跟TED演讲学英文:Innovating to zero! by Bill Gates

news2025/1/12 6:18:42

Innovating to zero!

在这里插入图片描述

Link: https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_innovating_to_zero

Speaker: Bill Gates

Date: February 2010

文章目录

  • Innovating to zero!
    • Introduction
    • Vocabulary
    • Transcript
    • Q&A with Chris Anderson
    • Summary
    • 后记

Introduction

At TED2010, Bill Gates unveils his vision for the world’s energy future, describing the need for “miracles” to avoid planetary catastrophe and explaining why he’s backing a dramatically different type of nuclear reactor. The necessary goal? Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050.

Vocabulary

dioxide: 美 [daɪˈɑːksaɪd] 二氧化物

carbon dioxide:二氧化碳

foot:英尺

We’re a twelve-foot-high truck trying to get under a ten-foot bridge, and we can just sort of squeeze under. 我们是一辆12英尺高的卡车,正试图从一座10英尺高的桥下通过,我们只能勉强挤过去。

mosquito:美 [məˈskiːtoʊ] 蚊子 mosquitoes,复数

firefly:萤火虫,fireflies,复数

gimmicky:美 ['ɡɪmɪkɪ] 耍花招的;诡计的;骗人的

tide:美 [taɪd] 潮汐,潮水,趋势

geothermal:美 [ˌdʒiːoʊˈθɜːrml] 地热的

biofuel:美 [ˈbaɪoʊˌfju(ə)l] 生物燃料

I’ve left out tide, geothermal, fusion, biofuels. 我忽略了潮汐、地热、核聚变和生物燃料。

intermittent:美 [ˌɪntərˈmɪtənt] 间歇的;断断续续的;不持续的;不稳定的

Also, these are intermittent sources. 此外,这些都是间歇性的来源。

uranium :美 [jʊˈreɪniəm] 铀

stun:震惊,目瞪口呆

You’d be stunned at the ridiculously low levels of spending on these innovative approaches. 你会对这些创新方法的低得离谱的支出水平感到震惊。

pilot:美 [ˈpaɪlət] 飞行员;试验性的;试点性的;小规模的

pilot reactor:实验性反应堆

shtick:美 [ʃtɪk] 噱头;把戏;才艺

Transcript

I’m going to talk today
about energy and climate.

And that might seem a bit surprising,

because my full-time work
at the foundation

is mostly about vaccines and seeds,

about the things that we need
to invent and deliver

to help the poorest two billion
live better lives.

But energy and climate
are extremely important to these people;

in fact, more important
than to anyone else on the planet.

The climate getting worse means
that many years, their crops won’t grow:

there will be too much rain,
not enough rain;

things will change in ways their fragile
environment simply can’t support.

And that leads to starvation, it leads
to uncertainty, it leads to unrest.

So, the climate changes
will be terrible for them.

Also, the price of energy
is very important to them.

In fact, if you could pick just one thing

to lower the price of to reduce poverty,
by far you would pick energy.

Now, the price of energy
has come down over time.

Really advanced civilization
is based on advances in energy.

The coal revolution fueled
the Industrial Revolution,

and, even in the 1900s,
we’ve seen a very rapid decline

in the price of electricity,

and that’s why we have
refrigerators, air-conditioning;

we can make modern materials
and do so many things.

And so, we’re in a wonderful situation
with electricity in the rich world.

But as we make it cheaper –
and let’s say,

let’s go for making it twice as cheap –

we need to meet a new constraint,

and that constraint has to do with CO2.

CO2 is warming the planet,

and the equation on CO2
is actually a very straightforward one.

If you sum up the CO2 that gets emitted,

that leads to a temperature increase,

and that temperature increase
leads to some very negative effects:

the effects on the weather;
perhaps worse, the indirect effects,

in that the natural ecosystems
can’t adjust to these rapid changes,

and so you get ecosystem collapses.

Now, the exact amount of how you map
from a certain increase of CO2

to what temperature will be,
and where the positive feedbacks are –

there’s some uncertainty there,
but not very much.

And there’s certainly uncertainty
about how bad those effects will be,

but they will be extremely bad.

I asked the top scientists
on this several times:

Do we really have to get
down to near zero?

Can’t we just cut it in half or a quarter?

And the answer is,
until we get near to zero,

the temperature will continue to rise.

