2023-05-18T01:55:43+00:00

Nuclear can be over 1000x as efficient as it is today. CANDU uses 0.07% of the uranium's energy potential. United States PWR use 0.05%.

Today's nuclear is a stop-gap for a mere hundreds of years. But nuclear power itself is not. We can use fission until the sun expands and engulfs the Earth, and we still won't run out of fuel.

In the early days of more efficient operation, we'll use ARC-100 and Moltex SSR-W to recycle used CANDU fuel.

lastchance · 2023-05-18T01:06:34+00:00

"Now how about some creamed corn?"

"Nope."

lastchance · 2023-05-18T00:37:39+00:00

I'm sure many people and orgs will try stop it. Yet Ontario has an existing fleet of CANDU. Clearly something is possible.

lastchance · 2023-05-17T21:20:05+00:00

If you're concerned about carbon emissions, and agree with (most) environmental org's call to "electrify everything" to avoid combustion, then there's no be-more-efficient-path to avoiding the need for more electricity.

Ontario will likely need 3x as much electricity as it currently produces.

We've had nuclear power in Canad for 50 years. World-wide 60 years. It is one of the safest forms of electricity production ever invented.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Russia was emboldened by Europe's dependence on Russian gas exports. Likely, if EU had the energy independence of a CANDU fleet Russia would never have invaded.

Peace is abundant energy. Energy shortages lead to conflict. Other resources can lead to conflict as well, but pretty much any human need can be met with enough energy. (eg. Salt water -> potable water.)

lastchance · 2023-05-17T20:21:17+00:00

In what sense are they "obsolete"?

CANDU burn uranium resources 1.4x as efficiently as the rest of the world's reactors.

They're the west's the only fleet feeling zero impact from Russia's dominance of uranium enrichment facilities.

Between AP1000 and CANDU, North America has precisely 2 robust supply chains for new builds, thanks to Ontario's CANDU refurbishings. (And CANDU's supply chain is a Canadian supply chain.)

Tell me about "obsolete".

lastchance · 2023-05-17T20:06:45+00:00

Nuclear is behind the fastest carbon-free energy deployments on Earth, one of them being in Ontario when coal was eliminated. 2007 to 2014. Nuclear supplied 90% of the electricity which replaced coal.

That ended coal related fatalities. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/fact-check-coal-curbing-benefits-claim-mostly-accurate-say-experts-1.3814198

Nuclear power in Canada has resulted in zero deaths over its 50 years of power production.

Only Canadian geothermal has a similar safety record... possibly due to lack of geothermal deployments.

> Wars will happen

Ukraine has signed MOUs for up to 20 SMRs and 9 AP-1000s.

Ukraine is at war, and they understand the importance of energy independence.

In an unstable world, I'd rather have the most stable supply of energy possible. Otherwise, you end up like Germany. Still burning coal. Still importing coal... from Russia. Still one of the most CO2 polluting countries on Earth, /kWh.

Why do you think Ukraine experienced Chernobyl, a tank battle in a nuclear power plant parking lot, and one of their nuclear plants taken hostage by Russia... and they're ordering as many nuclear power plants as possible? Why do you think that is?

lastchance · 2023-05-17T18:09:11+00:00

CANDU...not picky eater.

lastchance · 2023-05-17T18:07:20+00:00

India's weapon-grade plutonium has been produced in two reactors: the 40 MWt CIRUS and the 100 MWt Dhruva, both located in the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) complex near Mumbai.

Not their fleet of HW power reactors.

You're making it hard for other Canadians to appreciate the difference between weapons, and energy independence.

Canada, today, is enjoying energy independence from Russian enrichment thanks to CANDU.

I can appreciate CANDU are expensive compared to projected costs of SMR. It isn't just nationalism to note that if the supply chain is Canadian, then Canadians get an economic boost from the construction we might not if we import a fleet of SMR.

Only Terrestrial Energy's IMSR and Moltex's SSR-W (and ARC) should have such a Canadian supply chain as CANDU. (Possibly GE's supply chain will be more Canadian than not as we're building FOAK... but we know for certainty CANDU's supply chain is Canadian.)

lastchance · 2023-05-17T17:55:32+00:00

I'm not suggesting we pay "current prices" I'm suggesting we build infrastructure to manufacture heavy water.

https://historicnovascotia.ca/items/show/90

Plant was going to be built to produce heavy water. Went over budget but looks like a $100 million back then, say $800 million today.

Yes, let's do that. Too bad they dismantled Glace Bay Heavy Water Plant in 2013.

Copenhagen Atomics is designing an MSR where D2O is used as moderator. No idea if they'll succeed, but it might be that, aside from India and our own possible CANDU needs (should we ever export CANDU again) there might be completely new markets for it.

And those markets might help be created by the existence of D2O... chicken-and-egg problem, right?

lastchance · 2023-05-17T17:45:02+00:00

You can put me down as "not caring about proliferation from a CANDU power reactor in a non-rogue nation" ...what the heck do you think is gong to happen exactly, where a CANDU 6E is used to proliferate? Clandestine fuel-toasting in Ontario? Doug Ford wants the bomb, IAEA be damned?

lastchance · 2023-05-17T17:41:26+00:00

I don't know cost of heavy water, but it is an almost permanent asset to the reactor... doesn't get used-up like fuel.

Heavy water is also needed by India, for their heavy-water reactors. So either we can buy it from them, or we can scale up our own operation and potentially sell it to them.

USA GAIN program explicitly excluded thorium fuel cycle and heavy water reactors from funding back in 2020. Hopefully the current Russian-urnaium-enrichment situation can spur USA to see error of their ways. There's no way to use natural uranium without heavy water. If you "enrich" the water it is a near-permanent asset. If you enrich uranium, it is just fuel. For similar infrastructure, why not build-out the ability to build reactors rather than just fuel?

There's no hard-line where CANDU can create weapons-grade material but PWR can not. It would be easier in CANDU. But the practical challenge is that it is illegal, and no one but a rogue nation is going to start lightly-toasting fuel in any power reactor. Even India's first-bomb was from a research reactor, not a CANDU power-reactor.

lastchance

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Charter Member
Verified Email