One of the primary FPGA developers a while back said that it's unlikely that the MisterFPGA project will evolve to a much larger FPGA anytime soon because it's an immense gap between the current most complex cores and the systems that come after it.
Not only would it require a much larger FPGA, but writing the cores is becoming way more difficult.
An EV fire is at least 10x worse than a gas vehicle fire. Hybrid fires due to batteries are also misclassified as petrol fires. If you catch a gas fire in time it can be put out with a bit of water or a fire extinguisher. It is also exceedingly rare. An EV fire is not extinguishable, burns several times hotter than any petrol fire, may reignite for weeks or months, and emits shocking volumes of toxic gasses that can injure anyone around. Although the fires can't be extinguished, firefighters still spray hundreds of thousands of liters of water onto battery fires, and that water is polluted and not captured. The whole thing is a nightmare.
The possibility of EVs catching fire all together inside an underground parking garage in a high rise should scare the hell out of anyone sane. Sprinkers will do nothing for that, and all that heat could permanently damage the building. The gasses could suffocate anyone unlucky enough to get stuck down below.
> Observations during the fire indicate that electric vehicles did not contribute to the fire development beyond what is expected from conventional vehicles.
That's very funny. If you have ever seen these EV fires you'll know that they are no joke. Have a look at this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13005001/london-bus... Have you EVER heard of even one petrol-powered bus catching fire, much less multiple in a few weeks in one city?
Insurance companies are drastically raising rates on EVs as more information comes in: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/sep/30/the-quotes-wer... There are many reasons for this, among them the fire hazard. The EVs cost more to fix, of course, but EV batteries can reignite weeks or months after being damaged or catching on fire. So they must also be stored very far apart while being repaired.
This firefighting expert says why these fires are much worse than ICE fires in a thorough presentation at a conference. The audio sucks but the info is gold: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AIXTP-TgPEw
I can't say if this battery replacement costs more than the car because of fire hazards. But I think it was deemed in need of replacement because of possible fire hazards. You be the judge: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/yikes-the-60000-hyundai-i...
If you do a little actual research about lithium battery fires, all of what I'm saying will be very obvious. Idk where your slides came from but they sound very wrong.
I have done research. You have basically hit all the EV bingo misinformation points in one post, and you’ve swallowed it all up apparently. You’re not even distinguishing between the different chemistries.
There are 100k vehicle fires every year in the UK yet the small amount of EV fires make headlines. The petrol and diesel fires are so common you don’t even hear about them.
The fact that you quote the daily mail is the cherry on top - remember when the diesel car burned down Luton airport? The daily mail commenters were calling for the banning of EVs over this.
One ferry company with two ferries banned EVs as an overreaction.
Insurance costs went up for lots of cars, but for EVs it was the high repair costs.
If you do even a little research you will see that EV fires are at least 20x less likely than ICE car fires. The spreaders of misinformation will have you believe that ICE cars are easier to put out - maybe, but why didn’t the TWO fire extinguishers put out the diesel car before it burned down the car park at Luton? What about the car park at Liverpool?
Even with the larger proportion of NMC batteries out there the fires are 20x less likely. LFP batteries are even less likely to go into thermal runaway and they are becoming more prevalent.
Sorry but you're just wrong. We'll see how "safe" these batteries are when they're 10 to 20 years old and still on the road, banged up, subjected to extreme conditions for years, etc.
What exactly is misinformation about insurance rates going parabolic? Or the fact that these fires are self-oxidizing and much hotter than others? Or that ferries in progressive countries don't want to carry them? Or the videos and testimony of an expert at a fire safety conference showing that poison gasses rapidly escape from batteries as they enter the well-known process of thermal runaway? Or a replacement battery for the Hyundai Ioniq costing $60k, more than the MSRP of a brand new one?
>The spreaders of misinformation will have you believe that ICE cars are easier to put out - maybe, but why didn’t the TWO fire extinguishers put out the diesel car before it burned down the car park at Luton? What about the car park at Liverpool?
Many people believe that the media is lying about Luton, and that it was a hybrid battery that caught fire. Regardless of that, isn't it a huge problem if any EV catching fire can cause inextinguishable, toxic fires to spread through a whole car park full of them? I don't know about Liverpool off the top of my head. There are so many terrible parking garage fires now. I never heard of it happening in my whole life until recently, and I'm sure it's because EVs make it dramatically more likely to happen and more damaging.
