Yes. Thank you for repeating that. It's an imoortant message.
For many sectors that is sufficient, for some more research is needed. For example: it was (and is) a challenge for transport and that has already improved. Any switch has a risk factor. As the price of fossil fuels goes up and the risk of future availability/price increases, businesses will seek greener electricity based solutions over fossil fuel based solutions. So let's send the message that fossil fuels are on the way out.
There may be a lot of money to lobby for fossil fuels, but there's a lot of merits in choosing green energy so let's keep doing that.
That sounds like a very reasonable argument but I fear everyone has such an excuse. The other sides have their own arguments. The poor will find it more just that they can get the corresponding funds. The richer without labour laws do not value them and will likely not care about the consequences but will findbthemselves worthy of the corresponding funds.
Net result: everyone keeps pumping oil, the price is low, renewables are less attractive.
The solution is to "just stop oil" regardless of the merits it has so it becomes increasingly attractive to find alternatives even in tougher sectors.
Decentralisation. I don't want to fall in the same trap picking a huge platform which can only be ran by a large entity. Federation in Forgejo is taking quite long.
We made a PoC on top of Solid which does work so it is clearly possible, but the code quality is too low to trust the solution.
I love the argument you make here. I disagree, but it's a direct, hard and positive set of statements.
Nuclear takes a decade to build, it concentrates power to a large actor, and we have issues with handling waste (including closing down the plantO. The risks are huge when in a war zone (see Ukraine) and when things go bad they go bad for many. Further, nuclear can't rapidly scale up or down so it's not great at handling fluctuations in demand, similar but less extreme than wind and solar without batteries.
Progress has been made. With each step we think it's now really safe. But a few decades later it turns out we still had a bit more to learn. In the seventies they were telling us it was safe too.
Ever since there was a glimmer of hope that costly reactors could get built again there has been a weird amount of positive posts about how great nuclear is. I don't think we know how to store anything for 1000 years because we have not had the necessary structures in place for so long yet and thus we are de facto finding that out.
Batteries are not cheap. But solar and wind are! I think, based on what I've read, that that is a great path forward. It is safe, and it puts power in the hands of the people. No need to buy uranium from the next slowly corrupting regime. No need to get threatened by a company that they'll ahut the plant down. You have read other things and believe nuclear is the right way. No CO2, safe, good power delivery, limited space use. Neither of us is calling the shots on these decisions.
I guess one will clearly be better than the other based on geography and available workforce.
If we can continue to choose the least impactful and most distributed and cheapest long-term (including plant cleanup, windmill recycling, solar panel recycling, nuclear waste storage, battery recycling) then we're on a good path. I hope we can do that whilst subsidizing research on all these fronts.
The way I've used it is more that the text gives an explanation and a structure regardless of what the framework requires. It's not the exact algorithm per se but it could if it'd ver very complex for some reason. It ends up reading like a book with code snippets in it which turns out to run the application.
I also generally edited the code directly and indirectly and then detangled or tangled such that the files were in sync.
I agree with that to some extent. It was probably not the engineers' task, but as I've read in the past, our models of the seventies were not that far off. They did not plan for it probably because they were asked not to, or perhaps they (like many others) did not want to believe in the doomsday predictions, or perhaps they (like many others) believed it would be solved by science by now. The warnings were there though, we chose to ignore what was coming at us if we did not change our ways.
My point is that by stating the reactor could work, you imply that there's a trivial solution: stop protecting nature to have nuclear electric energy in France. You could state explicitly that we should or should not. By leaving it open it feels to me like we're pretending nuclear is ready for the climate change ahead of us if only we could get way with that stupid nature. An argument could be had I suppose.
As a side-note: It did make me wonder if you could work with complete evaporation. Not dumping any water back. That would also be horrible for nature but I don't know if anything in the system has to run at less than 100C.
To my knowledge, but I did not look this up, these constraints were known at design time. I don't recall these changing. Hence the statement may be true, but pointing at the known constraint after the fact shifts the blame to nature conservation rather than infrastructure and climate change. This at a time where climate change focus is of utmost importance.
Hence, albeit factually correct, it is disingenuous to give it the focus.
If these constraints were added in the past 10 years then that could be considered different depending on the reasons for the change.
