In many California cities, it costs almost that much just for a permit to have amplified sound at an outdoor concert for a few hours, on top of the venue fees. $1,000 a day for public advertising is priced like a fee, so of course they treat it like a fee. $100k per day would shut that down.

I suppose that's one way to keep the (probably mostly single male) software engineers and IT people doing what you want them to do, but I feel like digital managers would be more effective. :-D

TLDR version: "Good ideas" that are actually good are rare, more often than not they aren't.

Long version:

Now, that's not to say people can't experiment with ideas. We know, from US research, that you can temporarily (2 hours max) put humans into a dormant state and revive them successfully. It's used in some types of operation, when a beating heart is not a viable option.

If you do that, glucose uptake drops significantly in regular cells but not in all types of cancer. If the decrease in the most-active of human cells after hibernation is by a factor of X, then it follows you should be able to locally increase glucose-based chemotherapy around the tumour by a factor of X and guarantee healthy cells remain inside levels they can tolerate.

Since hibernation of this sort involves removing all blood and replacing it with a saline solution, washing the chemotherapy out would obviously be possible before reviving the person.

Would this work? Well, it'll work better than bleach, but a quick sanity check shows that this method is (a) impractically risky, (b) likely problematic, (c) likely to produce disastrous side-effects, and (d) unlikely to be effective. Shutting down the body like this is not safe, which is why it is a last-ditch protocol.

What does this tell us? Simply that "good ideas" on paper by someone who isn't an expert are likely very very bad ideas, even if "common sense" says they should be fine.

Now, there ARE cancer treatments being researched which try similar sorts of tricks to allow ultra-high chemotherapy doses, by actual biologists, and those probably will work because they know what they're doing.

Translation: No matter how good you think an idea "should be", it probably isn't. There will be exceptions to that, but you should always start by assuming there's a flaw and look for it. If the idea is actually any good, it'll survive scrutiny and actually improve under it.

Avpidimg confirmation bias is hard, but if you persist in looking for what is wrong with your idea and then try to fix the issue, you'll either avoid penning yourself in a corner or argument-proof your vision. Either way, you're better off.

Not really. Attacks on tumors often trigger metastasis. Useful choices are removal of the whole tumor, burning out the whole tumor, or poisoning it in a way that will also affect the mets. Any partial local attack that is likely to just make the tumor spread.

And to be clear, that 680 Watts would presumably be the sum of all the multiple servers involved in responding to the query, the network switches, the routers, etc. It sounds high to me, but it isn't entirely implausible.

No, I meant exactly what I said. If the query uses as much power as running a 40-Watt light bulb for 17 seconds, but it takes only about one second to respond to the query, then that's the equivalent of drawing 680 Watts during that one second.

The caveat, of course, is that if you screw up and accidentally miss a payment, you likely get hit hard with interest, so this can be risky. Also, if you can't pay it off at the end of the interest-free period because you didn't plan for that well enough, again, you get hurt badly. So it's a calculated risk.

By wireless, I of course meant cellular (and point-to-point wireless, to some extent), not LEO satellites. That said, the same limitations that make traditional wireless ISPs suck also affect Starlink; they're just not serving nearly as many subscribers, and their subscribers are far less mobile, and mount permanent antennas outdoors, all of which make a huge difference. But still, those limitations will eventually start to be a problem.

Starlink's main problem (and, indeed, the main problem with wireless ISPs in general) is the ability to scale to a large number of users per unit of area. There's only so much spectrum. At some point, as the number of customers increases, bandwidth per customer decreases.

Right now, with O(2M) users in the U.S., Starlink service is still good enough for most people, meeting the minimum legal bandwidth threshold for broadband (100 megabit down/ 20 megabit up) for downloads most of the time, in most places, but not always, and not in all places. And apparently it averages only about half the minimum for upload speeds, on average. Now ask yourself if it makes sense for the government to subsidize adding another 2 million people, which would likely mean halving the speed.

Also, paying to put in fiber objectively increases available bandwidth for decades, and possibly centuries. Even if paying money to subsidize Starlink results in an increase in the number of satellites launched, the satellites last only about five years, so unless the government is willing to spend that money repeatedly, any gains are likely to be very temporary.

Like I said, Starlink is great, and I love that it exists. It has a lot of uses, and it has the potential to revolutionize a lot of things, like Internet service on airplanes and cruise ships, Internet service in RVs, cellular phone service out in the middle of nowhere, and so on. And it can be good enough for basic Internet service right now, given the current subscriber base. It can probably handle a decent number of additional people in rural areas without causing too much trouble. But it can never realistically be a solution for the problem of poor urban neighborhoods having massively worse service than rich suburban neighborhoods, because it just can't handle enough customers per square mile, and that is unlikely to change in the near future. That makes it not a great choice if you're trying to figure out how to spend limited subsidy money, unless your only goal is to cover rural areas, and it probably doesn't make sense to do that, because they'll get decent Starlink service even without the government subsidizing it.

17 seconds * 40 watts = 680 watts for a one-second search query. Realistically, that's probably the power used by the entire computer during that second, and there are probably multiple threads on multiple processors, so that's probably off by a single-digit factor, but it doesn't seem entirely implausible.

