Um... No. An american 22 can be very slightly smaller. American-invented calibers are measured to the depth of the grooves in a rifled barrel. The rest of the world measures to the flat parts between the grooves. So no, it is not obvious how wide a bullet is.
And beware the plural. If someone (usually a salty navy person) says that a gun is "50 calibers" he means something completely different than a "50 caliber".
Legacy and marketing have as much to do with it as local variations in how bores are actually measured do.
All the .38s and 9mms of the world are just slight variations on .36" round ball, .44 caliber pistols are generally .429", there's a .45" pistol caliber labelled .460 (.454 also counts), .50 BMG is actually .510", calibers claimed to be "7.62mm" use either a .308" or .311" projectile depending on the country of origin and sometimes not even then (France and Switzerland call this size 7.5mm, Argentina called this 7.65mm, Japan called it 7.7mm, the British called it .303), "8mm" can be either a .318" or .323" projectile, .32s are all .312" diameter, but one cartridge that uses this same projectile labels it as .30 and another .327.
The same 5.7mm projectile (.224") is used in cartridges that claim to have a diameter of .220, .221, .222, .223, .224, .225, 5.6mm, 5.56mm, and 5.7mm.
.277" projectiles are used in cartridges that call themselves 6.8mm, .270, .277; same thing with .284" projectiles used in cartridges that call themselves 7mm and .280.
Not just diameter, the bullet itself is identical. The cartridge is longer with more powder in a .357, which makes it a good bit more powerful in practice (2 to 3 times as much energy).
The explanation for the caliber discrepancy is halfway interesting:
"Despite its name, the caliber of the .38 Special cartridge is actually .357 inches (36 caliber/9.07 mm), with the ".38" referring to the approximate diameter of the loaded brass case. This came about because the original 38-caliber cartridge, the .38 Short Colt, was designed for use in converted .36-caliber cap-and-ball Navy revolvers, which had untapered cylindrical firing chambers of approximately 0.374-inch (9.5 mm) diameter that required heeled bullets, the exposed portion of which was the same diameter as the cartridge case."
It is more complex. A softer bullet can get wider durong firing. And the barrel can expand slight also. This is why caliber invention isnt as simple as just picking a size.
What was his rank? What was his job? What was his clearance? How did he have access?
The canadians have the info. He was special forces. He was enlisted (not an officer). He was involved, or at least privy to, the planning of the Venezuela thing.
Simple spin-scan but with a rolling airframe. The technique is still used today. It is simple only if one looks at individual components. The total package is a different beast.
New york's rats arent just anout trash. NYC also has an oldschool combined sewer system, the type where stormwater and sewage share one pipe. Those big air-filled tunnels are the rat/ningaturtle transport infrastructure. Newer cities with separated sewer and stormwater systems dont have nearly as much a problem.
That, and design tolerances. A fancy clutch can be light and strong (think ferarri) but farm machines need to work in the dirt/rust and so need larger tolerances. So heavier springs and bigger .... Bigger everything. A slipping clutch in a Ferrari is annoying. A slipping clutch on a tractor means a missed harvest.
Plus mechanical release mechanisms of heavier machinery were often designed in a way that the clutch snaps at a certain point (also in order to reduce wear in the clutch).
Also because farm machines usually need max torque fast to break loose from static friction. You want a clutch to bite hard when pulling things through mud.
The tor project seeks this bypass this by keeping such things standardized across users, even down to reported screen size. And there is nothing stopping the browser from fibbing as most settings dong matter all that much (ie UK v Canadian v American English).
This is a bad idea though, because any newly discovered means to get even a single data point results in being able to ID every tor user. I'd be better to have every tor browser always generate a random fingerprint so that even if the unexpected happens people will never get anything but random results.
> to have every tor browser always generate a random fingerprint
Browsers do not "generate" fingerprints. They expose data that can be used to fingerprint users. You cannot "randomize" this; even if you were to return random values for, say, user screen size, with various visual side effects, it would just be another signal to fingerprint: "Oh, your browser is returning random values? Must be a Tor browser user".
> it would just be another signal to fingerprint: "Oh, your browser is returning random values? Must be a Tor browser user".
That's perfectly fine! As long as they can't tell which tor user you are they can't track your browsing activity or associate it to any one tor user. That's the goal. Currently tor browser sticks out like a sore thumb by trying to appear identical no matter who uses it, which is fragile because any one data point unaccounted for unmasks everyone.
I saw George Bush at a tractor factory. He asked what the most important tractor innovation was. No hesitation whatsoever ... air conditioning. AC and a radio, and backup cameras ... there is a place for reasonable electronics.
> have a minute to plug in? Still sufficient to get from 10 to 35 percent state of charge.
