Your pet peeve, technical or otherwise.

[paulca]

By the way.  There was a discussion on here, might have been started by me around "how in hell do you give an average joe a power cable to stick in his car which carries 350kW".

It would seem I didn't cover enough options, what they actually use is only 400V.... and water cool and much thinner cable as it gets hot running nearly 1000 amps.

The question is... what does that do to the efficiency of the whole process?

[Siwastaja]

Regarding Post#3155, also those adverts disguised as download links were really nasty, big green buttons that said download and would appear on sites you were actually trying to download files from, except what the green buttons downloaded was adware.

Not a problem, IMHO, because any site that would accept such abusive advertisement, is a security risk in itself - in other words, the "real" link is likely malware, too. Any adblocker just hides this and makes a malware site look less malwareous (this is a word now).

Simply don't trust any third-party flashy download site, at all. Download at software vendor's own site, over https, with valid certificate.

[TimFox]

It's interesting.  Modern high kW car charging stations can have 8 350kW chargers.  That's today.

pff.
Ban personal cars within the city boundaries, problem solved.

Please note that in other countries, the population density in large cities can be much lower than in older European cities.
Chicago and Paris have comparable populations, but Chicago is roughly 2.8 million population in 607 km², and Paris is 2.2 million in 105 km², within their city boundaries.

[shapirus]

Please note that in other countries, the population density in large cities can be much lower than in older European cities.
Chicago and Paris have comparable populations, but Chicago is roughly 2.8 million population in 607 km², and Paris is 2.2 million in 105 km², within their city boundaries.

Nevermind, they will find a plausible excuse to do it anyway. First they will ban ICE cars for ecological or whatever reasons (because, hey, EVs are a great alternative), and then they will ban personal EV cars as well, because they put too much stress on the electric grid.

I'll be very happy to be proven wrong on this. Will see in 10-20 years.

[SiliconWizard]

a single 32A breaker and... I have tried and never popped it.  Technically a 13A kettle, the 10A Tumble drier and the 10A living room electric fire, should trip it, but didn't,

and so it shouldnt ,your only 1A over,no were close to the instantaneous  tripping time for any 32A device fitted in domestic consumer units

Story goes that with the "linky", the smart meter here in France, it trips instantly when you go over the set limit. Have not tried or experienced it myself.

Yep. There is no margin.

[SiliconWizard]

Please note that in other countries, the population density in large cities can be much lower than in older European cities.
Chicago and Paris have comparable populations, but Chicago is roughly 2.8 million population in 607 km², and Paris is 2.2 million in 105 km², within their city boundaries.

Nevermind, they will find a plausible excuse to do it anyway. First they will ban ICE cars for ecological or whatever reasons (because, hey, EVs are a great alternative), and then they will ban personal EV cars as well, because they put too much stress on the electric grid.

That is obvious.

[pcprogrammer]

.......

Don't all diseases suck?

Even the flu can make you feel miserable for a while. Nobody wants to be sick, but it still happens. The ones the medical science knows next to nothing about are the worst. Just have to live with it, which sometimes ain't easy.

[RJSV]

Pcprog:
   Yeah, many of my relatives got tired of my 'mysterious' illness that wouldn't just go away.  Doctor diagnosed as LYME DISEASE, and seems to fit well with symptoms.  THEY were tired of it ? Oh boy, unpack that monster of psych dynamic.
   K-Mart clerk VS. Doctor ? Hmmm. (I went with doctor opinion).

[Kim Christensen]

seems that the new youtube trend is phone friendly pillarbox video
or is this a war with TikTok?

To make it even worse, instead of black sidebars when viewed on a normal monitor, they like to render the sidebars as blurred video.
The silly thing is that there's nothing stopping the poster from turning their phone 90 degrees and filming "normally"... It's kind of crazy since we went from 4:3 displays to 16:9 because it was more a natural viewing perspective for the human eye, but now have flipped to vertical video due to "smart" phone proliferation.

[Circlotron]

By the way.  There was a discussion on here, might have been started by me around "how in hell do you give an average joe a power cable to stick in his car which carries 350kW".

There’s always the safer option of a hose full of hydrogen at 10,000 psi.
Both sound like pretty good material for Colin Furze.

[SilverSolder]

It's interesting.  Modern high kW car charging stations can have 8 350kW chargers.  That's today.  If electrification goes forward at the rate they hope, in 10 years time rapid chargers will need to be available in much higher density.  Not 8 chargers per facility, but 80.  It's not just the cost of the infrastructure, for large commercial cosutomers they get billed per mile of distribution and billed directly for distribution and transmission losses incurred.  So the further your massive multi-megawatt facility is from a prime source like a power plant the more it's going to cost you... the more it costs the customers.