You ought to consider the incentives behind the media push to assure people that EVs are safe. A large number of politicians behind mandating these death traps would be very embarrassed if the truth was recognized. Instead of waiting for the technology to develop and mature naturally, if that is even possible, they want to force it on us against our will. So forgive me for not giving two shits what any fake stats say on the issue. It will take much more time to settle the question of safety than these jokers are suggesting.
> Li-Ion batteries in electric vehicles pose a significant fire risk, which was further emphasized after the Felicity Ace cargo ship sank almost a year ago.
The Felicity Ace sank and therefore no cause was found. How are they coming to these conclusions? And YOU talk about the media pushing a narrative?
> Statistics tell us that electric vehicles catch fire from time to time, although those fires are far less common than people imagine.
> Only 23 fires were reported in electric vehicles in 2022 making up just 0.004% of Sweden’s fleet of 611,000 EVs.
> In contrast, over the same period, some 3,400 fires we reported in 2022 from Sweden’s 4.4 million petrol and diesel cars representing 0.08% of the fossil car fleet.
> This means that in 2022 a petrol or diesel car in Sweden was around 20 times more likely to catch fire than an electric vehicle.
> Furthermore, fires in electric cars are declining. The MSB says the number of fires in electric cars has been around 20 a year over the last three years, although the number of electric cars over that tie has almost doubled. Presumably, this is due to EV makers improving fire suppressing designs in newer models.
Back to your article:
> It’s unclear what started the fire, but the hundreds of electric cars onboard made it impossible to extinguish.
That’s what they said about The Fremantle Highway when it was on fire, let’s see what happened when they towed it back to port:
> However, between 900 and 1000 cars including the EVs appeared to be in good condition, the chief of salvage company Royal Boskalis Westminster NV, Peter Berdowski, told media last week.
Huh, that’s weird. Looks like the daily mail readers were wrong about that too (surprise!).
The Driven |https://thedriven.io › 2023/08/14Sorry EV haters, big ship fire probably wasn't caused by electric cars
1,000 cars burnt out in a car park fire in 2018. How many EVs do you think were in there 6 years ago? One? Two? It was 99% ICE vehicles along with the one that caused it. I’m sure no toxic fumes were produced as a result of the ICE cars burning lol.
> Many people believe that the media is lying about Luton
Many daily mail readers were saying it was an EV before the fire service even said anything. Here’s what they said:
> The fire service can confirm the initial vehicle involved in the fire was a diesel car.
The video gives an excellent view of those TWO fire extinguishers that failed to put out the fire too. Those ICE vehicles sure are easy to put out!
Facebook and YouTube algorithms are feeding people scary videos and the daily mail and its ilk will happily feed the narrative too. The stats and facts simply don’t back the level of FUD they are amplifying. It’s like refusing to fly over driving over safety fears after looking at a few plane crashes.
> You ought to consider the incentives behind the media push to assure people that EVs are safe.
You ought to do the same, who is pushing the anti-EV narrative? They tried to spread misinformation about range, battery replacement costs (bingo on your post), fires and so much more yet people are realising EVs are viable and cheaper to run. I run my EV for 3p/mile and certain people don’t like that. They are ramping these articles up since sales are still going up ( despite the headlines saying it’s “slowing”). It’s a shame so many people believe it without questioning it.
>Sorry EV haters, big ship fire probably wasn't caused by electric cars
Even if it wasn't caused by EVs somehow, isn't it a huge problem that this cargo is so dangerous in the event of a fire? Ships are very expensive.
>Many daily mail readers were saying it [the Luton tinderbox] was an EV before the fire service even said anything.
Again, the car from Luton may have been a diesel hybrid. If the battery caused the fire or made it far worse, it counts as an EV fire. Here are some thorough discussions. https://youtube.com/watch?v=zk0MWDsueMY and https://youtube.com/watch?v=QZEku6lHfDM . But how dare anyone investigate independently based on video footage? Furthermore, will the same government that is mandating EV adoption be honest about this? Will the fire chief risk defamation and losing his job to say the right thing, knowing that the media will bury him?