What has changed are the water levels and base temperatures. Our environment has changed and the infrastructure has not been adapted to it. Luckily we have other tools for generating electric power ready to be rolled out.
That twists it to "protecting nature raises your electricity bill" where it's just that that the plant, when built, did not take into account water levels could drop this low. As if they assumed climate change wouldn't be this influential or something.
If we could assume the tower needs to scale linearly in width, depth, and height, that would make a pole cost difference of 10x10x10 = 1000.
I did not make this up but 100kW/1000 is 100W so it would be on par with a 30m high pole.
The wind blows substantially stronger higher up so I'm not comparing to those on purpose, and this was easy to calculate. I also don't know the cost or real size of this 9ft pole. If it doesn't need blades it'll be even lower and it might be cheaper. Perhaps it can be scaled up too.
offlineimap and a few others do this. You don't need to search for a Google specific tool but the tags might not map that well to folders, though if you treat them as folders it's certainly imported. These tools are designed to take your (full or partial) mailbox on the go so you can work offline, hence they support incremental bidirectional syncing. Tools like offlineimap see quite some use so they should work as expected.
I love how that last picture doesn't have artificial lighting but rather a box standing in the back, some visible cables, a boom arm waiting to be mounted, and a great choice of headset.
So real instead of an artificially clean room with professional lighting for the camera shot. Much appreciated.
Did you mount this on feet for a standing desk and is that a challenge with the weight of the slab? Looks great!
As a neighbour, I'd like to thank you for helping EU production of BEV and making people believe in it.
Germans are so hard on Germany. I only hear negativity online from Germans.
Maybe you can start building from what you already have? Working from the ground up is what the rich like because it means accepting worse worker conditions. Don't fall for that trap.
I honestly think German car manufacturers have done their fair share when looking at manufacturers with heritage. Almost no one did as much!
BMW made the i3 at the time of the Tesla Model S. It was rushed, too expensive to produce, but it was good for its time. It is still a blast to drive! It is light on its feet with a great chassis. They made the i8 in tandem which helped make electric cool and accepted from a driver's car perspective. The iX is fugly but it's apparently amingst the most comfortable cars. It wasn't a financial success and BMW took a different route after but their electric cars are good driver cars for today's abysmal standards.
Mercedes created a whole separate platform for electric cars. If you look at the EQS prototypes you'll see that it was gorgeous. The production car is great but very very ugly. People believed Mercedes was going to go fully electric whether Mercedes meant it or not. Their offering after rebates of the EQB was cost-effective when compared to the Ioniq 5. That is a lot of car, great! It alsl sold a lot of those. Innovation on the CLA means it's very frugal. Mercedes did its part.
These are expensive cars, sure. But some have sold a lot and they moved the industry.
VW publicly turned around their whole company. They didn't sell but they made everyone believe that they were buying their last combustion engine car. That is a hige driver in today's market. The roof workers here were laughing when one of them said "I'll never drive electric" because they were sure there would be no other option. That is a big change. Execution of the ID3 was bad, but no one complained when Ford used the exact same steering wheel in their cars. The electric Porches seemed to sell well to an audience that really wanted to hear the flat six. The Audi etron took the market of rich people who wanted to drive electric but did not want to be seen as such. VW was dragged through the mud for the emisions scandal that everyone in the industry was participating in.
The Germans made BEV feel premium and the future we should all long for. Milking that market failed and backfired.
Compared to KIA and Hyundai that's not impressive, they executed better coming from a lower positioned brand and making it more chique. Ford created a model 3 clone with the Mach E. That's ok but not great. Attaching the Mustang name to it made people believe Ford found this to be important. They didn't move it as far as Mercedes, BMW, VW at all. Their EU BEV offering was essentially based on VW's chassis 2 years ago? Maybe still today? They failed at producing the F150 lightning. They did net up a new team and were publicly struggling to re-school their engine designers to stay relevant. Most US based manufacturers seem to have missed the mark. The Nissan Leaf made great progress but was not as technologically sound as the i3, many leafs of the day don't work anymore. They were dull and for people who cared about the environment, not for people who cared about car culture (whether we like it or not, it's a thing). Nissan just stopped innovating. Jaguar had a great offering but is essentially Chinese and stopped innovating on the platform so are now behind. Stellantis did the Citroen thing of quirky cars which seems to have somewhat worked out? Their 45kmh BEV sold well. Mostly to 16 year olds who should have been cycling but it sold. They kept the lower end of the market with basic innovation. Renault came late with a sensible offering but is there now. They certainly did not create that early belief in a transition. Toyota? The Prius was very important but then nothing. Subaru? Nope. Mitsubishi? Made the i-Miev which was a hit for being a BEV at the time, it was not a great car but not expensive by today's standards. Battery replacement is a challenge. They did not continue on this path.