And so that’s a big challenge.

It’s very different than saying,

"We’re a twelve-foot-high truck
trying to get under a ten-foot bridge,

and we can just sort of squeeze under."

This is something that has to get to zero.

Now, we put out a lot
of carbon dioxide every year –

over 26 billion tons.

For each American, it’s about 20 tons.

For people in poor countries,
it’s less than one ton.

It’s an average of about five tons
for everyone on the planet.

And somehow, we have to make changes
that will bring that down to zero.

It’s been constantly going up.

It’s only various economic changes
that have even flattened it at all,

so we have to go
from rapidly rising to falling,

and falling all the way to zero.

This equation has four factors,
a little bit of multiplication.

So you’ve got a thing on the left,
CO2, that you want to get to zero,

and that’s going to be based
on the number of people,

the services each person
is using on average,

the energy, on average, for each service,

and the CO2 being put out
per unit of energy.

在这里插入图片描述

So let’s look at each one of these,

and see how we can get this down to zero.

Probably, one of these numbers is going
to have to get pretty near to zero.

(Laughter)

That’s back from high school algebra.

But let’s take a look.

First, we’ve got population.

The world today has 6.8 billion people.

That’s headed up to about nine billion.

Now, if we do a really great job
on new vaccines,

health care, reproductive health services,

we could lower that by,
perhaps, 10 or 15 percent.

But there, we see
an increase of about 1.3.

The second factor is the services we use.

This encompasses everything:

the food we eat, clothing, TV, heating.

These are very good things.

Getting rid of poverty means
providing these services

to almost everyone on the planet.

And it’s a great thing
for this number to go up.

In the rich world, perhaps
the top one billion,

we probably could cut back and use less,

but every year, this number,
on average, is going to go up,

and so, overall,
that will more than double

the services delivered per person.

Here we have a very basic service:

Do you have lighting in your house
to be able to read your homework?

And, in fact, these kids don’t,

so they’re going out and reading
their schoolwork

under the street lamps.

Now, efficiency, “E,”
the energy for each service –

here, finally we have some good news.

We have something that’s not going up.

Through various inventions
and new ways of doing lighting,

through different types of cars,
different ways of building buildings –

there are a lot of services

where you can bring the energy
for that service down

quite substantially.

Some individual services
even bring it down by 90 percent.

There are other services,
like how we make fertilizer,

or how we do air transport,

where the rooms for improvement
are far, far less.

And so overall, if we’re optimistic,
we may get a reduction

of a factor of three to even,
perhaps, a factor of six.

But for these first three factors now,

we’ve gone from 26 billion
to, at best, maybe 13 billion tons,

and that just won’t cut it.

So let’s look at this fourth factor –
this is going to be a key one –

and this is the amount of CO2
put out per each unit of energy.

So the question is:
Can you actually get that to zero?

If you burn coal, no.

If you burn natural gas, no.

Almost every way
we make electricity today,

except for the emerging renewables
and nuclear, puts out CO2.

And so, what we’re going to have
to do at a global scale,

is create a new system.

So we need energy miracles.

Now, when I use the term “miracle,”
I don’t mean something that’s impossible.

The microprocessor is a miracle.

The personal computer is a miracle.

The Internet and its services
are a miracle.

So the people here have participated
in the creation of many miracles.

Usually, we don’t have a deadline

where you have to get the miracle
by a certain date.

Usually, you just kind of stand by,
and some come along, some don’t.

This is a case where we actually
have to drive at full speed

and get a miracle
in a pretty tight timeline.

Now, I thought, "How could
I really capture this?

Is there some kind
of natural illustration,

some demonstration that would grab
people’s imagination here?"

I thought back to a year ago
when I brought mosquitoes,

and somehow people enjoyed that.

(Laughter)

It really got them involved
in the idea of, you know,

there are people who live with mosquitoes.

With energy, all I could
come up with is this.

I decided that releasing fireflies

would be my contribution
to the environment here this year.

So here we have some natural fireflies.

I’m told they don’t bite; in fact,
they might not even leave that jar.

(Laughter)

Now, there’s all sorts of gimmicky
solutions like that one,

but they don’t really add up to much.

We need solutions, either one or several,

that have unbelievable scale
and unbelievable reliability.

And although there’s many directions
that people are seeking,

I really only see five
that can achieve the big numbers.

