@stuartl @glyph Power is measured as watts, or joules ÷ time.
Energy is measured as Joules, or slightly obscurely, as Power × time, as in Watt-hours.
So a megawatt-hour is a measurement of energy. It's the amount of every required to run a Megawatt of power for 1 hour (or 1 watt for 1 million hours, etc)
@riverpunk @glyph Indeed. 1 Wh = 3600 J.
However, it's unusual to measure electrical energy in terms of joules… nearly every electrical meter and EMS I've dealt with in the past 15 years has used either Wh or kWh. (I know ANSI C12:19 does support joules as a unit of measure though… just never seen it used in an electrical meter.)
@stuartl @riverpunk @glyph Physicists use joules. They are more appropriate in almost all applications.
The business side of power delivery uses watt-hours because it makes the billing calculations much easier and more intuitive.
@bornach @GroupNebula563 @glyph because of delta t
The higher your temperature difference going in and the lower your temperature difference going out, the cheaper it is to get rid of heat
@riverpunk @RichiH @bornach @GroupNebula563 @glyph Pretty much. You could run it without evaporation, but that would mean higher energy use. Evaporating water is just the most cost-effective means of cooling in warmer climate, unless you have a convenient river next door.
It's exactly the same equipment as in a power station cooling tower. Just scaled down.
@RichiH
BUT it does seem like (Fernwärme in German, not sure the English - distance heating?) where you pump the hot water/air/whatever around to heat houses would be a good usecase for this.
I'm sure this would be easily solved with the brilliant idea of datacenters in space, proposed by a man who was already in space, therefore experience, and desalination in space surely can be done easily.
@glyph
Oh, come on
The existing html5 parsing library has been inconsistently maintained.
(Now we have two inconsistently maintained html5 parsing libraries 😬)
@glyph 😬
And all that, to find obvious results that could be wrong or out of context (…).
@glyph @tante And when you read other articles praising that work, you hear _nothing_ on the arc that the models *all* had access to the existing lib, that it mostly isn't *new* to begin with. It's just praise, praise, praise… And than a rewrite in JavaScript. Congrats again.
To stay positive in same capacity: I do like the 100% TCK coverage approach. It's something.
Necessary? I wonder… But that is these days out of the discussion most of the time anyway.
@mirano if they're laughable, it should be easy to disprove them, no?
also, do learn about luddites. luddites weren't against progress; and they were right.
1. re: luddites, I'd recommend you educate yourself—maybe just read the wikipedia page—about who the luddites were and why they were breaking looms. From that wikipedia page: "Luddites were not opposed to the use of machines per se (many were skilled operators in the textile industry); they attacked manufacturers who were trying to circumvent standard labor practices"
2. re: vague gesturing at "demagoguery" rather than engaging with the substance of the point: https://mastodon.social/@glyph/115561854355416955
@glyph
I also really love this comic:
I'm a luddite (and so can you!) by Tom Hunberstone
And yet, without the LLM, that senior engineer would have spent that month writing boilerplate instead of orchestrating the synthesis. It's almost like tools are force multipliers, not magic wands. Who knew?
Wait until they find out how much source code, energy, and senior engineer time went into building the compiler that built the library.
Abstraction layers are wild, aren't they?
1. Or maybe the senior engineer would have simply written all the code and it wouldn't have taken that long. Nobody measures this. We don't even know yet if it's a "force multiplier" or a distraction. I've written at length about this phenomenon here: https://blog.glyph.im/2025/08/futzing-fraction.html
2. Or maybe they would have solved the actual social problem instead, i.e. that the original library is insufficiently maintained, rather than rewriting to move the locus of control closer to themselves.