It has nothing to do with tap water, they provided false information. It is pulling cold water from the lake, running it through heat exchangers throughout the system, then the cold liquid at each system is used to cool the buildings, etc. The slightly warmer water goes back into the lake, not into the drinking water system.
It is not used for drinking water, and the link you shared also doesn't mention that, but it is an interesting system that should be used in more places.
There are plenty of pay-to-win games, but LoL is not one of them. LoL has cosmetics, and pay-to-progress, but there's nothing you can buy that will give you an advantage in-game over people who play for free.
Unlocking new characters with RMT is not pay-to-win, because all the characters are obtainable for free without requiring unreasonable effort. You're not forced to get them from random lootboxes like Gacha games, and having every character doesn't give you an appreciable advantage except at perhaps the highest level of play.
You and I clearly have a different definition of pay to win. If I start the game on a new account, and don't have access to the same champions as my enemy from game 1 unless I spend money, then the game is pay to win. Period. The fact that I could pay money, in that moment, to win, means the game is pay to win.
Edit: Further, here is an article[1] breaking down how long it would take to unlock all champions without paying money. 9.5 years playing 1 game/day. It's absurd to pretend that isn't "pay to win". By that definition, Clash of Clans isn't pay to win either, because technically you could grind the game for 100 years without paying for anything and get really far.
I would heavily disagree. LoL now practically throws champions and skins at you now with some of their currency systems. I think the other thing is that you don't need all the champions unlocked to be good. You would probably do better by choosing a set couple of champs and getting good at those. Yes, meta's change, but that is on top of good mechanics. LoL is a lot of things, but I would strongly argue against pay to win.
LoL is a game that rewards learning deep, not wide. You won't win just because you have access to many champions. You will lose, because you don't know how to play those champions, and will never learn how, because you are always starting over with a new one. Counterpicking and tier lists are lies that scrubs tell themselves to feel better about their lack of basic skills. You need 1 champion you can play perfectly without error, and a couple backups in case you don't get to play that 1 champion.
At 1 game a day, it will take you far longer than 9.5 years to learn to play every champion in the game, so it is irrelevant how long it would take to get all of them. You could play more than 300 hours on a single character before it would benefit you to add a second one.
But you're not paying to win. You're just paying to have a different experience. In fact, when you start your best shot at winning is with the champions they give you, since they're the easiest. League is better described as pay to lose if anything.
League doesn't feel pay to win at all to me, yeah you do have to play or pay to unlock champions but they are not necessarily better champions in most cases (for new players at least).
You do not have to pay for champions, you can unlock them for free using easily-obtainable Blue Essence. Paying to unlock champions is pay-to-progress, because it gets you caught up to everyone else faster, but doesn't give you a competitive advantage.
You say progress, but it’s kind of both an endless treadmill and you’re weaker usually by lack of options;
When I used to play LoL, like 5-7 years ago, I was playing a rate of like 3-4 hours daily, which barely scraped by the amount of essence needed to buy the next releases champion, let alone the runes system they had introduced at the time (don’t know if it’s still around) which had a fairly dramatic impact on the early game especially for specific characters.
That is, while technically the game could be played purely on free tier and eliminate any competitive advantage… it requires a lot of effort to keep up. Not nearly as bad things like FarmVille used to pull, but definitely enough to say that ponying up cash is eventually needed.
And having more options available to you (both characters and runesets or whatever they do now) is definitely an advantage, and a significant one at that
You don't need options. It's best to play around 3 champions for your main position, and 1 or 2 for the other 4 positions. That means you want around 11 champions in your pool. More than that is too difficult to improve with. Let's round that up to 16 champions and give a bit more flexibility and experimentation. This is all you really need, and you will get it very quickly. By the time the meta changes, or you've played it enough to consider changing direction, you'll have more champions unlocked.
The best champions for new players are the ones you start with though. By the time you're ready for the other ones you've earned enough in game money to buy them.
You can get some for free. You certainly might be attached to a particular one and want to buy it, but the game is balanced enough that you can easily win with a champion that is easy to get.
I had a lot of luck with Sona, for instance, who I got for free right away.
(Sometimes I think it would be fun to play League again but I can't stand the thought of being tied up for 45 minutes)
> If their property taxes had risen with the rate of the area that they bought a house in as we grew up, we would have been unable to continue living there and forced to leave. The same thing goes with my grandparents.
