They've been pushing this, C. P. Snow Two Cultures-style, for some time now. Codifying the meaning of 'creative' to film, music...whatever. This coercion of language use is all a bit Eloi vs Morlocks for my liking.

It's not true. And I say that as someone who plays and writes music too. Toolmaking can be creative. Software design can be creative. I'm less well versed in physical industrial processes but I'd be more than willing to bet that there's creativity going on there too. On the other hand, acting is only sometimes creative as well, music often written to a formula...these 'creative industries' are often not very creative. And they often don't create, they use the output of some tools they were given.

I hate the language. I'm clearly not saying that all film making or music is bereft of creativity. I'm more saying that creativity as a word shouldn't be relegated and codified in this monstrously industrialised and high-handed manner so dismissive of everyone else.

Using Warp terminal, it actually nice for a non-admin to ask questions to Claude and get some really helpful work.

I do not know every in and out of Linux server config, my day job doesn't depend on that I do. So I can connect up, ask Claude, "is this service running?" or " My plex server isn't responding, can we run some diagnostics?"

Is it perfect? No, is it better than me? Oh god yes. Is my system a mission critical server? Not in the slightest.

But its fun, I actually can get a working docker server, a secure ssh client, mailcow, plex, jellyfin, factorio....hell what else can I load. If I run into issues I ask Claude, and it can step me thru the correction, or just do it.

It has no idea what I want to do, it has no idea my end goal, but I say conquer that hill, its been doing it's best to do it. The campaign it doesn't know or care. Perfect little helper.

I don't have a subscription to Warp's services yet. They give a limited amount of tokens to Claude monthly, which seems fine to me. Only had 1 month run out. Which for non-production systems...is fine. I can wait. I'm am considering subscribing, it's just been dang helpful.

Coding? Haven't done it seriously yet, I typically code on an ERP system, that is just starting with AL/MLL stuff. Haven't gotten to far. But with server support, it's making me have fun, "hows this work? can we check this?" and there's no judgement on my actions as to why? For personal stuff, this is great.

For production environments, I'd worry. I don't use it at work. I asked the software team to check it out to see if we could, so it's on the list. But I'd want to be sure of security. some nooby could ask some server destroying question and try to implement, sure sudo should stop most, but there always seems to be one file or config that slips past, so I'de be a bit concerned till it proved itself there.

I feel you need to elaborate a little further on that. The book lays out sources, equations and testable hypothesis. Interestingly it rarely suggests actual policy. Page 5 of the Motivations sections also laws out why - it is as scathing of campaigners as it is of incumbents.

That aspects are outdated 17 years after its last update does not surprise me. That it is fundamentally incorrect however...given the sources and calculations, I think you'll need a to provide a little more reasoning than "you should fee bad" (sic.).

As someone who has had a strong interest in this area for a while now, not professionally - just following along, it's been fascinating to watch almost every single prediction from the 1990s UK government advisor come true. These recommendations were, in 2015 this was put up as a web site - Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. This is not a political book, the "without the hot air" bit alludes to that. This is a quantitative book with the maths to back up all assumptions and recommendations.

In it, David McKay makes comments about future energy mix. If you look at the full PDF, the idea of a cable from northern Africa to elsewhere is explored starting page 178. Bear in mind this book was written late 90s/early 2000s with the last revision being 2008 (the author has sadly passed). Generating from Morocco appears on page 181.

Thoroughly good read and I recommend it to anyone interested in the mechanics and figures behind energy transitions. Clearly some will now be outdated...but it's surprising how little. A lot of what he suggested is now unfolding.

But what I'm saying is that's all vocational. Computer science is basic information theory, patterns, HCI...all of that kind of thing. I'm a graduate of Comp. Sci myself, though in the UK from 1992. During that time we were taught a programming language as an abstract for various concepts (I was taught ADA, for instance) but it was assumed you would go and teach yourself any language you were interested in. I self-taught myself C for instance.

What you seem to be looking for isn't Computer Science grads, it's programmers. From your description I don't think you'd care if they new Huffman's Information Theory or deep graph theory, but would care if they didn't know Javascript. And this is what I mean - that's not a Computer Science thing, that's vocational

I think that's an industry fault rather than yours for instance. I think pushing Computer Science as the name but turning out average programming people is an educational failure.

I hate to be blunt, but what has any of that got to do with Computer Science? This is the problem. To quote Dijkstra - "Computer science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes".

People wanting vocational programming degrees or courses should get them. Computer science is not about teaching Angular. And from my own observation over the years, I can clearly remember the first time I interviewed a programmer who clearly had no idea how a computer worked, or any of the theory behind one. They just knew syntax to type in - that was all. Came as a shock to me at the time, but it's decades ago now and I'm more used to it sadly.

I agree completely, on all counts.