>The video gives an excellent view of those TWO fire extinguishers that failed to put out the fire too. Those ICE vehicles sure are easy to put out!
Ok, there's something I have to clear up here. Car fires are not "easy" to put out because there is a lot of flammable stuff on board a car. But it can be put out relatively easily. On the other hand, an EV getting too wet can cause it to catch fire, and even being submerged will not put it out!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=1zaV-JSwzzA
Even the mainstream media admits the truth on rare occasion, mixed with lies like "don't worry, it's SUPER rare!" https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/29/electric-vehicle-fires-are-r... These cars need to be resilient against normal wear and tear, accidents, and also not cause amazingly bad situations in the event of arson.
>They tried to spread misinformation about range, battery replacement costs (bingo on your post), fires and so much more yet people are realising EVs are viable and cheaper to run.
NONE of this is misinformation. The batteries are notoriously expensive and difficult to diagonose. If even Hyundai won't replace its own battery at any dealer for less than the cost of the same car new, that sucks. There are people with an axe to grind for EVs but this is simply a reaction to evil media misinformation.
>Facebook and YouTube algorithms are feeding people scary videos and the daily mail and its ilk will happily feed the narrative too. The stats and facts simply don’t back the level of FUD they are amplifying. It’s like refusing to fly over driving over safety fears after looking at a few plane crashes.
No, I have to go out of my way to find information about this stuff. Youtube and Facebook are beholden to their advertisers and the governments of the world. If this information was easy to get, EV sales would be even more pathetic than they are.
>They are ramping these articles up since sales are still going up ( despite the headlines saying it’s “slowing”).
>I run my EV for 3p/mile and certain people don’t like that.
I don't care if you manage to run it at 3p per mile. If that offsets the extra 10-20k£ and time wasted while charging, go for it. Just as long as I'm not subsidizing it, and your EV does not put me in danger, and nobody is forcing me to get one, and you pay for all the infrastructure that has to be fixed or upgraded due to increased EV usage. That includes: roads, parking garages made to carry double the weight of current ones, fire suppression systems, power plants, and power distribution systems.
I can’t speak to the other things but I looked into the “sales slowing” thing and what’s happening is that we still sell more EV every year than the year before, but the rate of growth has slowed. Despite the misleading title, the article you linked supports this too.
So all this means is that the growth is slowing. Meaning, we’re not on a pure exponential curve but we’re on an s-curve. This is absolutely normal and expected of all new technologies.
Did a famously over-optimistic car company use a pure exponential in their predictions and thus fail to meet predictions? Yes. Are manufacturers of overpriced EVs blaming this instead of their own poor choices? Yes. Are the media trying to make everything much more dramatic than it really is? Also yes.
Point is, EVs are following the absolutely normal trajectory of new tech. They are running low on early adopters and must adapt to the desires of the mainstream buyers - or of they don’t, chinese makers will.
>Point is, EVs are following the absolutely normal trajectory of new tech.
Except that whole mandate thing.
>They are running low on early adopters and must adapt to the desires of the mainstream buyers - or of they don’t, chinese makers will.
The Chinese hate their own EVs too! https://youtube.com/watch?v=DwhnArkZTu8 Unfortunately for them their government is basically forcing them to use those too.
> isn't it a huge problem that this cargo is so dangerous in the event of a fire
There are much more dangerous things shipped all the time? Do they need updated procedures? Maybe? But as we saw at Liverpool and the Fremantle any car fire is dangerous even when EVs are not involved.
> Again, the car from Luton may have been a diesel hybrid.
Again, Nope. Why do we need analysis? We have the fire brigade telling us it was diesel. We have the plate, and the DVLA says it was diesel. Or is this all part of a larger conspiracy?
> But how dare anyone investigate independently based on video footage?
JAQing off is a common tactic when distorting the truth, you should learn to identify it. Watch 2 mins of Tucker and it’s as clear as day.
> I don't care if you manage to run it at 3p per mile. If that offsets the extra 10-20k£ (bingo) and time wasted while charging (bingo), go for it.
I’m on a lease. No upfront cost. My time spent waiting to charge is 0 mins - I actually spend less time waiting than you wait filling up your ICE. It charges while I sleep. If you spend 5 minutes a week filling up that equates to 4 hours a year you are standing at a pump that I don’t have to.
