• 0 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 5th, 2023

help-circle
  • COASTER1921@lemmy.mltoProgrammer Humor@programming.devNaming is hard
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    New outlook is less functional but much better UI design (it’s just outlook web access after all). Outlook hasn’t changed in forever because so many corporate high ups use it and think they know how it works. They always respond to emails that are already answered because they didn’t see the newer reply in their inbox. I suspect this resistance is why it’s a totally separate program to the old outlook. Yes, there are settings to group threads in outlook, but the interface is still pretty unintuitive and the vast majority of these users don’t change their default settings anyway. In my experience the terrible defaults create more problems than outlook solves. And the server syncing can be really slow at times. Personally, I’m very happy that MS is finally showing some interest to modernize outlook, the more people who use it the easier my job will get.

    Also ya the name is stupid. Teams (New) gets me the most. Idk who possibly thought this naming scheme was a good idea.



  • It’s still not a lot of energy though. Some rough napkin math for how far this would get you is below:

    Typical medium size cargo ships in the Panama Canal travel around 25 knots burning 63000 gallons per day of fuel with 5000TEU of cargo. That’s roughly 600mi/63000gal or 1142miles per ton gallon. That Silverado EV somehow weighs 4 tons (totally safe to be driving at highway speeds), so this is the equivalent of roughly 285.5mpg per Silverado. The Silverado is 67mpge on its own, so the ship is just over 4x as efficient (and slower which is ignored here but would impact the vehicle efficiency).

    So using the Silverado’s 450 mile optimal range we can say it has at most an optimistic 7 gallons equivalent fuel in its 200kWh battery. 50 MWH would be enough for a theoretical 1750 gallons equivalent if efficiency were the same. But for the efficiency difference this corresponds to a 4.2x improvement to 7350 gallons equivalent. Therefore this is enough to run that typical ship above for 2.8 hours. So with 65000 tons of cargo in the above ship to do a 200 mile route this ship would need roughly 3x as large a battery. More likely it will just carry ~1/3 the cargo or have charging stops en-route.

    The 19.4km/h top speed of this ship suggests they’re well aware of the extremely limited range this will have for its size and it sounds like the Shanghai to Nanjing route will be pushing it’s limits despite being less than 200 miles.



  • Ya I used to always tip cash but stopped all food delivery entirely ~5yr ago. By turning food delivery into a live auction everybody loses except the company running the service. Drivers compete against eachother accepting the absolute lowest fees while customers need to play the game of choosing an appropriate tip for a prompt delivery while also ideally not shorting the employee who ultimately accepts the order. But since to accept the order they need to compete with other drivers it’s naturally going to lead to them accepting lower prices, allowing the delivery company to pocket the difference. Not a good system.