Right, and with fiber, you just using something like invisilight, where you run a whisker-thin fiber along a baseboard, or up in the corner where you wall meets the ceiling, and cover it up with just an itty bitty bit of stuff.

In other words, instead of running copper from each room back to wherever your Internet demarc sits, run fiber to each room back to your Internet demarc, and use managed fiber endpoints instead of managed wifi mesh devices.

You only need to refuel your ICE car once a week or so, and the same is true for a BEV. Even though plugging in at home is less hassle than going to a gas station, it's still not something you want to have to do every day.

Why wouldn't you want to plug the car in 'every day' if you have the ability to? Going to the gas station is dead time; you're standing there pumping.

Plugging in any sort of plugin EV is not dead time; you seat the connector and...walk away. Your involvement is done until you want to drive next, and you..unplug the connector and set it into it's holder. Or lay it on the ground out of the way.

Do you also complain about plugging in your phone at night?

Being driven by both is not some kind of third option

It kind of is. My wife's PHEV's hybrid mode will use the ICE in 'eco' mode, and use the batteries if, for example, she accelerates quickly to pass on the highway, and is always using regen braking to put power back in the batteries.

On the other hand, I had a PHEV rental a while back that was either on battery or on engine, and that's that.

'5 minutes is a threshold mark' for what?

Shit, back when I drove ICE cars, it was common to spend longer than that *in line* at the gas station, let alone pumping.

EVs are not gas cars. You lose the idea of 'stopping to get gas.' That paradigm simply does not apply.

And let me tell you, from personal experience, popping out of your car, plugging in the fast charger, popping back in, and turning the cabin climate control back on is a hell of a lot nicer than standing outside in the -45 wind chill pumping gas, even if you're just sitting there in the car for twenty minutes.

The next step is usually a full EV when people figure out that range anxiety is bullshit and they spend most of their time driving their hybrid in full EV mode anyway.

My wife drives a PHEV, I drive a BEV. I have to remind her every once in a while to go burn her gas, lest it start to degrade, she goes so long driving in battery mode. And we almost invariably wind up taking my BEV on long road trips, because it's cheaper to drive, and we need a rest stop before it does, and at any half-way decent fast charger, it's done charging before we're done eating at said rest stop.

If they swap every couple of hours, that's safe, surely? 2 hours on, 2 hours off is... fine.

Debatable.

this is about giant road trips with 14 hours of driving. If you're telling me the DC charging network is capable of supporting htat across Canada in the winter, then I'm happy to hear it, but it feels like it may be some time away

Ah, yes, 'it feels.'

Try this. Go to the A Better Route Planner website. Tell it you want to go from, lets say, North Bay to Edmonton, on Jan 15th, departing at Midnight. That should be plenty 'winter' like.

I picked North Bay Airport to Edmonton Int'l Airport. I drive an Ioniq 5, so used that vehicle profile.

Here's three driving plans, all completely within Canada, all fast-charger stops; i.e. it assumes we're driving around the clock and not stopping someplace to sleep for the night and charge overnight.

Balanced between 'time per charge' and 'number of charging stops' gives us 35 hours of driving time and 8 hours of charging, spread across 19 charges. That's about a stop every two hours, on average, for your piss break and driver changeover. Charging stops range from 8 minutes for a quick top-up to get to the next charger, to an hour for the next long haul.

Optimizing for fewer (but longer) charging stops, we get a little more than 35 hours charging time, 17 stops, but 8 hours, 38 minutes of charging. This is actually a bit less efficient, because the I5 charges very quickly from lower battery levels.

Optimizing for more (but shorter) charging stops, we stay at just under 36 hours driving time, 8.5 hours charging time, and 25 stops ranging from 5 to 40 minutes.

It's faster go cut through the states, of course, rather than go north over Lake Superior, but hey, we're specifying all in Canada, right?

Oh, and just for comparison, if we were to calculate the trip from North Bay Airport to Edmonton Airport leaving right now, i.e. perfect EV conditions, a balance between stops and charge length, 37 hours, with 5.5 hours of charging across 14 chargers, so winter cost us 2.5 hours of extra charging.

But hey, let's go for fucking broke. An All-EV trip from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Prince Rupert, BC, on Jan 15th, departing at midnight. I don't want to take a ferry from St Johns.

Optimized driving path, about 2 days, 19 hours of solid driving, 16.5 hours charging across 34 charge stops, again, ranging from 10 minute top-ups to hour long charges. Middle of winter.

Recalculate it for leaving today, and we get 12 hours, 38 minutes of charging across 31 charge stops. So, yes, the cold temps cost us an extra four hours of charging, total, across a ~6400 km drive.

An EV can't deal with that situation yet, especially in a Canadian winter with chargers being few and far between.

I've been driving EVs in Northern Ontario for years, and somehow still manage to get around, even in the coldest of winters.

And like I said, "can and should take a break." These people are practicing an unsafe driving routine.