No idea for the AI number.

Why would you only make the minimum payment on a credit card? You shouldn't charge more on a card than you can pay off at the end of the month. Their interest rates are usurious. If you need to borrow more money than that, take a personal loan.

And the whole point of BNPL is spreading out the charges enough that you can afford to pay that amount every month. If you're not able to do that, then you shouldn't have made the purchase.

For good reason, to be fair. Starlink is able to pay for itself, and doesn't need subsidies to provide service. Wireless ISPs are going to suck no matter what, and no amount of subsidization will make it not suck. If you want bang-for-the-buck, you want fiber, because that can keep being pushed to faster and faster limits as technology improves, without changing the fundamental medium. Right now, I think the state of the art over a single fiber is one terabit. So we have three orders of magnitude of growth potential without any changes other than to the hardware at the two ends of that fiber.

Contrast that with celluar technology, where pushing speeds to orders of magnitude more than we have now can only realistically be achieved by massively increasing the tower density and, as a result of having more towers, also massively increasing the cost of every future hardware upgrade going forwards.

Starlink is a neat party trick. It can help with a lot of things, like providing service where it isn't really feasible, providing service to your RV, providing cell service in the Mojave Desert, etc., but it can't realistically ever be the ISP for the entire country, because you can't realistically put that many birds in the sky.

So fiber is the only plausible solution that is forward-looking and provides room for future expansion. Everything else is just wasting money, frankly.

Meh. Part of the point of that program was to provide jobs with decent pay. That's not really so unreasonable, is it? The real question is why the cable companies aren't willing to spend the extra few bucks to hire union labor for running their cables, in exchange for government subsidies.

Actually, no, the real question is why local governments didn't put in bids to build out municipal fiber networks that they could lease in a nondiscriminatory fashion to the cable company, the phone company, a dozen mom-and-pop telcos, etc. to provide the actual service to customers. This approach works way better than letting large monopolies or oligopolies get more power.

And at that point, it's just corporate welfare, and serves no real purpose.

And yet that's literally the only thing the government legitimately should be spending money on in this space. Every attempt to do this through private business fails. Every single time. Municipal fiber works. If you do it right (read "underground"), fiber requires very little maintenance except when somebody digs up a line, and then they're on the hook for paying the repair cost.

No, that's not it at all. Lines underground, assuming they are correctly marked and are at an adequate depth, typically last for decades. Lines on poles get broken by ice, falling limbs, lightning strikes, etc. There's just a lot more maintenance when you hang wires on poles.

Pole rights is a trivially solvable problem. You just pass one touch make ready laws. The fact that you don't have these is prima facie evidence of regulatory capture, and you should elect better representatives next time around. But for the most part, unless you live on bedrock, putting lines on poles is probably the wrong thing to do, so it probably isn't worth bothering to fix it at this point.

A policy of setting goals for the industry and rating them based on how well they met those goals? Well, I can't say for sure whether it was working, but putting blinders on and saying things are going great sure can't work better than having actual data, that's for sure.

To a limited extent, sure. The problem is that as long as the FCC is a political football — as long as Republicans don't actually care whether the poor have access to acceptably fast Internet service — the industry will generally not care much what the rules are, believing that the next guy will just overturn them.

It would have been continued, were it not for the fact that the Republicans tend to pick people for the commission that are basically poster children for regulatory capture.

In this case, the policies amount to requiring broadband coverage to show that they cover every house in a region, not just the wealthy houses, and that they provide service that meets certain minimum criteria for speed to every house, not just the wealthy houses.

The industry doesn't like to do this. They'd rather spend upgrade money on wealthy households, where they can milk them for higher profit margins, and never upgrade the service to poorer areas, even if they're willing to pay the money, because not enough people in the poorer areas will pay extra for service.

And from a business perspective, that behavior is understandable. But from a public policy perspective, it is problematic, particularly when it results in poor neighborhoods being stuck with, for example, ADSL at five megabit while three blocks away, there's gigabit fiber for not a lot more money.

Actually, by putting down solar panels as covers over aqueducts used for the water supply, they can effectively make electricity and make more water (by reducing evaporation) at the same time.

This. Want to know why EV sales have died in California over the last year? Just look at the cost per kWh and compare it with gas prices. PG&E average yearly rates have doubled since 2022. Meanwhile, the cost of gasoline has gone down. It is now fiscally irresponsible to drive an EV unless either you have solar power or someone else is paying for your electricity (employer, unlimited supercharging, etc.). Hybrids are not only cheaper up front, but also likely cheaper to operate at this point.

California should have allower PG&E to go bankrupt a few years ago, bought it for pennies on the dollar, and begun operating it as a government-owned corporation. There's no excuse for the power rates that we're seeing when most other states are paying literally a quarter of what we do.

PG&E is bad for our pocketbooks and bad for the environment.

Pedantically, the fact that the 737 has under-wing engines makes it kind of a 737 issue. As far as I know, we didn't see MD-80s hoovering up rabbits.

But yes.