We're ensuring stability for the older generation, at the expense of a younger generation who couldn't possibly afford the same neighbourhood they grew up in.
Those with millions in real estate equity can use that equity and financial engineering to defer the property tax increases until their death.
The object is not a point mass at the end of the arm, it's a line. Different parts of the line are moving at different relative velocities & accelerations relative to the centre of rotation, and thus when released the rocket not going to go straight.
The longer the centrifuge arm relative to the length of the projectile, the less of an issue this is. We're already talking about an extremely long centrifuge arm.
Attach the payload at two points in a narrow V, equidistant from the center of mass. In the instant before release, fire pistons that slightly extend the upper arm and retract the lower arm, applying the exact amount of force you pre-calculated was needed to counteract the differences in rotation between those two points. Release while this (hopefully uniform) force is still being applied.
Yeah, you're jolting the hell out of your payload, but that's peanuts compared to what it's about to experience anyway.
GP has a point: consider the limiting case of an extremely long payload on an extremely short centrifuge arm. The payload is basically rotating around its own center of mass already, before release. Put your left index finger on the middle of your right arm, rotate the whole thing, and release -- you'll intuitively see that your right arm must keep rotating.
But see my other response above -- this does not seem like one of the bigger issues when the centrifuge arm is much longer than the payload. And we already know this launch system will only ever work for small, non-human, durable payloads.
>GP has a point: consider the limiting case of an extremely long payload on an extremely short centrifuge arm. The payload is basically rotating around its own center of mass already, before release.
But isn't the payload rotating around its own center of mass because the centripetal force acting on the "front" of the payload is not parallel with the centripetal force acting on the "rear" of the payload? As soon as you cease to apply the centripetal force (i.e. release the projectile) you're no longer going to generate any torque.
Imagine the payload being held by ropes on the back and on the front and then both ropes releasing exactly as its center of mass passes through horizontal.
If you have higher capacity batteries, you're carrying around extra weight you're not using.
The long range model 3 has a 480kg battery. Unless there's a massive revolutionary discovery in battery technology, for 10 times the range, you're going to need to carry (and accelerate) 10 times more mass every time you stop and go.
I am a massive BEV fanboy - but I don't see 5000 mile EVs happening anytime soon, if ever. The current energy densities are already ~200 Wh/kg. We can go max to 700Wh/kg. So at most we will have 1000 - 1500 miles of range.
These are pretty hard physical constraints that no amount of research will solve.
When a central authority is in charge of adding transactions to the blockchain, ie: DMV issuing licences, what's the advantage of blockchain over a standard database?
As long as it's done on a public blockchain, validation becomes possible without needing to contact the DMV itself to provide that validation. For example, if you have a California driver's license and I (as a Nevadan) want to verify its validity (say, because I'm running a bar and you don't look 21+), I could check whatever public blockchain to which California posts its ID NFTs, compare that to some reference on the physical ID you're showing me, and make sure the data (namely: name, DOB, etc. - or perhaps a hash of it) matches up; currently that would require either talking to the DMV directly or using some third-party service that does so on my behalf. This becomes even more useful when dealing with international identification, since that tends to involve even more red tape with current systems.
Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be a single central authority adding transactions; a whole bunch of DMVs could very well post to the same blockchain and only trust the validity of ID tokens issued by one another (i.e. with some out-of-band method to associate keys with actual DMVs, much like PGP's "web of trust" concept). This could even pave the way to things like drivers' licenses being partially or fully decentralized, with independent issuing authorities trusting one another based on some external certification process (e.g. "the California DMV has audited Foo Bar Licensing, Inc. and verified that it issues licenses in compliance with the California Vehicle Code, and therefore recognizes FBL-issued licenses as valid").
Or just skip the extra complexity and have it all handled by a central authority?
Yes, you can use a blockchain to implement it how you describe, but I still don't buy that it has any real advantages. Also, who would run the blockchain?
> a whole bunch of DMVs could very well post to the same blockchain and only trust the validity of ID tokens issued by one another
> with independent issuing authorities trusting one another
If they are the only ones who can issue tokens and they have to trust each other anyway, why does it need to be a blockchain anyway instead of some shared database? Or if you want to keep it distributed, a peer-to-peer distributed hash table or other peer-to-peer database of ID tokens that only the DMV's have write access to. No need for a blockchain.