> Just as long as I'm not subsidizing it
You wouldn’t like a world like that. We subsidise innovation all the time. And we would have to remove subsidies for fossil fuels too to be fair, which would be bad news all round since we still need it.
> your EV does not put me in danger, (bingo)
thoroughly debunked I think. No point in going over it again but it does appear on the bingo card.
> and nobody is forcing me to get one, and you pay for all the infrastructure that has to be fixed or upgraded due to increased EV usage. That includes: roads, parking garages made to carry double the weight of current ones(bingo),
Forced? Do what you like. Roads? Good news, they can use the same roads as normal cars!
> On average, an EV weighs 200-300kg more than a petrol car because of the weight of the battery and electric motors.
Let’s look at some car figures to compare: https://www.quora.com/Is-a-Tesla-heavier-than-an-ICE-car-of-...
Tesla Model S - Curb weight 4,647 lbs Audi A8 - Curb weight 4,751 lbs BMW 7 series - Curb weight 4,244 - 4,848 lbs
Tesla Model 3 - Curb weight 3,627 to 4,072 lbs Audi A4 - Curb weight 3,450 to 3,627 lbs BMW 3 series - 3,582 to 4,010 lbs
Looks like you’ll be banning German ICE vehicles from car parks too?
> EV sales would be even more pathetic… EV sales ARE slowing
Slowing… by still rising as expected? The pace of growth is slowing. Just because you are accelerating less doesn’t mean you are slowing. The headlines would have you believe sales are going down.
> LONDON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Global sales of fully electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) rose 31% in 2023, down from 60% growth in 2022, according to market research firm Rho Motion.
> "The pace of growth is slowing, but that's what's expected in growing markets like this," Rho Motion data manager Charles Lester told Reuters. "You can't double every year."
> Lester said global EV sales last year were largely in line with the 30% growth Rho Motion had forecast. For 2024, the firm forecasts global EV sales growth of between 25% and 30%.
> The highest peak electricity demand in the UK in recent years was 62GW in 2002. Since then, the nation’s peak demand has fallen by roughly 16% due to improvements in energy efficiency.
> Even if we all switched to EVs overnight, we estimate demand would only increase by around 10%. So we’d still be using less power as a nation than we did in 2002, and this is well within the range the grid can capably handle.
Not sure if I covered everything but it gets exhausting addressing every point knowing that you’ll just ignore them and pull out more of the bingo points.
I don’t think there is much point in continuing. There is a narrative that you want to believe and that’s that. YouTube has claimed another victim. It’s sad to see since it happened to a few of my friends with Covid misinformation and they are also eating up this EV stuff same as you. Same story playing out again, despite excess mortality proving them wrong about the covid stuff. The worst part is it’s not even the persons fault, they are just impressionable and the algorithms feed it.
Just to be clear, I did not back down from this argument even after we both said we will not continue. You said several things I disagree with and misrepresented my points again. I think you are arguing in bad faith in this whole thread, just to troll me. I would have replied to your final wall of text but there is no reply button under the message. I guess we hit the reply limit. Just as well since we both kinda wanted to stop anyway.
You just had your ass handed to you on a platter several times.
You've proven again and again that you have terrible sources of information, you believe unsubstantiated calculated lies, and you repeat them as truth, and refuse to stop believing and repeating them once you're presented with better more correct information. Why should anyone trust anything you have to say?
Wow you are delusional. You've refused to acknowledge any of my points, authoritative sources, reasonable conjectures, etc. All while assuming this holier than thou snobbish attitude. I am only stopping because this conversation is unproductive, like arguing with a religious zealot, and not because my arguments are wrong. You're an obstinate cuck, repeating marketing lies and political propaganda, with delusious of grandeur. I am ashamed to have wasted my time talking to you because I should have known you were disingenuous from the second reply. Happy trolling, asshole.
>More bingo points, I’ll call them out for people following at home.
You know, you being so pretentious is wearing thin on my patience. You don't know better than me about any of this. You merely believe what the media says, and don't accept that the corporate interests behind it have their own designs for you. And worst of all you think that makes you a genius. I am humble enough to admit I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it.
>JAQing off is a common tactic when distorting the truth, you should learn to identify it. Watch 2 mins of Tucker and it’s as clear as day.
