Even in my internal company tech support line they play that "higher than expected call volumes" message, but their website also has counter on it that tells you just how many people are on hold and even when it is just one (me) it plays that message.
Some of it may also be neighborhoods where solar contractors went door to door selling the systems. Even if you don't buy from that salesman you get the numbers in your head and start to realize it isn't some exotic tech for elite weirdos.
My sister was just such a representative going door to door in Connecticut. This was likely a factor. The southern coast of Connecticut, being in the shadow of New York and thus dense with rich exurban homeowners, is a prime market for such contractors.
I clicked on the link for the "Yuppie button" and confirmed that the guy is a nut. The amount of effort required to create and install a device that flashes all of your tail lights at a tailgater is not something an average person is going to do.
Would you say old DOS applications like Borland's Turbo series of compilers were not TUIs? They ran in the console but had menus, mouse support, dialog boxes, etc...
How about those text games that used ASCII art and you typed in commands like "look" and "go north"?
I would say using text mode is the primary requirement for a TUI. The other requirement being some kind of human-machine connection, IE a User Interface.
I've been working with notcurses recently and it is a full TUI that handles mouse events just fine. Runs over slow SSH connections and everything. The nice part is that you can fully operate applications built on top of it with the keyboard if you so choose, the mouse is just a shortcut.
Sadly the project is not really in a usable state at the moment. The documentation is incomplete riddled with errors, the code has some pretty glaring bugs, and it's close to abandoned. It's a shame because you can do some really amazing stuff with it.
The question was about forwarding as I understand it, not address resolution, and there simply won't be any forwarding, since the 32 bit only sending host won't be able to address the 128 bit receiving one.
It's kind of annoying that the 3D viewer on their website keep you a respectful distance away from the object like you might try to touch it if you got too close.
It appears they arbitrarily limit the zoom such that the object stays within the browser frame. On my gigantic monitor I can get super close. Lame that they set it to stop like that
Interesting, on desktop Firefox I can barely zoom in past the point that the object fills the FOV.
I want to be permitted to navigate up close to a point where I can see the pixels and triangle meshes, as if I was a millimeter away from some brush stroke or chisel mark, and then back out just a bit.
For anyone wondering, you can access this by tapping the button showing a 3D cube at the bottom left of the 3D viewer. The button may be cut off if you're viewing in a web view in another app like I was.
The AR viewer runs with a much higher frame rate and you can get closer to the model. However the lighting is significantly worse, which ruins the appeal. The in-browser viewer is choppy and I can feel my phone getting a little warm, but it looks a lot more like viewing the real artifacts.
The AR viewer is using ARKit on iOS which is a default system “app”. I don’t believe Google provides the same kind of built in viewer experience with AR Core being surfaced as an app.
In the old days people would convert diesel trucks and cars to run on "biodiesel" which was lightly processed used cooking oil. You could tell who did that because their cars always smelled like french fries.
In the UK, all the used oil from MacDonalds is converted into biodiesel. I often walk past the plan where they do this and there's usually a lorry waiting to be allowed in through the gates.
A few years back there was some eco-warrior protest outside trying to stop the lorries going in. Not really sure what they were trying to achieve with that as it seemed counter to their aims.
Many eco-warrior types, not every single one but many, have... how to put this gently... not thought things all the way through. To name just one example I can think of: protesting an oil pipeline being constructed and/or extended. Well, what will happen if the pipeline doesn't go in? People will still want gasoline — protesting the pipeline isn't going to do anything about people's desire to drive their cars around — so that oil is going to get transported to the refinery somehow. If not in a pipeline, then it'll get transported by train or truck. Which will 1) burn a lot more fuel than transporting the same amount of oil through a pipeline, and 2) be more prone to accidents and oil spills (a tiny chance per truck, but that adds up fast when there are thousands of trucks per month), therefore very likely to spill more oil than the pipeline would have. In other words, blocking that pipeline is very likely to cause more ecological damage than having it built would have caused.
The eco-warrior types protesting the pipeline probably think that they're reducing the use of oil. But they haven't thought it all the way through.
While we're at it, let's think the rest of the way through, and consider the marginal effect that additional transportation cost has on price and therefore both the supply and demand side, shall we?
To prove or disprove your hypothesis, we can look at historical gas prices.
In today's dollars (adjusted for inflation) the US average gas price stayed below $2.75/gal from roughly 1986-2002. Then they broke through that barrier, only ever going below it again for two brief moments in 2016 and in 2020. Most of the time since, they've been well above $3.50, and above $4 sometimes. [1]
If you're right that demand for gasoline is highly elastic, meaning people adjust their demand in response to price, then since gas prices got much more expensive, we should expect that gas usage decreased. Have we seen this? (No. [2]) Of course we haven't, because somewhere between 63-67% of people in the US and Canada live in car-dependent suburbs.[3] These cities and towns, in addition to most rural areas, are fundamentally car-dependent and cannot function without daily car use by a majority of residents. The only way for our society to consume less gasoline would be mass electrification of private transport.
