"Justine" is what some people who disapprove of him are calling him. It's a mocking conspiracy theory that JT's wife left him due to him being transexual.
Looks like the created cell is 614 Wh/L from the above comment. Gasoline is ~2.2kWh/L [0]. So my take is that even with the created cell the density is not going to be an issue with car or grid batteries -- only <4 times the size even at this non-theoretical cell. Who knows how the packs will be configured though as I am sure airflow will be a design consideration when making larger packs.
[0] This uses the 3kWh/kg that was provided above and a density of gasoline of .75g/mL
units
You have: 0.7429 g/mL * 3 kWh/kg
You want: kWh/L
* 2.2287
That 3 kWh/kg estimated by the poster above corresponds to an abysmal efficiency of an internal-combustion engine, of less than 25%.
Modern cars with good high-compression engines have efficiencies over 40%.
A fuel cell with hydrocarbons could reach efficiencies of 60% or more.
So no lithium battery can reach volumic energies or specific energies comparable to what can be achieved with hydrocarbons.
The reason to use lithium rechargeable batteries is to obtain a better total efficiency of using energy, not the hope that it is possible to match the densities achievable with energy stored in hydrocarbons.
Among lithium rechargeable batteries, the lithium-air batteries should achieve the best energy per mass, perhaps also per volume.
Usually the weak point of metal-air batteries is the power per mass or the power per volume, because the reaction with air is slow, therefore the electrical current density in the electrodes is low, so to obtain a given amount of power requires great areas for the electrodes.
It's obscured because of how Canada formats their data, but the vast majority of "North American origins" respondents would fall under white as well. The total percentage is in the upper 80s.
Neat, but this looks very specialized for a single person's config. I wouldn't want to run this on my machine seeing as it removes apt sources and does a bunch of other system changes unrelated to installing a macOS guest.
Despite these being optional tweaks in the menu, I'm also surprised by how this is the default. I guess the options are for PVE updates.
"Disclaimer for dev/student/test purposes only."
Shouldn't be used with enterprise license, which may be against ToS.
The original intent is to avoid custom hardware configurations by using PVE as a layer. Hackintosh on bare metal can take days to figure out on new hardware.
Yes, this is correct. There seem to be a lot of people confused about the benefit of this in the thread, but it’s very simple: This tool exists essentially as a replacement for doing a full Hackintosh build of a system. You install Proxmox on a machine with a GPU, set this up, pass through the GPU and any other PCIe cards you want to run, and you’re in business.
It turns a days-long process into something that you can be up and running within like an hour. With OSX-KVM you have to set up the machine to be ready to do all the stuff like passthrough. This leverages the fact that Proxmox makes all that stuff super-simple.
It has to be AMD specifically, with some cards working better than others. Really old Nvidia cards work if you’re willing to go all the way back to High Sierra, though I haven’t tested it with this specific setup.
Intel iGPUs work on bare metal up until about tenth gen Core series, but I don’t know if you can pass them through with Proxmox.
I don't know why you got downvoted, because you are right. There is no problem with keeping the Ceph repos, and you can use it with the community repos.
From what I have gathered, I assume average age of registered vehicles. I would also assume that collector cars would "pollute" the statistics, unless they are filtered out -- the details of the research are not stated.
Touchscreens are more expensive than buttons and knobs. But screens are required by law in the USA and EU as they require backup cameras. And a digitizer is a lot cheaper than some buttons and knobs.
They aren’t more expensive to start with though. A small touchscreen is <$10 in large orders. This is why you can buy entire android phones for <usd$30 with no vendor lock-in.
Wiring in a set of buttons and knobs costs more than a small screen. The buttons and knobs are more ergonomic. The real answer to the above question is that it’s happening already. All new cheap Chinese (or anywhere else that caters to the developing world) made cars have a touch screen and fewer hardwired controls.
Isn't that just a (expensive) library? And libraries are constantly being lobbied against by publishing groups, yet there doesn't seem to be major harm (financial) caused by them.
There seem to be barely any legal requirements for Teslas in the US. The Cybertruck as is wouldn't be legal in the EU (and hence is not sold). How the lack of indicator stalks is legal is beyond me, as is the utter lack of buttons or the lack of speed indication in a driver's line of sight.
The behaviour of using a screen with submenus to setup things while you're driving is madness if you think about it. We're not allowed to use our touch screen phones while driving but are allowed to use a touch screen bolted-on touch screen.
I’m currently renting a new Ford F-150 ICE truck and all of its UI is controlled through the enormous touch screen. There are physical buttons too, but they’re just remote inputs to the central UI. It also has a video display behind the steering wheel, where half the display is dominated by a menu, and gauges are displayed on either side of the menu. You can barely see the speedometer.
I own a Tesla Model 3, and have ranted about how awful its touchscreen only control is bad for ages, but the Ford is significantly worse. Just today, the truck’s UI bugged out in such a way that half the exterior lights were blinking, while a period bell sound would blast every few seconds. A message on the screen complained that the car “needed to be running to…” with the rest cut off by a nondescript grey square.
