I believe this refers to switching to high-efficiency electric heaters like reverse-cycle AC units (also known as "heat pumps"), rather than oil heaters or ducted gas heating.
The majority of UK homes are heated by gas-powered boilers that pump hot water through radiators in each room. Often hot water is heated by the same system.
Decarbonisation usually means replacing that boiler with a heat pump which uses electricity to heat water.
It really is funny how you go through learning all these fantastic abstractions, and then at the end your line-of-business code ends up looking a lot like it always did. But expecting your data structures and control-flow functions to behave according to laws makes things so much more predictable and easier to wrangle.
> The "ABC" of airway, breathing, circulation they taught us may not be current advice.
The version taught in Australian first aid classes is DRSABCD: check for (D)anger, check for patient (R)esponse, (S)end for help, (A)irway, (B)reathing, (C)irculation.
Part of the reason they teach "ABC" is it is simple and easy to remember, especially in an emergency. I've reread DRSABCD a dozen times now and I guarantee I will have forgotten it in a few minutes. Case in point, you missed (D)efibrillation...
This argument applies to learning to code in general. What is your estimate of the ratio between "just shipped whatever the clanker spat out" vs "interrogated the LLM about its own output†" vs "deliberately interrogates LLMs to learn"?
†Untrustworthy, because it will either double down on its own output in its context, or will flip-flop to whatever the user said .
I don't know how many users of LLMs fall into each of these buckets but I have the sense that there these distinct buckets. I don't think it's necessarily a global thing. A single user could fall into all three buckets depending on the domain they are working in. For instance for CI/CD I tend to ship clanker, for tests I interrogate LLM about output, but for code algorithms I am more likely to interrogate to learn.
As in the Steve Jackson one where you have conspiracies and front groups and fronts for those fronts? I wanted to like it but never could get into it; too many fiddly bits placing megabucks all over the power structure and adding up modifiers. Did you play house rules with friends, or does it get better with more plays, or was I just doing something wrong?
> In addition, charging an exchange fee would allow the central bank to implement negative interest rates, if deemed necessary. The central bank could also impose a conversion limit per customer for AML/CFT (“cash” limits) or financial stability reasons (to prevent hoarding or bank runs), if desired.
Well goody.
The idea of blind signatures is cool, as is the fact that the merchant doesn't need to identify the customer, as is the fact that you could deploy neat local currencies with something like this, but AFAIK you still can't give 20€ to your friend without the exchange knowing and approving, or it becoming a race to see who spends the tokens corresponding to the 20€. And that's not very privacy-preserving.
IIRC isn't part of the idea that there are multiple central banks, you can choose which one you want to use, and currencies are exchanged automatically when needed?
That somehow hurts me to hear more than anything. I remember days spent in my youth trawling through Google search for anime fandoms and homework answers. Joke used to be that beyond page 1 is the definition of desperation and in the 00s that was definitely true but I discovered a lot of cool distractions in that desperation. This feels like they killed Google Reader again.
Don't know how modern this is, but I remember being disappointed that despite Google claiming it had billions of results, you could only see a few pages' worth.
Looking now, I've just noticed they no longer give a count of results.
reply