Scaling that to something the size of an EV pack will require one massive cable/connector. Call it 5kw/h in 1/60 hours, thats 3000kw, at 700v thats still roughly 4000 amps. (Please correct my head math.) Charging one car could suck up more power than an entire neighbourhood. Say four or five chargers operating at once ... every roadside charging station will need its own electrical substation.
What's nice there, though, is that the total amount of _energy_ needed at a charging station is roughly fixed(), regardless of how fast you charge the cars. So if you're provisioned for the needed total energy inflow, you can to a reasonable degree compensate for having a more bursty high-rate charging load by having some amount of local energy storage as a buffer.
() - Assuming you provision for the highest-traffic-volume day. Ignoring potential induced demand of making it a little easier to drive, which I suspect is pretty bounded - people need pee and stretch breaks anyway.
For numbers, just follow traffic at a busy gas station. Roughly 100 vehicles per hour is typical. So imagine having to charge 100 Teslas per hour, or just over one telsa per minute. That is still an insane amount of power.
As others have noted, urban gas stations are likely to be far less busy in an EV world due to the ease of distributed charging -- home, work, destination, etc.;
But I think you raise a good model for long-haul. I think of the pennsylvania turnpike gas stations as a worst-case situation: They serve a somewhat captive audience, many of whom are traveling so far they need a mid-trip fillup. So something like 80kWh/minute _does_ seem like what you'd have to do for those specific stations, and that's an average rate of 4.8MW, at least during prime time.
You can probably get away with half of that if you use local storage as use is much lower at night. But let's not - let's see what it takes to do 4.8MW.
The answer is: You don't need a substation. You DO need on-site transformers and switchgear from 12kV primary service. But to put it in perspective, 4MW is like a tiny datacenter or really big (new york size) office building. So it's not really too crazy to think about an EV per minute going from 0-80kWh in a dedicated area. Compared to huge underground gas tanks, I think the infrastructure part of it is pretty ok.
That's not the math though. Approximately 0% of those vehicles at the busy gas station ever fuel up at home. Most of those EV fuel up most of the time at home or at a "Destination Charger" at places other than a roadside DC Super-Fast charger.
I see figures given that around 80% of EV charging is done at home (1). That doesn't mean that the other 20% has to be super-fast though, it will be less than that.
Only people with houses get to charge at home. All the non-rich who don't own houses are stuck with commercial chargers. It will be the reality for so so many people.
1) Do you dispute the 80% at home figure, and if so, on what basis?
2) Are you claiming that all "not at home" commercial charging is "busy gas station" style fast charging while waiting, and if so, on what basis?
Applying gas station capacity math to EVS as if they are like for like will give wrong answers. Your point about access to charge at home is valid but unrelated to that.
Fjord ferries in Norway are up around that sort of charge rate, but for 30 mins instead of 5. That kind of battery charging performance is pure marketing until our local LV supply network is uplifted!
Like others have pointed, you have made a mistake in your computation. The currents that are required are only of hundreds of amps and the latest chargers can provide up to 1000 A.
Also like others have said, it does not matter how fast you charge a car, the total energy consumption is the same, so fast chargers do not require changes in the power supply of a charging station.
The fast chargers that enable this full charging in a few minutes have their own internal batteries, to enable them to pull only the average power from the electrical grid, not the peak power.
The new fast chargers that can achieve the times reported in TFA use a somewhat higher voltage than the older chargers, of 1000 V, to reduce the current.
Ya, i missed a 0, but chargers with batteries are irrelevant for charging stations by a highway like a modern gas station. They have a constant flow of vehicles. There will be no time for a buffer battery when the next customer is maybe 45 seconds behind the last.
A buffer battery may have a place for a home charger, but a constant-use commerical charger is a very different thing. Or think of a rental car stand at an airport, or a truck/buss depot. They will have a vehicle arriving every minute and every hour wasted charging is an hour less rental time.
A charging station must be supplied with a power determined by the number of cars it must charge during a given time interval, e.g. a day or an hour.
It does not matter if it charges 30 cars per hour by having 3 chargers that charge in 6 minutes (including connection/disconnection times) or by having 15 chargers that charge in 30 minutes.
So it is not the charging speed that matters, but the amount of electric vehicles that want to use a charging station.
The charging speed matters only for the car owners, as it determines the time they must spend at the charging station.
Normally, a charger that is 10 times faster is not 10 times more expensive, so faster chargers should also benefit the charging station owners, because they would need to invest less for servicing a given amount of traffic, by buying less chargers.
The faster the chargers the more cars can be charged per hour. Commercial vendors for "drive through" (as opposed to parked) will want the fastest chargers.
