A waste of money. The locking mechanism is embarrassingly easy to defeat. The success of the pouch is the slick marketing that schools increasingly buy into.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikihow.com%2FOpen-a...

Schmidt took the "no" out "Do no evil" and is bragging about it.

Novell was a dominant force in the 90's. Under his leadership Novell failed to innovate. By the time they realized MS wasn't going to accept NDS for NT it was too late. Anyone that used Netware, knew it was a robust file and print solution, but for anything else it was garbage. Schmidt must have been the last person at Novell to grasp they were in trouble and the pivot to linux/java was an absolute joke.

He gets a lot of credit for the success of Google in the early days. I think it more a case of having the fastest car, best engineers and winning the championship than driver skill. His predictions on AI and the tech sector should be accompanied with a good dose of skepticism.

To be fair, MS hand was forced by the EU. MS should have taken the route they did with Novell's NDS for NT, refusing to support installation of such software (SAM replacement/access) wouldn't be supported. Bit like when you turn off driver signing.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.neowin.net%2Fnews%2Fmi...

If this was using the Google Drive File stream API, which permits sub-atomic updates, it would be very news worthy, but AFAIK the API used by the Google Drive for Desktop app isn't published. This appears just to use the vanilla object store like S3 (all or nothing).

This what happens when the industry captures governments and get to set the tax policy. Hugely profitable, just not for Australia.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbu...

The bottom line there is no benefit for this increase. Australia practically gives it's resources away for nothing and much of the tax they pay is offset against developments costs and the bulk of the profits go offshore.

If Australia cease gas exportation, if would have little material impact to the local economy, which begs the question why this government has back flipped, adding to the global warming problem.

Except this expansion is for export. We already have more than enough. We export 80% of our gas. This expansion does nothing to enhance the security of our energy.

The main issue is Australia has no domestic gas reservation policy. Thus we pay global prices. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.accc.gov.au%2Fmedia-... When domestic supplies get tight, we have been known to re-import our own gas from Korea at a premium. The one good thing is, it has priced out gas as a major power supply option in favour of renewables. It's will now be relegated to a dispatchable generation to support renewables.

You are conflating a lot of issues. The vast majority of the this new gas development is for export. It has nothing to do with Australia power needs. ALP are just running scared of the FF industry.

Nuclear boat sailed years ago. By the time we established a nuclear industry, renewables will reach +90% with dispatchable gas filling the rest.

Bringing in the subs is just ridiculous. The nuclear submarine program is simply the acquisition of three to five Virginia class submarines in the 2030s. The promised AUKUS subs to be built by ASC are slated for late 2030 and will likely use PWR-3 rectors from the UK.

The reality is Australia is not going to develop a local nuclear industry in that time, let alone for a handful of obsolete subs.

Australia missed the nuclear boat 30 years ago. It was an easy argument to sell to the green and it also entrenched the coal/gas industry, who line to pockets of politician on both sides.

By the end of the decade, 80% of power generation in Australia will be from renewables. This isn't some crusade against fossil fuels, but rather a consequence of economics. Wind, Solar and Hydro are multiple times cheaper than FF and gas will only feature as a dispatchable option.

I'm not so sure.... LNP pushing nuclear largely at the bequest of fossil fuel industry, knowing it will take decades and delay any transition away from FF.
ALP support is due to captured by the Western Australia fossil fuel industry. Like the state government they've realised they can only retain government with support from the powerful FF industry. ALP have learnt their lesson with the MRRT, where the PM was rolled by a well resourced campaign by the miners.

The industry contributes little to WA or Australia's economy, 0.7% of WA jobs are in the oil and gas sector and WA drivers almost pay 3x in tax that the WA gov receives in royalties. 80% is exported with a further 10% used to liquify. Local power generation is the next biggest user of around 8%.

If Australia cut off Gas exports today, the impact to the budget would be less than 2%.

Australia is not the US or EU. We do not have a nuclear (power) industry and it would take at least decade if not longer to develop. We missed the Nuclear boat 30 years ago as we were addicted to coal.

The actual truth is 40% of Australia's power already comes from renewables and on the current trajectory is set to double that before the end of the decade. Gas will be only used for dispatchable generation, which is perfect for. Nuclear isn't dispatchable, expensive, slow to develop. Just because we have ample amounts uranium is irrelevant now.

>> the periods of non-generation (lack of wind/sun) when the non-renewable backup systems have to be activated. In this area that means gas turbine engines that are costly to install, costly to run, and costly to sit idle;

Gas is perfect for dispatchable power generation. In terms of cost in sitting idle, it far cheaper than coal or Nuclear (SMR or otherwise). Australia already has abundant gas fired generators, dispatching power into the market on demand. ATM it's expensive, but the share of such generation is falling with increasing wind, Solar and hydro.

Our media is still trying to present it as a technology battle (as it was long ago), which is disengenious. The reality is, its moved on to economics.

This article is essentially outlining efforts in Australia to put to bed the nonsense being pushed that SMRs are the future in Australia. Much in the same way CCS is being presented as a way to sustain the use of fossil fuels.

No one in Australia is arguing against SMR's. They will have applications, but they just don't make economic sense with the abundance of cheaper options in Australia today.

The conservative (LNP) party who are behind the latest push for SMR's, were in government from 2013-2022 and strongly opposed any nuclear power generation.

Since losing government their leader Peter Dutton has taken a keen interest in SMR's as a path forward for Australia to transition from fossil fuel (coal and gas) base load power generation. The key issue is, Australia's coal power plants are being retired now. The fossil fuel industry is pushing the SMR pipedream (via the LNP), knowing SMR's are years off (if practical), as it will extend the dependence on gas.

LNP hasn't provided any plan or policy detail other than a pamphlet and a few slides. Yet the MSM media continue to give this nonsense idea oxygen, despite various experts and reports dismissing it as unproven, too expensive, slow to build and multiple times more costly to operate per MW.

Australia is blessed with ample space and abundant sunshine, wind, where renewable's provided 40% of the total power in 2023. By 2030, that will reach close to 80% (current target). Gas will have a part, but only for dispatchable power generation. The idea that it will be a major source of power generation fanciful, given how expensive gas is in Australia.

While Australia is the 2nd largest LNG exporter, local gas is expensive. For most of Australia, there is no local reservation policy, meaning producers charge locals global prices, thus making gas power generation a very lucrative proposition for the gas cartel, hence their drive to stifle moves to renewable's.

Talk of SMR has been playing out for months in Australian politics. With any luck RAI and CSIRO reports will finally put it to bed.

Many of Brilliant products are Tuya based and will continue to work for the life of the product.
The Brilliant's app is just a rebranded Tuya app. You can use Tuya's app instead, which is arguably much better anyway.

If you'd rather have local control, you can go the OSS path. Most of these devices are use Espressif (ESP) or similar modules that can be reflashed (OTA or directly) with OSS firmware by ESPHome, OpenBeken or Tasmota. You can find configuration templates for many at these sites

Tasmota https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftemplates.blakadder.co...
ESPHome https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdevices.esphome.io%2F
OpenBeken https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fopenbekeniot.github.io...

Some devices do require opening to flash, where OTA options like CloudCutter https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftuya-cloudc... or Tuya-Convert https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fct-Open-Sou... don't work (newer Tuya firmwares).

If reflashing the device isn't an option, Home Assistant also features a (Tuya Local addon) that provides local control of Tuya devices, independent of Tuya Cloud. You just need to register the device with Tuya cloud and use a developer account to obtain the device key.