Tucker has his faults but it's clear he has 1000% more integrity than the average journalist in the MSM.
>I’m on a lease. No upfront cost. My time spent waiting to charge is 0 mins - I actually spend less time waiting than you wait filling up your ICE. It charges while I sleep. If you spend 5 minutes a week filling up that equates to 4 hours a year you are standing at a pump that I don’t have to.
I spend more time on the toilet than filling up my tank, and I read in both cases. I can also rapidly refill my tank over and over until I get where I'm going with no anxiety at all. But hey, if the EV works for you and you feel it's worth the price, have at it. Just don't tell me it's for everyone, because it's obviously too inconvenient for that.
On the subject of roads, EVs wear roads down quicker due to increased weight and torque specifications, and regenerative braking. They are not currently being taxed at all to pay for the roads in most places. Gas cars pay for this via gas tax, typically. So you should have to pay too.
>Let’s look at some car figures to compare: https://www.quora.com/Is-a-Tesla-heavier-than-an-ICE-car-of-... Tesla Model S - Curb weight 4,647 lbs Audi A8 - Curb weight 4,751 lbs BMW 7 series - Curb weight 4,244 - 4,848 lbs Tesla Model 3 - Curb weight 3,627 to 4,072 lbs Audi A4 - Curb weight 3,450 to 3,627 lbs BMW 3 series - 3,582 to 4,010 lbs
The difference is EVERY EV is heavy. If you load up a garage full of maximal German cars or EVs, you will likely be exceeding its specifications. If someone comes out with a German car mandate I might be on your side here.
>The headlines would have you believe sales are going down.
>The UK national grid got so fed up with people spreading nonsense about the grid it made a page about it
More government propaganda. If you do the calculations you'll quickly realize that 100% EV adoption would drastically outstrip production in every country it's been considered. Furthermore, the electricity used by EVs is often produced by dead dinosaur juice. So they aren't even green.
>Not sure if I covered everything but it gets exhausting addressing every point knowing that you’ll just ignore them and pull out more of the bingo points.
You didn't actually cover anything except maybe sales. You ignored most of what I said and said "nah uh" to the rest, didn't watch the videos, and came at me with this bingo shit. I could have said the same about every single thing you said but I have the basic common sense to know that insulting a person's intelligence is not a good way to argue.
>I don’t think there is much point in continuing. There is a narrative that you want to believe and that’s that. YouTube has claimed another victim. It’s sad to see since it happened to a few of my friends with Covid misinformation and they are also eating up this EV stuff same as you. Same story playing out again, despite excess mortality proving them wrong about the covid stuff. The worst part is it’s not even the persons fault, they are just impressionable and the algorithms feed it.
I too don't think there's any point continuing. You believe your propaganda so fervently that you will not entertain the possibility that the government and media have their own dishonest motivations, and that is essential to reach any kind of understanding on this issue. If you take anything from this, it should be a sense of humility. You're not the genius you think you are, just because you believe what the TV tells you. God help us if "geniuses" like you get the authority to tell us what we can and can't say.
No point in continuing as you said. If you were capable of admitting you were wrong you could have done it on any number of points so let’s just stop here. You’ve even gone on to the green issue and there plenty of stats out there to show break even after x miles so maybe that’s a good place to start for you without me feeding you the numbers.
It’s sad people buy in to the conspiracy stuff. If you ever find a way out, please let me know as I’d like to help my friends overcome it too.
One thing with the conspiracy angle that absolutely baffles me that maybe you could explain is the whole “agenda” / control narrative that gets pushed, as if EVs are somehow evil and controlling. Can you explain how having a vehicle that you can take completely off-grid, and even fuel yourself by solar panels is controlling? I’ve never understood what the logic could even be here.
>No point in continuing as you said. If you were capable of admitting you were wrong you could have done it on any number of points so let’s just stop here. You’ve even gone on to the green issue and there plenty of stats out there to show break even after x miles so maybe that’s a good place to start for you without me feeding you the numbers.
I was not wrong on even one of these points, except perhaps sales. You couldn't even admit that EV fires are considerably worse than petrol fires despite being provided a video of a car burning underwater.
>It’s sad people buy in to the conspiracy stuff. If you ever find a way out, please let me know as I’d like to help my friends overcome it too.