Given the political climate re science and life, a website run for lawyers might be the safe place to publish. The idea of the US government (via nasa) looking for life elsewhere than earth rubs certain people the wrong way, people with political power.
Because artists generally own thier material (with exceptions at the very high end) whereas professional coders have generally abandoned ownership by seeding it as "work product" to thier employers. Copy my drawings and you steal from me, a person. Copy a bit of code or a texture pack from a game and you steal from whatever private equity owns that game studio. Private equity doesnt have feelings to hurt.
> Because artists generally own thier material (with exceptions at the very high end)
This has not been generally true IME. It follows the same pattern as code quite often.
When you pay an artist for their work, many times you also acquire copyright for it. For example if you hire someone to build you a company logo, or art for your website, etc the paying company owns it, not the artist.
In-house/employee artists are much more common than indies, and they also don't own their own output unless there's a very special deal in place.
That is a rarified high end, commissioned artists hired for a paticular task. The vast majority of artists do art without tasking and sell copies, a situation where no copyright moves. I have a Bateman print on my wall. I own the print, not the image. Bateman has not licensed anything to anyone, just selling a physical copy. So scraping his work into AI land is more damaging to him than to a coder who has already signed away most copy/use rights via a FOSS license.
> The vast majority of artists do art without tasking and sell copies, a situation where no copyright moves.
I suspect we may have different definitions of what constitutes an "artist". I include digital art in my definition, and your statement above definitely isn't true for that. Are you just talking about painters/sketchers/etc who are doing it by hand?
If so, limiting the definition to that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially given that AI isn't replacing those gigs. If somebody already creates analog art, I don't see AI as being that much of a change for them
Artist is everyone who creates copyrighted works. You, me, everyone with a camera. Everyone with a guitar who records. Digital art or paintbrushes, lines of code or lines in the next harry potter novel, it is legally all the same. The artist/creator gets total copyright, then either licenses those rights away or sells copies.
I even have rights over that pervious paragraph. It aint worth much but if someone wanted to monitize it i would have rights i could assert.
Heh, nice, your definition is even more broad than mine! Ok going by your definition (which I think is quite reasonable), I think we're close to agreement. Appreciate the discussion
Arent't the models trained on open source code though? In which case OpenAI et al should be following the licenses of the code on which they are trained.
Yup, but contributors to OSS have generally given away thier rights by contributing to the project per the license. So stealing from OS isnt as bad as stealing material still totally owned by an individual, such as a drawing scraped from a personal website.
From a common FOSS contributor license...
>>permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions...
... As opposed to a visual artist who has signed away zero rights prior to thier work being scraped for AI training. FOSS contributors can quibble about conditions but they have agreed to bulk sharing whereas visual artists have not.
No, contributors to FOSS generally do not give away their rights. They contribute to the project with the expectation that their contributions will be distributed under its license, yes, but individual contributors still hold copyright over their contributions. That's why relicensing an existing FOSS project is such a headache (widely held to require every major contributor to sign off on it), and why many major corporate-backed “FOSS” projects require contributors to sign a “contributor license agreement” (CLA) which typically reassigns copyright to the corporate project owner so they can rugpull the license whenever they want.
Stealing from FOSS is awful, because it completely violates the social contract under which that code was shared.
You're still mixing up contributor license agreements with the kind of arrangements where the copyright is actually transferred and assigned "away" from the creator to another copyright holder (generally a copyright assignment agreement). This is far less common than CLAs.
I don't know what you mean by a rugpull exactly, but of course in theory you can grant/obtain very extensive rights under a CLA as well, including eg the permission to relicense your contributions under whatever terms the licensee prefers. CLAs are a great way to centralize the IPR in an open source project for practical purposes like license enforcement, but in case the CLA terms allow it, the central governing entity could also obtain the right to switch the license even to a, say, commercial one. (Such terms would usually be a red flag for contributors though.) And in any case, that kind of CLA wouldn't still close off the code already released under the previous open-source license, and neither would it prevent you from licensing your own contributions under terms of your choice.
The whole point of software licenses is that the copyright holder DOESN'T change. The author retains the rights, and LICENSES them. So, in fact, no rights are given away, they are licensed.
It is still that person creation.
Not sure about American law, but AFAIR in my country you can't remove the author from creative work (like source code), you can move the financial beneficiary of that code, but that's it.
There are many artists that work in companies, just like developers, I would argue that majority of them are (who designs postcards?)
Um... No. An american 22 can be very slightly smaller. American-invented calibers are measured to the depth of the grooves in a rifled barrel. The rest of the world measures to the flat parts between the grooves. So no, it is not obvious how wide a bullet is.
And beware the plural. If someone (usually a salty navy person) says that a gun is "50 calibers" he means something completely different than a "50 caliber".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliber
reply