It's been determined that this is "fine" for out-of-city, close to motorway and importantly close to power plants facilities, however facilities in already developed areas will struggle to get that much power out of the current grid.

The net result is going to be a case where, if you run low on battery in the city, you are going to have to wait in a long queue for a VERY expensive charger.  If you want cheap electric you'll need to drive the 10 miles out of town to the large motorway service centre near the power station.

Imagine if you will, the M25 outer ring in London and how many cars refuel on the average rush-hour morning.  Now fast forward to a world where they are all electric.  Rather than a 5 minute splash and dash with the morning paper, it's a 20 minute top up just to be sure.  That means those stations need around 4 times as many chargers as they have pumps and limit people to 20 minutes a pop at peak times.  There are probably at least dozen of these stations around just that one motorway.  If all of them are to have 40 or 50 350kW chargers ... that's a few power plants worth on it's own!

Again... in towns, cities and already developed areas electricity for your car will become astronomically expense and you'll end up driving 10s of miles to get electric 50% cheaper!

This is assuming that "they" are going to be giving the savings from being close to the power station to the motorists...   instead of pocketing the profits and distributing to the shareholders.  I know which way I'd bet...

[Ed.Kloonk]

Q: When you're chatting at a party, how do you know which one owns the Tesla?

A: They'll tell you.
 

[pcprogrammer]

Q: When you're chatting at a party, how do you know which one owns the Tesla?

A: They'll tell you.

I thought that was only for Ferrari's and Lamborghini's, but you might frequent other parties then I do. 

[SilverSolder]

Q: When you're chatting at a party, how do you know which one owns the Tesla?

A: They'll tell you.
 

I recently rode in an Uber, where the vehicle was a Tesla.  Who knew driving Ubers was so profitable?  :-D

I couldn't figure out how to use the door handles.  Driver had to wind down the window and explain...  and I could tell he had done that before!   

Which brings me to the pet peeve:   designers making everyday things 'different' just to be different - while imposing an actual cost on the world to use it!

[vk6zgo]

Q: When you're chatting at a party, how do you know which one owns the Tesla?

A: They'll tell you.
 

I recently rode in an Uber, where the vehicle was a Tesla.  Who knew driving Ubers was so profitable?  :-D

I couldn't figure out how to use the door handles.  Driver had to wind down the window and explain...  and I could tell he had done that before!   

Which brings me to the pet peeve:   designers making everyday things 'different' just to be different - while imposing an actual cost on the world to use it!

Like the designers of electric kettles who put large clear plastic windows on the sides to "easily check the water level".

They look stylish, but over time the seal between the main body of the kettle & the window inevitably deteriorates, until after a little over a year, they start to weep water.

It is very hard to find one with a "sight tube" which avoids this problem, but if you do, they last for multiple years, simply because they apply a mature technology which is known to work.

[paulca]

Peeve:  "The law" and IT.

They really don't have the faintest clue do they?  I suppose most judges are still technically "Silver surfers", probably taking evening classes in CLAIT.

Presently.  In the UK.  If the TV licensing folks want to search you home, you are to provide them access to all devices which could be used to watch a TV programme.  Failure to do so (assist) can be considered a criminal offense and obstruction.

Note.  Devices which can be used to watch TV would include...

* Your phone.
* Your laptop.
* Your work laptop.
* The PC with the highly confidential VPN access into a live stock exchange
* and the smart TV currently displaying the names and addresses of your wife's school kid's group.

Meaning there is ZERO stipulation that such devices can be used for this FAR, FAR beyond the reach of any stupid TV License warrant.

They just don't have a clue.

They also seem to completely bypass the law about "Unlawful access", such as browsing someone else's watch history on YouTube... is technically a ciminal offense if done with intent and knowledge the accuont was not yours!

[IDEngineer]

Technology moves fast. Law moves slow.

And that's actually a good thing... people's liberties are generally less infringed by a legislature that is sluggish.

If laws were well written to start with, a lot of these problems could be avoided. Simple changes to phrasing and word choices could prevent conflict by being more specific and less catch-all. Kinda makes one wonder what the ultimate intent is, eh?

[PlainName]

If the TV licensing folks want to search you home, you ...

... can tell them to push right off. If they want search your place they have to go to court and get a search warrant. I guess, pedantically, that translates as "you are to provide them access to all devices which could be used to watch a TV programme", but it is not automatic and they can't just roll up and bash your door down. Nor can they treat your telling them to go away as a criminal offense.

