I have one and my main gripe with it is how large the power brick is. It's practically like carrying a second mini pc; I didn't take this into account when I got it, lesson learned.
considering https://streacom.com/products/nano160-fanless-psu/ stuff like microPSU, miniPSU, and nanoPSU exist, this is unacceptable. I've used these mini PSUs - which are a barrel power jack, a hdd molex power cable, and the N pin ATX plug on a breadboard the rough size of the N pin ATX connector from large PSU - in remote inaccessible locations to do "in box UPS" for vm hypervisors on intel atoms/celerons and the like. Plug this in to the board, wire in a 12v stamped aluminum PSU that takes a battery as backup (used to be like $22 on amazon) and a SLA battery, toss that in one of those "mini desktop" cases - not the elitedesk - like the ones you saw in every office 10 years ago.
anyhow you can get a 12V PSU that does whatever amps (12? 15?) in a pretty small formfactor, and the "additional" stuff the motherboard needs is, as shown above, insignificant. The PSU can be pretty dirty, as in in the US do literal 10:1 winding to get 12V out (i know it'd be slightly different winding amount to account for losses in rectification and lines and whatnot but 10:1 looks nice to the math) and rectify it straight into one of those nanoPSUs. believe me i've seen me do it.
also don't ask to see my laptop DC-DC supply for running straight off a solar panel... it's larger than most NUCs, too. oh wait, you still need a laptop brick, plus the DC-DC. So you gotta DC-DC -> DC-DC -> laptop which -> DC-DC and probably DC-DC again (1.2v/3v3 rail probably clocked off 5v rail, that's what i'd do naively)
those "dashes" in "DC-DC" are doing a lot of heavy lifting
Yeah they look good. Unfortunately from what I've seen they have limited availability outside of the US and EU. I could probably get hold of one but not sure if they'd cover the warranty outside of their sales area.
"not very power efficient" -- definitely some of the most power efficient x86 machines you can find today. Until the latest generation, Ryzen APUs provide better performance with lower power consumption than Intel ones. And you can lower CPU frequency if you want -- even at base frequency, they run fast enough for everyday tasks with fan almost completely quiet. Of course this is oversimplifying things a bit.
The author doesn't get the most common problem with perfectionism. "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Perfectionists often give up entirely, because of some perceived deficiency, instead of powering through to the end.
Of course, keep practicing to get better. Nobody says otherwise. But don't stop practicing just because you can't get it right every time. It's the ALL or NOTHING attitude that's the problem, where getting past failure requires SOMETHING in the pursuit of the ALL.
I've seen a bunch of his interviews now and his message is pretty controlled, actually. It all boils down to: (a) I don't know, wasn't aware, and (b) I messed up / lost focus. These appearances seem to play a therapeutic (instead of legal or financial) role for SBF (bad idea, obviously). Yesterday (12/12) he was still talking about returning in a "senior executive role" to help in the bankruptcy. He is also convinced FTX USA and FTX Japan were fully solvent and that they still have a future. Fascinating.
“If you attract customers and investors by saying that you have good risk management, and then you lose their money, and then you say ‘oh sorry we had bad risk management,’ that is not a defense against fraud charges! That is a confession!”
Wouldn't it be more meaningful to normalize these by student population? UT Austin has like 50k students to 6k at Dartmouth. Normalized, you would have .06 startups per student at Dartmouth and .01 at Texas. Many of the smaller elite schools would rise way up the ranking.
any risk assets losing a ton of value would minimize the wealth effect but a lot of crypto holders were hoarding their coins and not spending so maybe not that much
True, but the financial incentives of many (most?) companies doesn't align with public benefits (see pollution, plastics, diet etc.) Why is social media singled out in our demands for them to act morally good, instead of just profitable?
I don't believe FB's algos truly maximize profit. I think they are short sited.
Imagine a food company did metrics that showed the most popular food was hamburgers, so they kept optimizing and optimizing trying to serve nothing but hamburgers. It arguably wouldn't work and they'd be giving up tons of market share and $$$$$$
FB (and Twitter) seem to be trying to optimize where they believe everyone wants the same thing. Unfortunately for them, when myself and lots of others try their services we find it's shoveling stuff at us we don't want. Instead of driving our engagement it drives us away.
There is tons of content I'd like to see on Twitter but every time I check it, now down to about once a month, they shovel so much shit I'm absolutely uninterested in at me that I just remember why I don't look and I leave. If they'd let me opt out of their recommendations my engagement would go way up and over time I'd follow or and more people. Instead they just drive me away.
The same is true for FB though in different ways. They try to fill my newsfeed with stuff I'm not interested in hoping to get me to spend more time. Instead it just prompted me to delete the mobile app and only use the website on desktop since some extension helps me filter their crap out. My usage without the mobile app is probably 25% what it was and falling. Entirely their fault for removing choice and assuming everyone wants the same thing.
The question, as always, is who watches the watchmen? We saw what happened with broadcast and telecom regulation for phone and radio/tv in the USA. ABC, CBS, and NBC held a virtual monopoly until cable news 60 years later. AT&T/Ma Bell did likewise. It was horrible and arguably retarded innovation and diversity of viewpoints for many years.
