Virtual machines don't prevent data exfiltration. Auditing code before using it does. I'm with GP. I was going to use this for personal use until I noticed this problem.
What is a GP? I'm not a lawyer, so I wrote the license as best I could. If decompilation is needed only for auditing, then I have no objections, you can do it.
The critical difference is that this will be 100% powered by natural gas, not a dam and hydraulics system. Natural gas releases CO2 and nitrogen oxides which will exacerbate the Salt Lake valley's smog problems.
Powered 100% by natural gas, which, as a reminder, releases carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
> On Wednesday, Morris said that “one hundred percent of the power will be generated off the Ruby Pipeline,” while explaining the project to the county commissioners
How can burning that much natural gas to power it be worth the downstream health problems? The emissions from this sole power source at this scale is irresponsible. The idea is worse when you consider:
- Salt Lake City air already contains enough pollutants from the nearby oil refineries, mining, and cars
- Utah is building out a massive inland port nearby
- The Great Salt Lake is drying up, and expected to put toxic dust in the air, unless massive restoration efforts are undertaken
- Due to its shape, the Salt Lake Valley is a pit for poisonous air, exacerbated by "the inversion" weather patterns
Burning enough natural gas to outclass the entire state's power production is absolutely insane. They should be required, at a minimum, to utilize some amount of green energy for this monstrosity.
Would exhaust from site of the proposed power plant / data center flow to the Weber/Davis/Salt Lake Wasatch front areas that have the bad inversions?
Or is this far enough north and out of the way enough that it would not necessarily contribute to winter air inversion pollution?
I know that generating that much co2 in and of itself is bad. But I'm just trying to confirm if the concern of it adding substantially to inversion air quality is also valid
Several Garmin watches last for weeks (24 days full charge, actual 1-2 weeks with heavy gps and fitness tracking), and I struggle to understand why consumers accept anything less. It seems like consumers don't realize what's available.
I think cost is one factor. I have a Vivoactive 4 and I love it but it has a reported battery life of 8 days and I get maybe half that with regular run tracking. I'm guessing the 24 days/1-2 weeks is for a considerably more expensive model.
The Garmin Instinct 2 is around $200 and will last several weeks on a charge even using the GPS regularly. Without GPS use I wouldn't be surprised if it lasted a month.
Given the international presence of WhatsApp, I was almost willing to bet that this would be a big deal, however the features to this plan are really lame. Exclusive stickers and changing app theme for a monthly fee is not what I expected.
I expected a mid-range plan that increases the communication features and maybe also some of these "fun" features. I was certain it would have enabled partnerships with mobile network operators to include add-ons to plans that include WhatsApp premium. This is still possible, but "free WhatsApp stickers" when you pay more per month isn't the power move I was expecting from such a global force.
That said, the low cost of premium is critical because so many people world-wide use WhatsApp because a data-only plan is cheaper than data and cell service. The low price point is amazing.
In hindsight I guess I don't know why I expected more amazing features, but this doesn't seem like the game changer I was expecting and hoping for.
I was surprised by the superficiality of the Plus benefits as well, which led me to submit the article to HN at all. (That is maybe why there is still no official WhatsApp blog post about it.)
I expected something that would increase lock-in. Maybe a more capable version of their AI feature. I'm not sure. There is also AFAIK no success story for monetizing messaging yet, beyond what Telegram is doing.
reply