Tesla made the most positive moves for BEV. Much hated now, but we have to give that to them. In an industry where no one thought a new manufacturer could stand up, they created a car brand that made BEV cool. It came with its own blend of quality control issues and challenging worker conditions.
The Chinese leapfrogged the market with the intent of leapfrogging. Heavily subsidised to enter the market, ready to push other players out. They focussed on electric know-how and it worked. Again, not an established manufacturer and different worker conditions.
German execution was not fast enough. The established manufacturers are not well equipped for disruptive events. We must remember that people were not ready to switch. It was and is expensive. But in the grand scheme of things, I find German manufacturers to have been an important piece of the puzzle in the switch. I hate the lobbying for combustion engines and would rather hear about lobbying for BEV R&D. We should ensure worker conditions can stay or improve whilst producing what we need to limit climate change.
Good point. They are called perfectly balanced engines indeed. There are tiny imperfections still. Although a V12 has less there still are some, mainly while revving. For all intents and purposes, the extra stability drowns in road imperfections.
There may be more, but there's a slight twist in the 2 L3 engines mated together in the connecting rods because they move from one side of the engine to the other and are not oerfectly opposed. The vertical motion is perfectly balanced but the distance they have creates a twist when it rotates from the left side of the engine . The V12 opposes that.
The firing of the engine itself, front to back, may also contribute a minute amount of rocking which will make the L6 shake a tiny bit around its lateral axis.
I have to think longer to figure out if the V angle made a difference aside from the obvious continuous time between firing in the cylinders. 60 degrees, 120 degrees and 180 degrees should all work? I don't readily see what extra forces one balances out over the other so it's likely a space and engine height challenge.
I think what's most noticeable is the increased amount of time pressure is being generated which also reduces the shaking effects because the engine rotates at a more constant speed.
You can find the coin test where a coin is placed on the engine on its side and it doesn't fall off due to vibration, even when revving the engine. I suppose that is moderate revving because the crankshaft still rotates in one direction which should cause a tiny bit of twist vs engine weight.
Our experience so far shows that using Linked Data can give you many apps that work together on parts of the data.
Depend on semantic data models (vocabularies of URIs such as foaf), use triples in your applications, and share these same triples whilst looking at the serialisation (such as xml, jsonld, ttl) as an implementation detail, and you're a long way towards interoperable apps and information sharing.
If you have many interoperable apps and they can share data, then you've went a good distance towards and open market where software can compete. If the data is also openy available to you (as it should) then you took large steps towards sovereignty too. You'll have a choice of applications to use and you can easily move the data between the applications.
Fully agree, regulation is needed. We can exclude small companies from some of them so getting started is easy.
Similarly to what you comment on, I read studies which looked at what would need to happen for Europe to create companies of that size. They study what is holding companies back. Some of what they find may be right such as the lack of available risk capital, the availability of a unified market, and the easy connection to other companies. Yet the whole premise feels wrong. We don't need that size of corporations. We need many smaller companies standing together as a whole.
We need a shared basis for a free market.
For those who forgot: a free market is one where many can compete on the same basis. It is not a market without rules, it is one requiring rules for a level playing field.
Interesting read. I've glanced over sections and read others.
I've been involved in the use of some of these frameworks. They are good reference frameworks but they are most often overly heavy to get started and/or the implementation is most often not supporting what the marketing material suggests.