在这里插入图片描述

I’ve left out tide,
geothermal, fusion, biofuels.

Those may make some contribution,

and if they can do better
than I expect, so much the better.

But my key point here
is that we’re going to have to work on

each of these five,

and we can’t give up any of them
because they look daunting,

because they all have
significant challenges.

Let’s look first at burning fossil fuels,

either burning coal
or burning natural gas.

What you need to do there seems
like it might be simple, but it’s not.

And that’s to take all the CO2,

after you’ve burned it,
going out the flue,

pressurize it, create a liquid,
put it somewhere,

and hope it stays there.

Now, we have some pilot things

that do this at the 60 to 80
percent level.

But getting up to that full percentage –
that will be very tricky.

And agreeing on where these CO2
quantities should be put will be hard,

but the toughest one here
is this long-term issue:

Who’s going to be sure?

Who’s going to guarantee

something that is literally
billions of times larger

than any type of waste you think of
in terms of nuclear or other things?

This is a lot of volume.

So that’s a tough one.

Next would be nuclear.

It also has three big problems:

cost, particularly in highly
regulated countries, is high;

the issue of safety, really feeling good
about nothing could go wrong,

that, even though you have
these human operators,

the fuel doesn’t get used for weapons.

And then what do you do with the waste?

Although it’s not very large,
there are a lot of concerns about that.

People need to feel good about it.

So three very tough problems
that might be solvable,

and so, should be worked on.

The last three of the five,
I’ve grouped together.

These are what people often refer to
as the renewable sources.

And they actually – although it’s great
they don’t require fuel –

they have some disadvantages.

One is that the density of energy
gathered in these technologies

is dramatically less than a power plant.

This is energy farming,

so you’re talking about many square miles,
thousands of times more area

than you think of
as a normal energy plant.

Also, these are intermittent sources.

The sun doesn’t shine all day,
it doesn’t shine every day,

and likewise, the wind
doesn’t blow all the time.

And so, if you depend on these sources,

you have to have some way
of getting the energy

during those time periods
that it’s not available.

So we’ve got big cost challenges here.

We have transmission challenges;

for example, say this energy source
is outside your country,

you not only need the technology,

but you have to deal with the risk
of the energy coming from elsewhere.

And, finally, this storage problem.

To dimensionalize this,

I went through and looked
at all the types of batteries made –

for cars, for computers, for phones,
for flashlights, for everything –

and compared that to the amount
of electrical energy the world uses.

What I found is that all
the batteries we make now

could store less than 10 minutes
of all the energy.

And so, in fact, we need
a big breakthrough here,

something that’s going to be
a factor of 100 better

than the approaches we have now.

It’s not impossible,
but it’s not a very easy thing.

Now, this shows up when you try
to get the intermittent source

to be above, say, 20 to 30 percent
of what you’re using.

If you’re counting on it for 100 percent,

you need an incredible miracle battery.

Now, how are we going to go forward
on this – what’s the right approach?

Is it a Manhattan Project?
What’s the thing that can get us there?

Well, we need lots of companies
working on this – hundreds.

In each of these five paths,
we need at least a hundred people.

A lot of them, you’ll look at
and say, “They’re crazy.”

That’s good.

And, I think, here in the TED group,

we have many people
who are already pursuing this.

Bill Gross has several companies,
including one called eSolar

that has some great
solar thermal technologies.

Vinod Khosla is investing
in dozens of companies

that are doing great things
and have interesting possibilities,

and I’m trying to help back that.

Nathan Myhrvold and I
actually are backing a company

that, perhaps surprisingly,
is actually taking the nuclear approach.

There are some innovations
in nuclear: modular, liquid.

Innovation really stopped
in this industry quite some ago,

so the idea that there’s some
good ideas laying around

is not all that surprising.

The idea of TerraPower is that,
instead of burning a part of uranium –

the one percent, which is the U235 –

we decided, “Let’s burn
the 99 percent, the U238.”

It is kind of a crazy idea.

In fact, people had talked
about it for a long time,

but they could never simulate properly
whether it would work or not,

and so it’s through the advent
of modern supercomputers

that now you can simulate
and see that, yes,

with the right materials approach,
this looks like it would work.

And because you’re burning
that 99 percent,

you have greatly improved cost profile.

