Climate change is having and will continue to have significant effects on our physical infrastructure, especially in the coastal areas, areas prone to flooding/drought, and wildfires.
But I don't see data centers/internet/power being an issue. Data centers are already globally distributed and load-balanced. Internet is near-ubiquitous, with growing wired, wireless & even satellite options. Power generation from renewables, along with storage, have been growing at an accelerated pace even despite (or some say because) the pandemic.
Also, an off-grid solution is very feasible: I can easily imagine a near future where I have my "smart home" running on a local Alpaca instance, being powered by my solar roof.
Global distribution and load balancing exist yet we still need DownDetector. One of the reasons data centers go down is because of weather. Picture Cascadia devastating the west coast while a category 5 hurricane pummels the east coast.
Renewables aren't the panacea so many people want them to be.
I can't imagine that near future because despite the feasibility, the companies that manufacture smart home products want people in their thrall. Why go for a one-and-done purchase when that ubiquitous Internet can be used to hold basic functionality hostage for a recurring fee?
Most outages nowadays are caused by misconfigurations or hacking, not individual data centers going down. Think Azure, AWS, etc.
Renewables aren't a panacea, but they exist now and are seeing growing deployment, even without "fuel sources becoming less plentiful". Too late to prevent climate change, but definitely early enough to prevent widespread power scarcity.
Oh, companies will definitely try, and many people will go along with it. But, people who care will continue to maintain self-hosted projects e.g. Home Assistant. Hardware can be jailbroken, and/or small manufacturers will be willing to charge a premium for open/hackable versions. Worst case, many "smart" items can be cobbled together from Raspberry Pi/ESP32/ESP8266.
He states pretty clearly that he's fairly liberal. However, in the occasional times there's an important politics angle to a tech story, he does a reasonably good job of discussing it objectively. Even when there are guests across the political spectrum, the discussion never degrades to mud-slinging or name-calling.
Strongest political stance I can remember him making lately is ridiculing the idea the last presidential election was stolen.
Honestly, I think any complaints about the "politics" in his netcasts says more about the person complaining than about the actual contents of his podcasts.
> Honestly, I think any complaints about the "politics" in his netcasts says more about the person complaining than about the actual contents of his podcasts.
This is right. I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but in my, admittedly anecdotal, experience a lot of folks who are on the right politically really have trouble consuming content if they perceive any degree of left wing bias. Like if they know the star of a movie has done some left wing activism they struggle to enjoy the movie even if the movie itself is in no way political. So the fact that they know Laporte is a liberal they become extremely sensitive to any topic that could be perceived as political.
I'm sure this isn't just a right wing thing, but for various reasons the people I know who struggle with it are all on the right.
Yeah, im going to have to disagree with you on that. Politics is fine as long as it relates to the subject matter. For example, the anticompetitive direction Microsoft is taking with Windows 11 would be important to the context of technology. But if its talk about presidential elections on a tech show then thats a waste of my time as a technology enthusiast.
I watched a few episodes of TechTV back in the day because I liked hearing about new gadgets. The Twit thing seems like its geared toward tech support for the masses. Not something I am interested in.
IMHO, a show's interest is the gage of its success and if you are not focusing on what interesting in technology, then why are you doing it? That says more about the person doing the show then its says about them people listening to you. That's kind of like saying it the listeners fault that they don't find the show interesting. Yeah, and I'm thinking "OK, Let me know how that works out for you"
>But if its talk about presidential elections on a tech show then thats a waste of my time as a technology enthusiast.
True; it's not as if elections are tabulated on some sort of "voting machines" that are closed-source and often hacked at DEFCON's Voting Machine Hacking Village.
Although it would be nice to save money too, I don't think that should be the main focus here. The main impetus for this project should be the well documented effects diesel exhaust has on the health of school age children.
We already have those fast chargers. The average EV gets 3-4 miles/kwh. 50 miles would be about 15 kwh. To deliver 15kwh in 5 minutes, you'd need 180kw charging. The fastest widely available chargers currently go up to 350kw. Kia EV6/Hyundai Ioniq 5 charge from 10-80% (>200 miles) in 18 minutes (due to battery limitations).
The PHEV Chrysler Pacifica & PHEV Mitsubishi Outlander came out 5 years ago, and the PHEV Volvo XC90 has been out 7 years. Meanwhile I'm still waiting for Toyota to sell a PHEV 3-row anything (Sienna, Highlander, whatever) in the US.
I think you are confusing export with consumption. Russia's fossil fuel production is mostly slated for export, and thus they are very sensitive to the international demand for said fossil fuels. In comparison, US production is mostly slated for internal use, so international demand does not impact the economy as severely.
Yeah (as sibling poster pointed out) I guess that it was more of a distraction point from throwaway. I just read and thought of it in broader terms of oil and gas being super important to any modern civilization.
What you say is true though, short term, but I think I might still rather be in Russia's position in terms of fossil fuels than that of the US, when we look at things long term. What Russia has the option of doing - which is also being discussed elsewhere in this thread - is using those resources domestically, to grow/develop its own industries and (currently dwindling) population. In fact that's what they're being pushed to do by the sanctions (as they have been developing their agriculture as a response to previous sanctions). I've been really really skeptic of the sanctions (to put it mildly) since the beginning. They will always find ways to sell their resources (if they want to).
Even though the sanctions are imperfect, they still have a very real effect. At an absolute minimum, it vastly increases the overhead of the sanctioned country to sell it's oil, and those who do work around sanctions can demand and get a large discount, thus reducing revenues. Even more effective are the supply-side sanctions, and the Russian auto and air transportation industries are already seeing serious effects, which will only get worse.
I'm far from an expert, but to me it seems that a way the little cores can help is by being more efficient (instructions-per-watt). Even in desktop CPUs there are power and thermal limits, and if the littles can take care of lower-priority tasks, the BIG cores can "Turbo Boost" higher and for longer while keeping the whole processor's power and thermal envelopes the same.
But I don't see data centers/internet/power being an issue. Data centers are already globally distributed and load-balanced. Internet is near-ubiquitous, with growing wired, wireless & even satellite options. Power generation from renewables, along with storage, have been growing at an accelerated pace even despite (or some say because) the pandemic.
Also, an off-grid solution is very feasible: I can easily imagine a near future where I have my "smart home" running on a local Alpaca instance, being powered by my solar roof.