Good integration projects start from limited partners with limited datasets exchanging with each other knowing they want to exchange with more partners in the future. Limited can be two to seven and they can even be in the same organisation. Perhaps it works with more, I have not been involved in that. They contain only the necessary roles and know how they'll expand. These frameworks are great to get the expansion options in place. However, to get something going we've seen that a cheap and structurally correct solution to data sharing gets the ball running more quickly and for longer, then an expensive and heavy project which needs all sorts of approvals (even if it would be superior).
Projects that start with the weight of all the roles filled in by different actors need substantial funding to get started and I don't think they generally last after funding dried up. Projects faking their way through the extra roles and providing the most limited interpretation of some of these roles with the project having some (even vague) shared benefit seem to survive past the grant stage.
Get some basics right and get going is my advice. Identifiers, shared and extensible data models, and a clear way of sharing data.
I like these frameworks, they help set the stage, but my gosh do they see problems where there are none when a project is just getting started.
All this being said, the weights aren't open - which is ofc something that will be a constant, since it would probably reveal a vast treasure trove of copyright infringement.
The source datasets seems closed (or I could not find them, perhaps deeper in the git repository). The weights are accessible through a custom license today and they intend to publish those after the beta.
Apertus is the only larger model I know that published the datasets used in training.
Cfr Hitler, sure. But either we should have slashed it back then or we should accept it as it is. It was nearly disbanded but the British though it was better to keep a workers' factory (I should look it up though).
Perhaps it's ok to look at the now. They are to my understanding one of the most worker-centered companies of their scale. Certainly not something for libertarians to like. BYD can improve worker conditions. That would be great and I'm all for that. I also like that they brought the price of BEVs down. I do believe that if we want to raise standards as humanity in a global setting, that we should demand products entering the market to have followed those standards. Like we already do with safety standards. That makes it interesting for regions to raise the bar also.
For dieselgate I was also very 🤢 about that and did not care too much for the brand. Yet later many other makes were found to do the same tricks but VW somehow got singled out. I still don't know why, they were first to be discovered but perhaps there's more to it?
I'm glad the scandal got discovered. It pushed BEV forward. We should do the very best we can to stop using oil, ideally in a fair and open world.
Yes. Thank you for repeating that. It's an imoortant message.
For many sectors that is sufficient, for some more research is needed. For example: it was (and is) a challenge for transport and that has already improved. Any switch has a risk factor. As the price of fossil fuels goes up and the risk of future availability/price increases, businesses will seek greener electricity based solutions over fossil fuel based solutions. So let's send the message that fossil fuels are on the way out.
There may be a lot of money to lobby for fossil fuels, but there's a lot of merits in choosing green energy so let's keep doing that.
That sounds like a very reasonable argument but I fear everyone has such an excuse. The other sides have their own arguments. The poor will find it more just that they can get the corresponding funds. The richer without labour laws do not value them and will likely not care about the consequences but will findbthemselves worthy of the corresponding funds.
Net result: everyone keeps pumping oil, the price is low, renewables are less attractive.
The solution is to "just stop oil" regardless of the merits it has so it becomes increasingly attractive to find alternatives even in tougher sectors.
Decentralisation. I don't want to fall in the same trap picking a huge platform which can only be ran by a large entity. Federation in Forgejo is taking quite long.
We made a PoC on top of Solid which does work so it is clearly possible, but the code quality is too low to trust the solution.
I love the argument you make here. I disagree, but it's a direct, hard and positive set of statements.
Nuclear takes a decade to build, it concentrates power to a large actor, and we have issues with handling waste (including closing down the plantO. The risks are huge when in a war zone (see Ukraine) and when things go bad they go bad for many. Further, nuclear can't rapidly scale up or down so it's not great at handling fluctuations in demand, similar but less extreme than wind and solar without batteries.
Progress has been made. With each step we think it's now really safe. But a few decades later it turns out we still had a bit more to learn. In the seventies they were telling us it was safe too.
Ever since there was a glimmer of hope that costly reactors could get built again there has been a weird amount of positive posts about how great nuclear is. I don't think we know how to store anything for 1000 years because we have not had the necessary structures in place for so long yet and thus we are de facto finding that out.
Batteries are not cheap. But solar and wind are! I think, based on what I've read, that that is a great path forward. It is safe, and it puts power in the hands of the people. No need to buy uranium from the next slowly corrupting regime. No need to get threatened by a company that they'll ahut the plant down. You have read other things and believe nuclear is the right way. No CO2, safe, good power delivery, limited space use. Neither of us is calling the shots on these decisions.