It's sad people believe everything "authorities" tell them. If you ever start thinking for yourself and doing your own research, let me know as I'd like to help my friends overcome it too.
Seriously, conspiracies are common. You have to be pretty naive to deny that or say it's all in the past. Conspiracies happen all the time. The same people who smear others about "conspiracy theories" only seem to have trouble with admitting the possibility when it suits their imagined vision of reality. They will come up with their own conspiracy theories if it suits them, all the while smearing "conspiracy theorists" who do the exact same in equally plausible situations.
>One thing with the conspiracy angle that absolutely baffles me that maybe you could explain is the whole “agenda” / control narrative that gets pushed, as if EVs are somehow evil and controlling.
They aren't inherently evil, they are just inferior tech that was known and abandoned a hundred years ago. Now it's back with improvements (sort of).
>Can you explain how having a vehicle that you can take completely off-grid, and even fuel yourself by solar panels is controlling? I’ve never understood what the logic could even be here.
Most people can't afford enough solar panels to charge an EV. EVs are expensive and inferior to ICE cars yet they are being mandated. They are loaded with tech that monitors your every action. It's only a matter of time before EVs drain the grid so much that "smart charging" will be mandated to control when you are allowed to charge, and that will be another level of surveillance and control. So I'm going to fight this until all of these problems are addressed.
> I was not wrong on even one of these points, except perhaps sales.
lol, that must be the humility you are talking about. When presented with actual figures and facts you post 25 minute long YouTube videos as a response. Your own research apparently doesn’t even involve understanding the articles you yourself try to use as evidence, just believing some random from YouTube. Same as two of my friends sadly.
> You couldn't even admit that EV fires are considerably worse than petrol fires despite being provided a video of a car burning underwater.
The whole point is the risk is so low. Amplifying it is misinformation. Do I worry about ICE car fires even though they are 20x more likely? No. Do I worry about an EV fire? No. Do I worry about plane crashes? No.
You can tell the people who’ve been influenced in to believing that EVs are bad since they list off the bingo points. They don’t have conviction on any one of them so they just cycle through them as they are shot down. When all else has failed they turn to the “they’re not even green” point as a last resort, and you just point out that they break even within the vehicles lifetime even when powered by mostly COAL and they slink off. Mine is powered by wind by the way: https://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland/
If you just stick to one point then it would be more believable but after it was proven that the risk of fires was lower you had to admit you were wrong or pivot I guess.
One point of cognitive dissonance with the fire angle that I don’t get - you are literally surrounded by batteries of similar types - your phone, laptop, watch and so on. Everyone you know has the same. You must know thousand of people in your extended network. How have you been convinced that there is a significant risk of EV fires when nobody in your network has had any incidents with batteries in these devices? How many of your friends/colleagues etc have had houses burned down as a result of a battery fire from their phone? If you don’t trust these types of batteries, why do you still have them in your house? Why haven’t you made that link?
Another good exercise is to take the number of vehicle fires you have ever seen and divide it by 20. Do you get a number greater than one? Didn’t think so. That should give you the perspective you lack on the risk factor here. It isn’t just about the ferocity of the fire, it’s the risk of fire in the first place. Any vehicle fire is bad news for you and the cars around you. LFP batteries will be even lower than the 20x reduction of risk.
> EVs are expensive and inferior to ICE cars
You are talking for everyone here so you are wrong for some. Let’s explore how it is for me:
* charge exclusively at home, wake up to a fully charged, preheated and defrosted car
* Less waiting than my ICE - no filling up (“reading” in your case)
* Costs 1/4 of the price to run
* Fast, quiet ride
* 900L of storage
No downsides that come to mind. You can get second hand EVs that also get most of these benefits so vehicle cost isn’t really the issue. Are they suitable for everyone? No. Are they viable for many? Yes.
> They are loaded with tech that monitors your every action.
This has nothing to do with the drivetrain.
> "smart charging"
Totally optional. Plug in to an outlet if you like, they can’t track that. Smart charging already exists and allows me to get a special rate in electricity during the night. They can track that all they like as long as I get 0 - 60 in 4 seconds for 3p/mile.
I think there can be good remedies that can reduce the amount of harm. Like gambling is legal where I live, but only card rooms where players play against each other and not a dealer, the house just takes a cut. This way almost all of the money stays in the community.