And notably, even the recent increased popularity of EVs in the post-Model-3 era isn't manifesting in the data [2] in the form of decreased consumption to my eyes. Perhaps for every new BEV out there not using gas, five people traded the cars they used to drive for inefficient, huge SUVs.
Nice, but maybe you need to travel more! The USA and Canada is not representative of the wider world. Also, demand elasticity in USA/Canada suburbs is again not representative.
So we're not proving or disproving anything by focusing on that narrow view. I can understand, if you are in it it seems universal, but as I like to reflect, You Are Not The Only User.
Also, I think demand elasticity is more relevant in the short term, I think the costs shake out eventually. Especially when you are talking about pipeline or major infrastructure level changes in capacity, that can have major regional pricing ramifications, shall we say extreme. I think I need not elaborate, given current events in the Persian Gulf.
You may not have learned much about them, or thought through the potential costs of a pipeline being built through your property. Some of those 'eco-warrior types' are not protesting a pipeline, they are protesting the potential irreversable damages to their communities if a neglected or mismanaged pipeline springs a leak (and many, many have), or catches fire, or explodes. Many of them have already seen more than one result of cavalier energy company facilities that have ruined community water and food supplies. What will happen to their community if the pipeline doesn't go in? NOTHING.
The problem that the Dakota Access Pipeline protests were protesting was not the pipelines in and of themselves, it was the running them through their reservation, and that many pipelines have had leaks, 23 from the Keystone pipeline alone.
They didn't want an ecological disaster in their back yard, they didn't want their religious sites disturbed, and they didn't want there to be a risk that their water ends up contaminated with oil, and the pipeline company didn't want to pay the cost to navigate around the reservation.
So of course the government stepped in and forced the protesters to accept the pipeline and now idiots that don't understand the reasoning behind the protest mock them after the fact.
Are you sure this isn't a strawman? The recent Dakota pipeline protests for example were very clearly about water safety and building through native burial grounds and other historic native sites. Pretty much every pipeline protest I can think of is more concerned with environmental danger of spills, not reducing oil. And a catastrophic pipeline spill can be much worse than isolated truck spills, though I'd love to know more about research on that front.
There is a clear difference between "I don't want to look at the pipeline" and "pipelines have an established track record of cutting corners and avoiding regulation wherever possible which leads to leaks and spills, leaks and spills cause irreparable damage to the environment including the environment in the middle of our community, and the company is attempting to exploit our already historically exploited community"
The term eco warrior, in the UK at least, long predates social justice warrior. As the peer reply says, it's long been applied to members of Greenpeace and I think I first heard the term in the late 80s or 90s. As they said, maybe it was because of their ship Rainbow Warrior which was sunk by the French government in 1985 and prompted Greenpeace to continue the name with future boats.
I don't think it particularly had a negative connotation until recently though, to me at least it was always just someone who had strong opinions about protecting the environment, and Greenpeace always had quite a lot of support from the general population and they weren't actively disrupting the lives of ordinary citizens in the way Just Stop Oil do for instance.
I think you have the wrong end of this stick. See the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior for an example. There have been several iterations of this ship name since the first was bombed by the French secret service in 1985.
Occasionally people in the UK get caught putting cooking oil in their (diesel ) cars, which is not illegal per se - but technically if you do it, you should pay fuel tax, which they generally don't. McDonald's are large enough that they will be, knowing that they would inevitably be caught.
> "biodiesel" which was lightly processed used cooking oil
No.
Biodiesel is fuel made directly from vegetable matter; typically it needs a ""special"" engine to run, or is blended in a low ratio with ordinary diesel (B7 in the UK and EU).
Processed cooking oil is made into HVO.
This can be used as a direct 1:1 replacement for ordinary diesel without engine modifications. Very green! Unsurprisingly, HVO has a higher price than biodiesel.
In the early 2000s I traveled thousands of miles in an old school bus fueled by waste vegetable oil (WVO). The system was very simple, the bus had an extra fuel tank with a heat exchanger to the engine coolant, a couple fuel filters, and some hand-operated valves in the engine compartment. You start on diesel, warm up and switch to WVO. Before shutting down you would switch back to diesel to purge the system. You also pack a box of extra filters because they'd need frequent replacement. It was a somewhat popular conversation in some circles. Old Mercedes Benz diesel sedans were a common choice.
reply