I guess one will clearly be better than the other based on geography and available workforce.
If we can continue to choose the least impactful and most distributed and cheapest long-term (including plant cleanup, windmill recycling, solar panel recycling, nuclear waste storage, battery recycling) then we're on a good path. I hope we can do that whilst subsidizing research on all these fronts.
The way I've used it is more that the text gives an explanation and a structure regardless of what the framework requires. It's not the exact algorithm per se but it could if it'd ver very complex for some reason. It ends up reading like a book with code snippets in it which turns out to run the application.
I also generally edited the code directly and indirectly and then detangled or tangled such that the files were in sync.
I agree with that to some extent. It was probably not the engineers' task, but as I've read in the past, our models of the seventies were not that far off. They did not plan for it probably because they were asked not to, or perhaps they (like many others) did not want to believe in the doomsday predictions, or perhaps they (like many others) believed it would be solved by science by now. The warnings were there though, we chose to ignore what was coming at us if we did not change our ways.
My point is that by stating the reactor could work, you imply that there's a trivial solution: stop protecting nature to have nuclear electric energy in France. You could state explicitly that we should or should not. By leaving it open it feels to me like we're pretending nuclear is ready for the climate change ahead of us if only we could get way with that stupid nature. An argument could be had I suppose.
As a side-note: It did make me wonder if you could work with complete evaporation. Not dumping any water back. That would also be horrible for nature but I don't know if anything in the system has to run at less than 100C.
To my knowledge, but I did not look this up, these constraints were known at design time. I don't recall these changing. Hence the statement may be true, but pointing at the known constraint after the fact shifts the blame to nature conservation rather than infrastructure and climate change. This at a time where climate change focus is of utmost importance.
Hence, albeit factually correct, it is disingenuous to give it the focus.
If these constraints were added in the past 10 years then that could be considered different depending on the reasons for the change.
What has changed are the water levels and base temperatures. Our environment has changed and the infrastructure has not been adapted to it. Luckily we have other tools for generating electric power ready to be rolled out.
That twists it to "protecting nature raises your electricity bill" where it's just that that the plant, when built, did not take into account water levels could drop this low. As if they assumed climate change wouldn't be this influential or something.
Quick back of the napkin calculation assuming evolving tech.
9ft is about 3m.
A 100kW wind turbine needed a tower height of 30m.
That's a factor 10 difference.
If we could assume the tower needs to scale linearly in width, depth, and height, that would make a pole cost difference of 10x10x10 = 1000.
I did not make this up but 100kW/1000 is 100W so it would be on par with a 30m high pole.
The wind blows substantially stronger higher up so I'm not comparing to those on purpose, and this was easy to calculate. I also don't know the cost or real size of this 9ft pole. If it doesn't need blades it'll be even lower and it might be cheaper. Perhaps it can be scaled up too.
This would make for a great phone wallpaper if it were a bit taller.
offlineimap and a few others do this. You don't need to search for a Google specific tool but the tags might not map that well to folders, though if you treat them as folders it's certainly imported. These tools are designed to take your (full or partial) mailbox on the go so you can work offline, hence they support incremental bidirectional syncing. Tools like offlineimap see quite some use so they should work as expected.
I love how that last picture doesn't have artificial lighting but rather a box standing in the back, some visible cables, a boom arm waiting to be mounted, and a great choice of headset.
So real instead of an artificially clean room with professional lighting for the camera shot. Much appreciated.
Did you mount this on feet for a standing desk and is that a challenge with the weight of the slab? Looks great!
As a neighbour, I'd like to thank you for helping EU production of BEV and making people believe in it.
Germans are so hard on Germany. I only hear negativity online from Germans.
Maybe you can start building from what you already have? Working from the ground up is what the rich like because it means accepting worse worker conditions. Don't fall for that trap.
I honestly think German car manufacturers have done their fair share when looking at manufacturers with heritage. Almost no one did as much!
