Wow, I will definitely give this a try. I have tens of thousands of photos in iCloud and I literally can’t export them all at once. Photos app chokes and crashes and manually babysitting smaller batches is a pain. It’s pretty clear they want to make it as hard as possible
California would immediately become a failed state on its own, unable to meet even the most basic needs of its residents. California MASSIVELY relies on other states for two of the most essential needs for modern civilization: water and electricity.
California, ecologically, is not capable of supporting its own population independently, and short of geo-engineering at continent scale nothing will ever change that. It has absolutely nothing to do with politics, economics, or any sort of issues like that, it's simply the geographic and ecological nature of the state.
Los Angeles, for example, would be impossible for it to exist without modern technology and mass importation of water, most of which comes from outside of California (although some comes from Northern California where it actually rains).
Anyone, like yourself, who seriously contends that California could survive on its own independent of the United States simply does not understand how anything works, water systems, electric systems, import/export economies, globalism, money movements between coasts, investment funding and how it is structured to take investments from the US heartland and VC companies in Californian tech. Your statement is not just a gross oversimplification of a LOT of complex topics, it's blatantly untrue in /every single/ one of those topics.
SoCal will just use NorCal water along with access to ocean desalination. For residential use, there is plenty, without needing to ship out water in the form of half of the US's fruits, nuts, berries, and vegetables. Solar ramp-up is progressing well, already at 17% vs. 50% natural gas, with battery storage to eventually buffer the rest of the 15% nuclear + hydro.
> SoCal will just use NorCal water along with access to ocean desalination.
There’s not enough NorCal water for that, which is why SoCal already relies on Colorado River water as well as NorCal water.
> For residential use, there is plenty, without needing to ship out water in the form of half of the US’s fruits, nuts, berries, and vegetables.
Sacrificing the state’s agriculture would…rather deeply harm the economy.
> Solar ramp-up is progressing well, already at 17% vs. 50% natural gas, with battery storage to eventually buffer the rest of the 15% nuclear + hydro.
Nearly a third of California’s energy is imported. displacing fossil fuels with clean renewables for in-state generation is good, but it isn’t self-sufficiency.
Right now, 80% of California water is used for agriculture. If you reduce the ag water usage that is shipping most of that produce to the rest of the country, CA has water for residential and ag. for its 39 million.
> If you reduce the ag water usage that is shipping most of that produce to the rest of the country,
Those aren’t gifts to the rest of the country (and, actually, much of it is exported directly internationally), they are cash crops, and the lifeblood of rural California.
This whole thread I responded to was about CA self-sufficiency and I was specifically arguing that CA can be quite self-sufficient.
> California would immediately become a failed state on its own, unable to meet even the most basic needs of its residents
Of course CA independence would be economically harmful and disruptive. Doesn't mean CA won't be able to provide its own water by taking an ag trade economic hit.
I don't understand how that's possible. I don't know of any lakes or rivers or aquifers larger enough to provide water to almost 40 million people in California.
Californian agriculture is 80% of water usage. That agriculture is largely shipped out of state, internationally, and supplying the rest of the US half of its produce outside staple grains: fruits, nuts, vegetables, berries, etc.
Desalination will likely be required long term for SoCal no matter what, but currently California is not capable of supporting the energy requirements of desalination to replace the water it gets from out of state. The vast majority of California water comes from out of state, less than 30% comes from sources in-state.
> The vast majority of California water comes from out of state, less than 30% comes from sources in-state.
That's quite a preposterous assertion. Source? CA has ~85% coming from the Sierra Nevada watershed, only 15% is the Colorado River at the bottom.
"California receives 75 percent of its rain and snow in the watersheds north of Sacramento."[0] CA is more than water self-sufficient if it loses the 15% Colorado River, but reduces the ag. water usage (80%) that ships out most of it to the rest of the states.
Secession itself tends to massively piss of the country from which one has seceded, which points to why this would be a problem for an independent California (unless it was a “Greater California” including the headwaters and course of the Colorado River, etc.)
In many cases, you see the opposite - a strong public sentiment to allow or even force secession of some territory that is perceived as a "burden". This is usually represented in economic terms - "why do we have to feed X?" - but it can also be motivated by culture, religion, ideology etc (but, quite often, still coached in economic terms).
> but any inner region if the USA would be super miserable as a sovereign state.
Would they? Would they really?
Sure they'd be poorer but they'd probably just consider that a really, really cheap price to pay for not having to share a country with California (or wherever the line is drawn).
Would you take a 10%-20% pay cut to get your way on almost all political issues? That's basically the bargain you're striking when you get out the map and draw a poorer but much more politically homogeneous state. I think most people would take the deal they'd do it with a smile on their face.
Independence doesn't really mean getting your way on almost all political issues, though. If you're independent but economically weak, you're susceptible from all kinds of pressure from your neighbors, and quite often that pressure is explicitly political (sanctions etc).
At some %, some people will opt for cheaper v6 only VPSs. Perhaps hosting in countries starved of addresses will switch to v6 only as well. Or all v4 addresses will get given to servers and all consumers will be on some translation layer.
I have a drawer full of black electrical tape and small round dot stickers almost entirely due to blue leds. Though it's convenient on everything. The electrical tape blocks it out entirely, for the most part. The round stickers let through some light so is great for dimming it down a bit or just use multiple to block it completely.