[shapirus]

the TV licensing folks

who?

[Bud]

In some countries even government propaganda is not free  , you have to pay for a license to watch it.

[paulca]

If the TV licensing folks want to search you home, you ...

... can tell them to push right off. If they want search your place they have to go to court and get a search warrant. I guess, pedantically, that translates as "you are to provide them access to all devices which could be used to watch a TV programme", but it is not automatic and they can't just roll up and bash your door down. Nor can they treat your telling them to go away as a criminal offense.

Agreed.  This discussion stemed from BlackBeltBarristars video.  In it he was suggesting that you NEVER let them in just to show them you don't have a TV.  What they will do is take note of all the devices which "could" be used to view TV and then use that as eivdence to support a warrant.

I do not pay.  I fill in their "I do not need a license" form every year.

Interestingly, all of my "TVs" are just big monitors and they all require a password... which they can get out of me with a specific court order to provide it.

[paulca]

In some countries even government propaganda is not free  , you have to pay for a license to watch it.

The argument for it however is that they can publish content which has negative commercial but high civil value.  Commercial run stations cannot and will not publish content or views which will harm their sponsors, investors.

There are many, many, many examples of them (the BBC) doing just that internationally.  They can and will go investigating into deep dark holes that "investor funded" journalists will be told to steer clear of or be sacked.

Where I personally feel the issues begin is not with the propoganda, which is there, it's the "other commercial interests" of the BBC.

Example:  Doctor Who.  The resent series have, argued by some, been produced specifically for a US biased international market and not infact made for the british public which funded it.  The BBC then "sell" that content to the US.  They argue, commercial revenue streams are always part of the business model and the tax payers will benefit from teh revenue collected....  But ... the content suffers.

Looping back to the original point though... the TV licensing laws are just not compatible with modern media or how we consume it.

[paulca]

On the law and IT.

I set myself a thought experiment and recoiled in horror when I thought, "What if I was called to the stand as an expert IT security witness?"

Given the way the law uses terminology I cannot see how it would be possible without arguing defintitions for a long, long time, before you could actually give any grounded, concrete professional opinion.

In reality, I think such witnesses are just "pre-coached".

I have to drop this here... sorry.
https://youtu.be/zKNoU2P0dQc

[SilverSolder]

If the TV licensing folks want to search you home, you ...

... can tell them to push right off. If they want search your place they have to go to court and get a search warrant. I guess, pedantically, that translates as "you are to provide them access to all devices which could be used to watch a TV programme", but it is not automatic and they can't just roll up and bash your door down. Nor can they treat your telling them to go away as a criminal offense.

Agreed.  This discussion stemed from BlackBeltBarristars video.  In it he was suggesting that you NEVER let them in just to show them you don't have a TV.  What they will do is take note of all the devices which "could" be used to view TV and then use that as eivdence to support a warrant.

I do not pay.  I fill in their "I do not need a license" form every year.

Interestingly, all of my "TVs" are just big monitors and they all require a password... which they can get out of me with a specific court order to provide it.

I thought the UK had switched to financing the BBC via general taxes, rather than a license fee?

[paulca]

If the TV licensing folks want to search you home, you ...

... can tell them to push right off. If they want search your place they have to go to court and get a search warrant. I guess, pedantically, that translates as "you are to provide them access to all devices which could be used to watch a TV programme", but it is not automatic and they can't just roll up and bash your door down. Nor can they treat your telling them to go away as a criminal offense.

Agreed.  This discussion stemed from BlackBeltBarristars video.  In it he was suggesting that you NEVER let them in just to show them you don't have a TV.  What they will do is take note of all the devices which "could" be used to view TV and then use that as eivdence to support a warrant.

I do not pay.  I fill in their "I do not need a license" form every year.

Interestingly, all of my "TVs" are just big monitors and they all require a password... which they can get out of me with a specific court order to provide it.

I thought the UK had switched to financing the BBC via general taxes, rather than a license fee?

I don't think anyone really knows anymore where their taxes go.  The last effort on that front was with labour who proposed giving tax payers a break down of how their tax was spent in their pay check statement.  That vanished.  I never actually seen one, although the company I was working for responded initially.

It's like "Road Tax" as people call it, or "Vehicle Excess Duty" its often miss understood that "it pays for road maintenance"... directly.  Like "National Insurance" "directly" fills your "unemployment" benefit.  People believe these are descete, banded pots of money.  They aren't obviously.

None of these things are technically true or false, it's just a LOT more complex than that.  People get confused a lot and it's hardly surprising.