I like this. It incentivizes the card rooms to provide a good service for the people playing against each other, as opposed to making sure that the house always wins
That's the best case for most of us, but probably not Beeper Mini, since the cat-and-mouse game is their killer competitive advantage. With the barriers gone the space will be totally flooded with options, not to mention just normal Android integration.
That's what this article is about, they're doing the integration work.
An integration with a very popular tool is already available for use. I've personally tested it and did get a 2x speed up. I didn't have to sign-up for anything.
Ugh... I know everyone uses automatic, but I don't really like automatic. Is janky as heck, especially with SDXL, especially if you want to dig into the code and make some manual hacks.
Still, you are right, a native a1111 extensions is quite impressive and exactly the kind of thing Nvidia should pursue.
None of the community Diffusers pipelines I know of have successfully integrated this. VoltaML made a valiant effort and gave up in favor of Facebooks AITemplate (for now).
Worked for me and was easy to integrate, but I use diffusers directly. Not sure what the others are doing, but if you can manage to implement your own pipeline with diffusers, you should be able to integrate the TensorRT pipeline with relative ease.
https://github.com/VoltaML/voltaML seems to have successfully integrated it as far as can tell, it says TensorRT is one of the compatible backends.
VoltaML abandoned it (but may revisit it) and replaced it with AIT.
The problem with a vanilla diffusers pipe is that you miss out on all the cool community augmentations that really make sd shine. Crazy img2img stuff aside, some random examples include:
- Fooocus's implementation preserves 'momentum' when switching from the sdxl base model to the refiner.
- freeu augmentation
- tomesd
- fooocus image style presets, with known styles from the dataset strait from SAI and others.
I'll never figure out why it turned my entire feed into NBA players and teams, I didn't follow a single one. I had to mute dozens of accounts to get it to show me something else. I actually found it kind of entertaining though, they could make the mute button a little more satisfying and then you'd have a game there.
"Prior to controlling for wealth, however, the results indicate that schools with legacy preference policies indeed have much higher alumni giving. These combined results suggest that higher alumni giving at top institutions that employ legacy preferences is not a result of the preference policy exerting influence on alumni giving behavior, but rather that the policy allows elite schools to over-select from their own wealthy alumni. In other words, the preference policy effectively allows elite schools essentially to discriminate based on socioeconomic status by accepting their own wealthy alumni families rather than basing admissions on merit alone."
So it's likely that if fewer people from wealthy families become alumni then alumni giving will go down.
They actually investigate this starting on p. 115 and find no significant short-term decrease based on observations from institutions that ceased consideration of legacy status.
I think the more important point this comment misses is that the family's wealth isn't going anywhere and their kids will still go to college, so it stands to reason that the alumni will still give, they'll just be giving to e.g. Arizona State instead of Harvard, which seems like a net positive to me. If people are being honest about their concern that donations from wealthy alumni are good because they subsidize education, those fears are totally allayed.
"Moreover, any loss in alumni giving at the elite institutions would presumably be at least partially, if not fully, offset by additional giving to alternative institutions where parents of wealthy students might donate as an alternative, and the wealthy students themselves would become alumni. "
I think that paper over-indexes on exactly that argument - that having a relative attend the school is just a proxy for wealth, so they would give just as much anyway if they went to a different school. It doesn't stand to reason at all that the donations will be transferred to whatever other school their kid attends, donations like this are not fungible and do not scale linearly - if everyone in your family for five generations has gone to Harvard, and your kid goes to Arizona State, you aren't suddenly going to build a family tradition of loving Arizona State. You're more likely to simply dilute the strength of the family-college connection and not donate at all, or donate a perfunctory amount and put the rest into the opera you attend these days. I didn't look up the authors of this study, but they certainly didn't bother to mention any familiarity with the field of fundraising, which isn't as straightforward as they make it sound. Even if the strength of connection was the same, do public schools have the same skills and desire to request donations as Harvard does?
To test that hypothesis: they should check the Arizona State alumni to see if the number of relatives who attended Harvard is just as good a predictor of donations to Arizona State, because it's equally as strong a proxy for wealth when you attend Arizona State as when you attend Harvard. My bet is that it's a very weak predictor!