I think they're so widespread now largely because they were so expensive when they first started becoming common that they were used in expensive equipment, and became a way of making things look higher end.
I’ve found that for many of them (particularly the smaller ones) I can color them in with a black pen in a way that dims them ~95%, that way they’re not overbearing but I can still see whatever status they were trying to tell me.
Ballpoints or other fine-tips tend to follow the shape of the recess and it does a pretty tidy job.
I've got a laptop charger with a blue led. It's awful, I have to remember to unplug it at night, even in the other room. I've forgotten before and woke up to use the washroom only to find the whole living room lit up from the little led and I'd feel instantly wide awake.
Contrast that with a USB charger I picked up in an emergency, unaware it had a red led that was on constantly as long as the cord was receiving power, fucking terrible design and I've thankfully replaced it, but it didn't bother me too badly when I had to use it in my room at night. I could still sleep and everything.
Yes, I was getting annoyed by an access point I bought that had blue status lights but amazingly it has a setting that turns them off either always or during specified hours. I'm floored that every device doesn't allow you to disable them.
I remember a Digikey catalogue c.2002? where it seemed like blue LEDs were the star of the show. Page after page of this new wonder. And then the following decade-long flood of blue-LED-festooned consumer products, where every new bit of kit needed to visually proclaim how new-fangled it was by blasting out that particularly shrill wavelength of visible light.
For example: it's hard to get through summer without a fan or air conditioner in your bedroom by me. A surprising number of those come with always on lights and it's not always clear until you plug them in.
Beyond that there's just "not everyone has the luxury of a single purpose room." Especially now, lots of people need to setup their home office in their bedroom. I have a vacuum with an always on indicator light, and the only good place to put it is a bedroom. Some people have studios and their entire apartment is their "bedroom."
All in: you're right, it's best to keep your electronics out of the bedroom, but that's not always practical and way to many things have unnecessary status lights.
Having grown up in a small house and spent quite a lot of time in a friends house which is a lot bigger (I'm still young, so this was very much post video games for example), I think the mental separation of having multiple rooms in a house (rather than everything being done in my bedroom) is probably worth another 5 or 10 percent on exams for me at least. The idea of having a "games room" for example is utterly unthinkable to me still, for example.
I have an electric kettle that holds water in a vessel with transparent sides. When the kettle is turned on and heating water it illuminates the water with blue LEDs.
It doesn't bother me at night time as the light goes on only when it is in use. But the fact that it has lights at all is bothering.
My kettle's thermostat only releases the power switch, but doesn't actually cut the power, so if something is blocking the switch from going to the "off"(up) position - like a large plate or something similar - it boils off all the water and then starts burning itself.
Happen once and I only noticed because the light was on and I couldn't hear the water boiling because it wasn't there anymore.
Haha! I have this one too. I’ve always wondered, wouldn’t red represent the fact it’s being heated better? Anyway, I have to admit it looks cool unfortunately
The one in my humidifier bothered me so much I opened the dang thing and was pleasantly surprised to find the LED on its own tiny board which I then disconnected.
There has to be another way of showing an appliance is receiving power which is both visible at night and in broad daylight. The super-bright LED is overkill in anything but the brightest lighting scenario, and makes any room immediately ugly and unpleasant after 6pm.
I have a hard drive enclosure in the bedroom that was too bright to my taste. So much so that I opened it to remove it (which, incidentally, was really easy, it was plugged in the board via a connector, I didn't even need to cut wires or anything)
When Mr. Akasaki's invention started making waves, blue LEDs were still more expensive. So a blue LED was a signifier of quality. They became more affordable, so everyone started putting them everywhere. And made them bright so you would notice.
Probably an analog is curving a 42" screen designed to be viewed on a couch across a living room.
This. It sounds like the author used a queue and worker pool with the Go version. There's nothing stopping you from doing the same thing in Node.
I think a lot of people forget this sometimes and just spawn off unlimited multiple simultaneous requests in Node apps. Doesnt matter what language you're using, that's never going to turn out well
Undoubtedly this will lead to Space Pirates of the Mark Watney (The Martian) kind:
“I’ve been thinking about laws on Mars. There’s an international treaty saying that no country can lay claim to anything that’s not on Earth. By another treaty if you’re not in any country’s territory, maritime law aplies. So Mars is international waters. Now, NASA is an American non-military organization, it owns the Hab. But the second I walk outside I’m in international waters. So Here’s the cool part. I’m about to leave for the Schiaparelli Crater where I’m going to commandeer the Ares IV lander. Nobody explicitly gave me permission to do this, and they can’t until on board the Ares IV. So I’m going to be taking a craft over in international waters without permission, which by definition… makes me a pirate. Mark Watney: Space Pirate.”
I would imagine that companies and people would also be prohibited from making these claims.
But I do believe that is going to be ineffective for the future. Progress would be very slow if there is nothing to claim on Mars, or another celestial body for that manner.
A very interesting discussion, as I do see this treaty changing in the future, but whether it will be country oriented or market oriented will be the big question that defines humanity's voyage outside earth
The Moon Treaty explicitly forbade private property on the moon, but by implication it means that private property is still possible under the Outer Space Treaty.
Also, the United States did not ratify the Moon Treaty. It is in force for the 13 signatory nations, but none are space powers.