> if you have a California driver's license and I (as a Nevadan) want to verify its validity
If all the states share a blockchain, then they could just as easily share a database and web interface that you can look up. If they don't share a blockchain, then I don't see how its any different from each having their own system. I mean, even if its a blockchain, how well it works is then up to each state and if there's a centrally mandated blockchain they should be using, then there could also be a centrally mandated database they could be using. It just moves the goal posts around, it doen't in itself solve it. The person checking (bar staff in your example) still need a website or app that they can input the data to derive the hash (as not to leak personal data) and check the hash against the blockchain, this could just as easily work against a central or state database and how well it works, in either case, is still very much dependent on each state.
It seems overly complicated to build this on or as a blockchain.
> Or just skip the extra complexity and have it all handled by a central authority?
Then every agency would have to trust some central authority. Maybe doable for interstate queries (with the associated federal bloat, but that's hardly anything new), but once you go international that becomes a lot harder.
> Also, who would run the blockchain?
Who runs Bitcoin? Ethereum? Cardano? Dogecoin?
> If they are the only ones who can issue tokens and they have to trust each other anyway, why does it need to be a blockchain anyway instead of some shared database?
The amount of trust required for "I'm reasonably sure this agency issued this driver's license" is far lower than the trust required for "I'm okay with this agency having control over my agency's records".
> Or if you want to keep it distributed, a peer-to-peer distributed hash table or other peer-to-peer database of ID tokens that only the DMV's have write access to.
A.k.a. a blockchain. You don't even need to restrict write access; DMVs can readily ignore transactions by non-DMV entities.
> If all the states share a blockchain, then they could just as easily share a database and web interface that you can look up.
That ain't anywhere near as easy, both politically and technically. This is already something they struggle do to, and distributed ledgers make that struggle entirely unnecessary.
> if there's a centrally mandated blockchain they should be using
There wouldn't need to be a mandate. States are perfectly capable of making agreements with one another, and could opt into a public blockchain at their leisure. CCW reciprocity is a good example of this; states have on their own come to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states, and a blockchain would be a natural fit for recording and authenticating said permits under that dynamic.
Even assuming the need for a mandate, it's a hell of a lot easier for the federal government to say "hey, all states need to use this public blockchain per this standard" than for the federal government to roll out a whole central database that's scalable enough to handle queries nationwide and say "hey, all states need to use this central database".
> The person checking (bar staff in your example) still need a website or app that they can input the data to derive the hash (as not to leak personal data) and check the hash against the blockchain, this could just as easily work against a central or state database
Yes, and that would - again - require either:
1. a central authority that each state's agency trusts to be the record of truth, or:
2. 50 separate databases with 50 separate APIs.
A public blockchain absolves the need for either; agencies can maintain their licensing data autonomously (and, for that matter, data pertaining to those licenses; e.g. recording traffic citations, additional endorsements, etc., even for licenses issued by other agencies) without needing to deal with all that infrastructure.
> Then every agency would have to trust some central authority.
They already have to do that! The central authority has to issue the licenses in the first place. Unless you are suggesting some absurd, decentralized driver's license issuing? Even that is begging the question though, as there has to be some centralized process to decide who is allowed to issue driver's licenses.
> A.k.a. a blockchain. You don't even need to restrict write access; DMVs can readily ignore transactions by non-DMV entities.
Alright, you are really stretching the definition of blockchain. Like, lets say someone just mirrors the database. So there is a web interface, and someone else copied the whole thing down.
Does that now count as a "blockchain" lol? Having more that 1 copies, of a mysql database, is a blockchain now?
> The central authority has to issue the licenses in the first place.
The US federal government is not at all involved in issuing state drivers' licenses, last I checked. Nor is some international agency at all involved in issuing drivers' licenses within any given country. That's what I'm getting at with "central authority" - specifically, a central authority external to the issuer and/or validator.
> Like, lets say someone just mirrors the database. So there is a web interface, and someone else copied the whole thing down.
Is that person going to continually copy it down? What about data from other agencies? How many people are going to be using your web interface?
What I'm getting at there is that this all seems like an awful lot of work compared to just, you know, including some data in a transaction on any ol' existing blockchain (even Bitcoin or Dogecoin or what have you is good enough for this, let alone something that actually supports NFTs like Ethereum or Cardano) and using any ol' blockchain client/explorer to lookup whatever transaction got printed on the ID card.
> Is that person going to continually copy it down? What about data from other agencies? How many people are going to be using your web interface?
> What I'm getting at there is that this all seems like an awful lot of work compared
They are literally the same thing.
