• 187 Posts
  • 5.14K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 4th, 2023

help-circle


  • You can. You can get evaporative coolers (in the US, sometimes called swamp coolers). I have one. They use much less power per unit of cooling than air conditioners, but come with some drawbacks:

    • You can only cool so far (well, you can build multi-stage systems to cool further, but then power efficiency drops off). Air conditioners don’t have such a limitation — throw more power at them, and they’ll make air colder.

    • You must have low humidity, so that the water can evaporate. At 100% relative humidity, they’re totally inoperative. Air conditioners don’t have this requirement.

    • If using them indoors, you have to ventilate to the outside, usually by keeping some windows open, or you’ll just drive humidity up to the Max and then they’ll stop functioning. This does have the benefit of keeping air fresh, having a high turnover, but caps how cool they can make a structure. Air conditions don’t require this.

    • More maintenance. You occasionally need to replace the membrane and put something in the water to kill algae, same as a swimming pool. Don’t do that, and algae will build up and it’ll get a dank smell. Air conditioners just require cleaning or replacing an air filter occasionally, and if you don’t do that, just become less efficient.

    • An evaporative cooler requires a water feed and for forced air, power. Air conditioners only require power.

    • They will exacerbate any humidity problems, like mold.

    There are also some benefits:

    • For direct systems (the simplest and cheapest), where the humidified air blows at you, you get the benefits of a humidifier, like not getting chapped lips or becoming dehydrated easily. In arid and semi-arid environments where evaporative coolers work well, this is pleasant.

    • You can reasonably use them outdoors and in non-sealed environments like a garage. Air conditioners would be really inefficient for this.

    • You can easily throw essential oils in the water to get a scent diffuser.

    • They actually cool the air, rather then just dumping the heat somewhere else, as air conditioners do (which in cities, heats up the area around buildings).

    I understand that there are also some hybrid “evaporative-assisted” air conditioners that have the air conditioner dumping heat into what amounts to an evaporative cooler. That’d get some of the efficiency benefits of an evaporative cooler without the humidity constraints.

    You can find them in the hot, arid American West, where the conditions work well for them.

    https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/evaporative-coolers-work-best-dry-areas-us-area-a



  • but as I said it’s all browser 2D animations

    Right, but there are different ways that it could display it.

    I don’t do much Web dev, but looking at that page in Firefox’s Inspector, it looks like a canvas element is covering the whole thing, so I expect that it’s using HTML5 Canvas.

    Just visually, without benchmarking, it seems smooth to me on Firefox 128.10.0esr at 2560x1440 at 165 Hz (AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX, 7950X3D CPU).

    considers

    When I go to about:support in Firefox, “ACCELERATED_CANVAS2D” is listed as" default" and “available”, which from some skimming online, seems to indicate whether hardware acceleration is available for HTML Canvas. Do you see the same?

    EDIT: Based on:

    https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/dlknks/why_is_firefoxs_gpuhardware_acceleration_still/

    It sounds like WebRender is disabled by default on Firefox on Linux. Some user there is saying that it works fine for him if he switches it on. It sounds like it relates to some sort of 2D hardware acceleration, though I’ve no prior experience with it.

    For me, if I go to about:config in Firefox, gfx.webrender.all is false. It’s smooth here with it false, but maybe I’m just throwing a lot of hardware at the thing. I haven’t read deeply into it, but it might be worth toggling it and reopening Firefox and seeing if the problem disappears for you, as I doubt that it’d cause much harm if it doesn’t work (well, I guess it might crash Firefox or something…) Might also do nothing, as it sounds like all platforms have been using it for some time, and so maybe it’s active regardless of whether this setting is on. <shrugs>




  • AI voice synth is pretty solidly-useful in comparison to, say, video generation from scratch. I think that there are good uses for voice synth — e.g. filling in for an aging actor/actress who can’t do a voice any more, video game mods, procedurally-generated speech, etc — but audiobooks don’t really play to those strengths. I’m a little skeptical that in 2025, it’s at the point where it’s a good drop-in replacement for audiobooks. What I’ve heard still doesn’t have emphasis on par with a human.

    I don’t know what it costs to have a human read an audiobook, but I can’t imagine that it’s that expensive; I doubt that there’s all that much editing involved.

    kagis

    https://www.reddit.com/r/litrpg/comments/1426xav/whats_the_average_narrator_cost/

    So I produced my own audiobooks for my Nova Roma series so I know the exact numbers for you:

    $250 per finished hour for the narrator. Books ranged from about 200k words-270k words, which came out to 22 hours, 20 hours, and 25 hours.

    So books 1-3 cost me $5,500, $5,000, and $6,250. I’m contracted for two more books with my narrator, so I expect to spend another 5k-6k for each of those.

    So for a five book series, each one 200k+ words, the total cost out of pocket for me will be about $27,000 give or take to make the series into audiobooks.

    That’s actually lower than I expected. Like, if a book sells at any kind of volume, it can’t be that hard to make that back.

    EDIT: I can believe that it’s possible to build a speech synth system that does do better, mind — I certainly don’t think that there are any fundamental limitations on this. It’d guess that there’s also room for human-assisted stuff, where you have some system that annotates the text with emphasis markers, and the annotated text gets fed into a speech synth engine trained to convert annotated text to voice. There, someone listens to the output and just tweaks the annotated text where the annotation system doesn’t get it quite right. But I don’t think that we’re really there today yet.







  • but I also like the 108 keyboards and not the small ones (daddy needs his numpad).

    Man, I was glad to drop my numpad. That forces my mouse further off to the right and causes my keyboard not to be centered with my monitor.

    I do have a very few prices of software that use it, and I didn’t want to give those up.

    What I wound up doing was to get a separate, dedicated numpad for the very few pieces of software that I use that require it. Basically, I care about a handful of older roguelike games. I can put it in front of myself just for those rare occasions.

    The numpad was a standby for people who did serious numeric data entry work and spent time to train themselves on the thing. Like, plonking data from paper into a computer. But that isn’t a field that most people need to deal with these days — most data can already be gotten in computer-readable form.

    I do type numbers on some occasions — I write software and do use some statistical software — but it’s invariably mixed with other data, and the time cost of switching between the home row and the numpad is the dominant cost there.

    The fact that a high proportion of PC users today use a laptop, and many of those have no numpad, creates a lot of pressure on software not to rely on it as well.

    I could maybe see a left-handed person who uses a mouse with their left hand not caring as much, since the mouse isn’t a factor.