BMW made the i3 at the time of the Tesla Model S. It was rushed, too expensive to produce, but it was good for its time. It is still a blast to drive! It is light on its feet with a great chassis. They made the i8 in tandem which helped make electric cool and accepted from a driver's car perspective. The iX is fugly but it's apparently amingst the most comfortable cars. It wasn't a financial success and BMW took a different route after but their electric cars are good driver cars for today's abysmal standards.
Mercedes created a whole separate platform for electric cars. If you look at the EQS prototypes you'll see that it was gorgeous. The production car is great but very very ugly. People believed Mercedes was going to go fully electric whether Mercedes meant it or not. Their offering after rebates of the EQB was cost-effective when compared to the Ioniq 5. That is a lot of car, great! It alsl sold a lot of those. Innovation on the CLA means it's very frugal. Mercedes did its part.
These are expensive cars, sure. But some have sold a lot and they moved the industry.
VW publicly turned around their whole company. They didn't sell but they made everyone believe that they were buying their last combustion engine car. That is a hige driver in today's market. The roof workers here were laughing when one of them said "I'll never drive electric" because they were sure there would be no other option. That is a big change. Execution of the ID3 was bad, but no one complained when Ford used the exact same steering wheel in their cars. The electric Porches seemed to sell well to an audience that really wanted to hear the flat six. The Audi etron took the market of rich people who wanted to drive electric but did not want to be seen as such. VW was dragged through the mud for the emisions scandal that everyone in the industry was participating in.
The Germans made BEV feel premium and the future we should all long for. Milking that market failed and backfired.
Compared to KIA and Hyundai that's not impressive, they executed better coming from a lower positioned brand and making it more chique. Ford created a model 3 clone with the Mach E. That's ok but not great. Attaching the Mustang name to it made people believe Ford found this to be important. They didn't move it as far as Mercedes, BMW, VW at all. Their EU BEV offering was essentially based on VW's chassis 2 years ago? Maybe still today? They failed at producing the F150 lightning. They did net up a new team and were publicly struggling to re-school their engine designers to stay relevant. Most US based manufacturers seem to have missed the mark. The Nissan Leaf made great progress but was not as technologically sound as the i3, many leafs of the day don't work anymore. They were dull and for people who cared about the environment, not for people who cared about car culture (whether we like it or not, it's a thing). Nissan just stopped innovating. Jaguar had a great offering but is essentially Chinese and stopped innovating on the platform so are now behind. Stellantis did the Citroen thing of quirky cars which seems to have somewhat worked out? Their 45kmh BEV sold well. Mostly to 16 year olds who should have been cycling but it sold. They kept the lower end of the market with basic innovation. Renault came late with a sensible offering but is there now. They certainly did not create that early belief in a transition. Toyota? The Prius was very important but then nothing. Subaru? Nope. Mitsubishi? Made the i-Miev which was a hit for being a BEV at the time, it was not a great car but not expensive by today's standards. Battery replacement is a challenge. They did not continue on this path.
Tesla made the most positive moves for BEV. Much hated now, but we have to give that to them. In an industry where no one thought a new manufacturer could stand up, they created a car brand that made BEV cool. It came with its own blend of quality control issues and challenging worker conditions.
The Chinese leapfrogged the market with the intent of leapfrogging. Heavily subsidised to enter the market, ready to push other players out. They focussed on electric know-how and it worked. Again, not an established manufacturer and different worker conditions.
German execution was not fast enough. The established manufacturers are not well equipped for disruptive events. We must remember that people were not ready to switch. It was and is expensive. But in the grand scheme of things, I find German manufacturers to have been an important piece of the puzzle in the switch. I hate the lobbying for combustion engines and would rather hear about lobbying for BEV R&D. We should ensure worker conditions can stay or improve whilst producing what we need to limit climate change.
Go Germans. Please produce BEV driver cars.
Should work with embedded webkit widgets for the preview.
Good point. They are called perfectly balanced engines indeed. There are tiny imperfections still. Although a V12 has less there still are some, mainly while revving. For all intents and purposes, the extra stability drowns in road imperfections.
There may be more, but there's a slight twist in the 2 L3 engines mated together in the connecting rods because they move from one side of the engine to the other and are not oerfectly opposed. The vertical motion is perfectly balanced but the distance they have creates a twist when it rotates from the left side of the engine . The V12 opposes that.
