It IS bespoke internal development, not for deployment outside of the facility.
The computers running the software exist only to run this software and have no business talking to the internet at all.
IT is provided by an external third party vendor who operate on an inflexible “best practices dogma”.
In a rapidly churning startup phase, where new releases can and do come out constantly to meet production requirements, this one size fits all mentality is impractical.
If you refuse to whitelist the deployment directory, you will be taking 2am calls to whitelist the emergency releases.
No it can’t wait until Monday at 9am, no there will not be a staged roll out and multiple rounds of testing.
I am more than willing to have a chat; you, me and the CEO.
Nah, that was worth watching.
Just one example of the lies and misinformation out there:
Smart people I know believe that we have to go Nuclear because it’s the only green way to achieve baseload.
When press on what baseload is, they seem to think it’s the minimum amount of power needed to keep the grid up.
Which for anyone listening in, is backwards, baseload is actually the minimum amount of load required because it’s un-economical to spin old coal burners down. That’s why people used to heat their water at night on the cheap, because the power HAD to go somewhere.
And these are smart people, just disinterested in the how and why of electricity generation.
They flick a switch, the lights come on.
Every 3 months they pay a bill and tut-tut about how expensive it is now “because of the green obsession”.
Us oldies being able to parse it, just means that it is now out of date. ;-)
Crinj fr fr.
Liars do that.
Especially if they have a financial incentive.
That’s what makes this possible.
Part of this funding is to underwrite a new interconnect with the NSW grid, to increase the SA grids ability to transfer power in and out.
Having those interconnects means when we have a surplus or shortage of sun + wind in one location, we can transfer it from somewhere else.
The plan even relies on the ongoing backup of gas turbines, which will be turned off 99.9% of the time, but still require maintenance etc adding cost to the grid.
But the plan is to have enough solar + wind + storage to go 100% net green over any given year.
Net renewable by 2027!
Most people in the meat industry agree it’s a good move.
It’s only the unscrupulous and greedy ones that are kicking up a fuss.
Just because we raise animals for slaughter doesn’t mean we can’t minimise the discomfort the animals experience.
Whilst I didn’t always agree with their pronouncements, having a fact checker at this time seems to me a very important thing.
They include reference to “a new in-house verification reporting team, ABC News Verify”, but that sounds like they’ll only be verifying their own news, which is nice, but not the point.
You could read David Leigh’s book, in which he published the full decryption key: https://www.amazon.com/WikiLeaks-Inside-Julian-Assanges-Secrecy/dp/161039061X
That’s literally how he leaked it.
The wikipedia article on it has the whole “he said - she said”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:_Inside_Julian_Assange’s_War_on_Secrecy
Including the lie that is frequently parroted about Assange not caring about people dying.
That was an editor at The Guardian, David Leigh.
This didn’t happen, Wikileaks vetted information before releasing it for exactly this reason.
Name one person.
Its technically US soil, so he could enter his plea there in a US court, but its the closest place to Australia, because he obviously refused to step foot on the American continent.
Yes, the threats worked and the corrupt won.
Now he gets to see his kids.
I’d choose that too.
You can call it cowardice, I’d call it pragmatism.
The US get to show just how tough they are on whistleblowers and their associates.
Assange gets to go home.
If I was him, I’d keep my head down and try to get to know my kids.
the cheapest and most widespread nuclear reactor design
Can you share this knowledge, please?
So 450 x 1.8 = $810B
(I’m assuming I haven’t made a mistake about the 14 hours of storage and the converting between GW and GWh).
You have, that $1.8B would get 14GWh, not 1.
So 450 / 14 = 32.2
32.2 * 1.8 = $57.96B
These are all back of the envelope numbers of course, but 58 is ~ 14 times less than 810.
Would their seven proposed nuclear stations be cheaper than $810 Billion?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728
CSIRO has cranked these numbers out in a whole bunch of configurations.
In short: Australia’s leading scientific organisation found it would cost at least $8.5 billion to build a large-scale nuclear power plant in the country.
8.5 * 7 = $59.5B
So it’s within the ballpark to build 7 nuclear powerplants, compared to 33 (more likely less but bigger) off river pumped hydro locations.
Which don’t cost as much to run, have no “scary” nuclear and can be operable much sooner, integrating with the existing infrastructure (instead of replacing it, as Nuclear effectively would have to).
If we build even one Nuclear power plant, we’re going to see continuing solar and wind curtailment, exactly like they do with coal right now - which will effectively set an expensive floor on power prices.
Nuclear isn’t happening if we follow the science, the money and the NIMBY sentiment.
Edit to add:
The BIGGEST difference in my mind is where the money will come from.
No financial institution will touch Nuclear, it would have to be tax dollars.
Whilst private companies are always angling for government subsidy, they are also clamouring to invest in this themselves.
A quick google search gives me a private example that is projected to come online this year: https://genexpower.com.au/250mw-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project/
It’s only 2GWh, but it’s going to start contributing to the end of coal by the end of this year, which ignoring the environmental benefit, is going to reduce wholesale power prices.
Waiting for Nuclear will make power prices worse, as the interim calls for continuing to run the coal and gas, which isn’t going to make it 15 years, so new coal (or more likely a buttload more gas) will have to be built.
Which is going to RAISE prices, as it’s no longer just running costs on paid off installations, it’s repaying loans on new constructions.
That source doesn’t have a link to their paper that works.
Yeah, link rot.
I did some googling for you: https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/Low Emission Fossil Scenarios.pdf
Worst/Pragmatic.
If I get a timeline for a feature request, then everything can be scheduled, tested, whitelisted, delivered at a reasonable time.
That’s the rarer event - normally it’s more like “the scale head has died and a technician is on the way to replace it” and whilst I modify the program in question to handle this new input, hundreds of staff are standing around and delivery quotas won’t be met.
Is my position arrogant? This is the job.
I’ll see if this is possible at the site in question, thank you.