Well, no program can accurately predict how you are going to use your laptop in the next hours. The best you can do is sample a given reference period and assume it'll be the same but you have already noted the problem with that.
I'd recommend you monitor total power draw while using your laptop. It's inversely proportiaonal to battery life: If you could reach 10h at 5W, you'd only reach 5h at 10W, 2.5h at 20W and so on; you can think of it as a metric for battery drain.
Sorry, I kinda missed your reply as it quoted the same source as the other one. Here's what I said to that: https://lemmy.ml/comment/1611213
it seems pretty likely that EV batteries will see a second life after their first life in the EV
Why do you think that? In order for that to happen, this form of recycling must be significantly more economical than a new battery (which I doubt it currently is) because auto makers won't recycle out of the goodness of their hearts, that's for certain.
I haven't seen any data pointing to BEV batteries being actually recycled to a significant degree any time soon. I'd love to be proven wrong on that but I have my doubts.
I have seen some pretty bad numbers usually from fossil fuel powered publications against EVs. Usually they’ll take the absolute worst case scenarios for an EV “Imagine all your power is coming from coal that’s being transmitted 6000 miles and from 1000 year old plants with 5% efficiency. See, EVs are just as dirty as ICE!”
See the paper linked in my other reply. It assumes the 2020 power mix in Germany which is quite terrible (only 55% low-emission) but not nearly as terrible as the US (40% low-emission according to your link). I could see the US getting closer to the 2020 DE power mix within the next decade or so though, so those numbers should be pretty representative of the future US. As mentioned in the other reply, the paper also contains an estimation for 2030 DE power mix.
Note that the article concludes that BEVs are not the future of transport but not that we should therefore use ICEs. In its conclusion it basically says that BEVs offer a good improvement over the status quo but we should really really have fewer cars instead. The focus of future transport should therefore lie on viable alternatives to cars such as walkable cities, cycling and public transport.
And why would you want that disabled besides not requiring it?
media.peerconnection.enabledit disable WebRTC.
Why would you want that? Doesn't that block you from using basically any online call?
I have my default Download dir set to /tmp anyways, which practically also makes the browser do that I believe.
browser.tabs.insertAfterCurrent: True
I use this too. Great feature for tab hoarding keyboard warriors like me. Use Alt/Cmd + 9 to jump to the last tab.
dom.popup_maximum: 100
What does that do?
browser.download.improvements_to_download_panel: False
Why?
Note that you can use Ctrl/Cmd + [/] to navigate the tab history.
What do browser.tabs.tabmanager.enabled and media.peerconnection.enabled do?
If only we had a technology that efficiently transports large amounts of people/goods using electricity 100 years ago...
The carbon cost of the EV (especially the battery) compared to a gasoline vehicle is overcome within 1 to 5 years. That’s when it breaks even.
Oh so that's what you were trying to say, I get it now.
It's entirely besides the point though because this is about absolute cost. It doesn't much matter when a BEV breaks even with an ICE car. Those are numbers a car dealer would woo buyers into buying their new "all-electric super BIO lightning green future CARBON NEUTRAL*** super-turbo if-you-buy-this-car-you-are-REALLY-doing-something-for-the-environment" SUV.
At the end of the day, a BEV still produces 70% of the emissions over its lifetime (assuming equal usage). You can't change that fact with break-even points or other nice math.
If you don't think that's bad, you don't know just how bad ICE cars are. About as bad as flying if you normalise for distance: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint
"30% better than flying" is good in a way I guess but not at all what will make us carbon neutral. Not even close.
Garuda only exists because the only way to distribute a set of default configuration in regular distros is to create a whole new distro/installer. We don't have that problem in NixOS because all configuration is declarative and composable.
In the NixOS world, Garuda would be a NixOS base config which users would import in their own config and extend with their own configuration. You'd still be using NixOS though.
Lobby for making taxes more complicated /s