The firing of the engine itself, front to back, may also contribute a minute amount of rocking which will make the L6 shake a tiny bit around its lateral axis.
I have to think longer to figure out if the V angle made a difference aside from the obvious continuous time between firing in the cylinders. 60 degrees, 120 degrees and 180 degrees should all work? I don't readily see what extra forces one balances out over the other so it's likely a space and engine height challenge.
I think what's most noticeable is the increased amount of time pressure is being generated which also reduces the shaking effects because the engine rotates at a more constant speed.
You can find the coin test where a coin is placed on the engine on its side and it doesn't fall off due to vibration, even when revving the engine. I suppose that is moderate revving because the crankshaft still rotates in one direction which should cause a tiny bit of twist vs engine weight.
Our experience so far shows that using Linked Data can give you many apps that work together on parts of the data.
Depend on semantic data models (vocabularies of URIs such as foaf), use triples in your applications, and share these same triples whilst looking at the serialisation (such as xml, jsonld, ttl) as an implementation detail, and you're a long way towards interoperable apps and information sharing.
If you have many interoperable apps and they can share data, then you've went a good distance towards and open market where software can compete. If the data is also openy available to you (as it should) then you took large steps towards sovereignty too. You'll have a choice of applications to use and you can easily move the data between the applications.
Feel free to ask questions should you have any.
Fully agree, regulation is needed. We can exclude small companies from some of them so getting started is easy.
Similarly to what you comment on, I read studies which looked at what would need to happen for Europe to create companies of that size. They study what is holding companies back. Some of what they find may be right such as the lack of available risk capital, the availability of a unified market, and the easy connection to other companies. Yet the whole premise feels wrong. We don't need that size of corporations. We need many smaller companies standing together as a whole.
We need a shared basis for a free market.
For those who forgot: a free market is one where many can compete on the same basis. It is not a market without rules, it is one requiring rules for a level playing field.
Interesting read. I've glanced over sections and read others.
I've been involved in the use of some of these frameworks. They are good reference frameworks but they are most often overly heavy to get started and/or the implementation is most often not supporting what the marketing material suggests.
Good integration projects start from limited partners with limited datasets exchanging with each other knowing they want to exchange with more partners in the future. Limited can be two to seven and they can even be in the same organisation. Perhaps it works with more, I have not been involved in that. They contain only the necessary roles and know how they'll expand. These frameworks are great to get the expansion options in place. However, to get something going we've seen that a cheap and structurally correct solution to data sharing gets the ball running more quickly and for longer, then an expensive and heavy project which needs all sorts of approvals (even if it would be superior).
Projects that start with the weight of all the roles filled in by different actors need substantial funding to get started and I don't think they generally last after funding dried up. Projects faking their way through the extra roles and providing the most limited interpretation of some of these roles with the project having some (even vague) shared benefit seem to survive past the grant stage.
Get some basics right and get going is my advice. Identifiers, shared and extensible data models, and a clear way of sharing data.
I like these frameworks, they help set the stage, but my gosh do they see problems where there are none when a project is just getting started.
The source datasets seems closed (or I could not find them, perhaps deeper in the git repository). The weights are accessible through a custom license today and they intend to publish those after the beta.
Apertus is the only larger model I know that published the datasets used in training.
Cfr Hitler, sure. But either we should have slashed it back then or we should accept it as it is. It was nearly disbanded but the British though it was better to keep a workers' factory (I should look it up though).
Perhaps it's ok to look at the now. They are to my understanding one of the most worker-centered companies of their scale. Certainly not something for libertarians to like. BYD can improve worker conditions. That would be great and I'm all for that. I also like that they brought the price of BEVs down. I do believe that if we want to raise standards as humanity in a global setting, that we should demand products entering the market to have followed those standards. Like we already do with safety standards. That makes it interesting for regions to raise the bar also.
For dieselgate I was also very 🤢 about that and did not care too much for the brand. Yet later many other makes were found to do the same tricks but VW somehow got singled out. I still don't know why, they were first to be discovered but perhaps there's more to it?
I'm glad the scandal got discovered. It pushed BEV forward. We should do the very best we can to stop using oil, ideally in a fair and open world.