The definition of what a "Blockchain" is has stretched so much, that having 1 mirror of a database would now fit people's definition of what a Blockchain is.
Once we get rid of proof of work, and transactions, the only thing we are left with is "a database which has mirrors".
> Once we get rid of proof of work, and transactions
Neither of which I suggested getting rid of above (though to be clear, proof of stake and proof of burn both exist). Transactions are especially handy when you move beyond merely recording the drivers' licenses themselves and actually start recording things like, say, traffic tickets or new endorsements or what have you - and that handiness is significantly improved further when agencies are sharing a single public blockchain instead of trying to maintain umpteen different internal databases explicitly tracking each other.
Even taking your assumption that a blockchain and a database mirror are "literally the same thing", you're still missing the key difference: that the former gives you the benefits of the latter (or at least the ones relevant to this context) with significantly less effort. It's similar in comparison to, say, using IPFS v. mirroring an FTP server; yes, you can create a bunch of FTP mirrors, and reinvent a poorly-specified ad-hoc substitute for half of IPFS, but it'd be a heck of a lot easier and more robust to... just use IPFS.
Allow me to use your example if I want to explain the main advantage of Blockchain derivative technology. Most of people seem to mix up Blockchain and Bitcoin, and think that Blockchain is equivalent to Bitcoin.
Oh, I agree. See my other comment on this page, I said the exact thing you did! Most cases where blockchain is usable, alternatives are still simpler, unless you actually need it to be distributed and zero trust, blockchain probably doesn't make sense.
I was just pointing out how it can be done or how it might make sense, if you needed it for something where blockchain did actually make sense, but in the case of drivers licenses, I don't think it does.
A EV is a much simpler device than a ICE - it's a battery and an electric motor, it's much simpler than mechanical power. Gone are oil pumps, transmissions, etc.
On top of all this, you can now route power through electrical wires, rather than needing an accessory belt to distribute mechanical power to the A/C, oil pump, power steering etc.
The electric car's tech advances are mostly in the battery technology (and vapourware "Level 5 automation in 2019"). Tesla will have a unique differentiator in battery tech and production, but it's not crazy to retool an existing ICE manufacturer to EVs.
Sandy Munroe did a disassembly of an EV motor oil pump just a few days ago. (In fairness, he also notes that one manufacturer has done away with this oil pump, and uses the heat pump instead.) Also, some EVs also have transmissions.
Walmart and Amazon raising wages allows them to exercise their huge scale to further crush their competitors.
With their huge efficiencies of scale and deep cash reserves, they are better able to offer higher wages than competitors. During the pandemic, both Walmart and Amazon have seen huge growth. They can continue this growth post-pandemic by squeezing their competitors on wages, and eventually emerging with less competitors.
Amazon/Walmart are capable of raising wages to add more/retain employees. Other smaller business aren't able to adjust as quickly, thus the big box stores take on way more workers. If everyone raised wages at the same time (a la minimum wage increase or otherwise), then Amazon nor Walmart would look like that much of a better place to work, eliminating the "boo they're using their huge scale to further crush their competitors."
It isn't hard to start a new business. There are a ton off niches that Walmart and Amazon don't server well. Find one and serve it, then use profits to expand into the much larger (though lower margin!) areas that Walmart or Amazon serve. Good luck - it is not easy to run a business.
lol it’s not hard to start in tech with no regulation no capital or overhead. Real businesses are hard to start and live and die by the cost of financing
If Amazon or Walmart is part of your plan you need a better plan. Try selling oil well drilling supplies in oil country (I have family doing this, and they have cornered thus niche, so don't try that exactly, but it is the type of thing. They make it because they have in stock the special parts needes for that niche and Walmart won't)
This isn't "over reach of federal government" - it's ensuring that the citizens of anyone who wants to be part of a certain association have certain basic rights.
> In order to send representatives to the European parliment, the EU requires that representatives be elected in fair elections
And the US Constitution requires that its member states have a republican (small r) form of government.
> Part of being a member state of the EU requires having access to some sort of public healthcare system
First of all, that's not even true; the only requirement is that the member states accept the European Health Insurance Card regardless of how the healthcare is financed (publicly or privately). The Netherlands, for instance, gets its healthcare primarily through private health insurance. An EU-like approach to healthcare in the US would be for the Federal government to establish a common standard that can apply across disparate health insurance systems that are implemented, funded, and administered by the States, but that's not really what the D party is selling (as far as I know).