You actually burn up the waste,
and you can actually use as fuel

all the leftover waste
from today’s reactors.

So instead of worrying about them,
you just take that, it’s a great thing.

It breeds this uranium as it goes along,
so it’s kind of like a candle.

You see it’s a log there, often
referred to as a traveling wave reactor.

In terms of fuel,
this really solves the problem.

I’ve got a picture here
of a place in Kentucky.

This is the leftover, the 99 percent,

where they’ve taken out
the part they burn now,

so it’s called depleted uranium.

That would power the US
for hundreds of years.

And simply by filtering seawater
in an inexpensive process,

you’d have enough fuel for the entire
lifetime of the rest of the planet.

So, you know, it’s got lots
of challenges ahead,

but it is an example of the many
hundreds and hundreds of ideas

that we need to move forward.

So let’s think: How should
we measure ourselves?

What should our report card look like?

Well, let’s go out to where
we really need to get,

and then look at the intermediate.

For 2050, you’ve heard many people
talk about this 80 percent reduction.

That really is very important,
that we get there.

And that 20 percent will be used up
by things going on in poor countries –

still some agriculture; hopefully,
we will have cleaned up forestry, cement.

So, to get to that 80 percent,

the developed countries,
including countries like China,

will have had to switch
their electricity generation altogether.

The other grade is: Are we deploying
this zero-emission technology,

have we deployed it
in all the developed countries

and are in the process
of getting it elsewhere?

That’s super important.

That’s a key element
of making that report card.

Backing up from there, what should
the 2020 report card look like?

在这里插入图片描述

Well, again, it should have
the two elements.

We should go through these efficiency
measures to start getting reductions:

The less we emit,
the less that sum will be of CO2,

and therefore, the less the temperature.

But in some ways, the grade we get there,

doing things that don’t get us
all the way to the big reductions,

is only equally, or maybe even slightly
less, important than the other,

which is the piece of innovation
on these breakthroughs.

These breakthroughs,
we need to move those at full speed,

and we can measure that
in terms of companies,

pilot projects, regulatory things
that have been changed.

There’s a lot of great books
that have been written about this.

The Al Gore book, “Our Choice,”

and the David MacKay book,
“Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air.”

They really go through it
and create a framework

that this can be discussed broadly,

because we need broad backing for this.

There’s a lot that has to come together.

So this is a wish.

It’s a very concrete wish
that we invent this technology.

If you gave me only one wish
for the next 50 years –

I could pick who’s president,

I could pick a vaccine,
which is something I love,

or I could pick that this thing

that’s half the cost with no CO2
gets invented –

this is the wish I would pick.

This is the one with the greatest impact.

If we don’t get this wish,

the division between the people
who think short term and long term

will be terrible,

between the US and China,
between poor countries and rich,

and most of all,

the lives of those two billion
will be far worse.

So what do we have to do?

What am I appealing to you
to step forward and drive?

We need to go for more research funding.

When countries get together
in places like Copenhagen,

they shouldn’t just discuss the CO2.

They should discuss
this innovation agenda.

在这里插入图片描述

You’d be stunned at the ridiculously
low levels of spending

on these innovative approaches.

We do need the market incentives –
CO2 tax, cap and trade –

something that gets
that price signal out there.

We need to get the message out.

We need to have this dialogue
be a more rational,

more understandable dialogue,

including the steps
that the government takes.

This is an important wish,
but it is one I think we can achieve.

Thank you.

(Applause)

Q&A with Chris Anderson

Chris Anderson: Thank you. Thank you.

(Applause)

CA: Thank you.

So to understand more about TerraPower.

I mean, first of all, can you give a sense
of what scale of investment this is?

Bill Gates: To actually do the software,
buy the supercomputer,

hire all the great scientists,
which we’ve done,

that’s only tens of millions.

And even once we test our materials out
in a Russian reactor

to make sure our materials work properly,

then you’ll only be up
in the hundreds of millions.

The tough thing
is building the pilot reactor –

finding the several billion,
finding the regulator, the location

that will actually build
the first one of these.

Once you get the first one built,
if it works as advertised,

then it’s just clear as day,

because the economics,
the energy density, are so different

than nuclear as we know it.

CA: So to understand it right,

this involves building
deep into the ground,

almost like a vertical column
of nuclear fuel, of this spent uranium,

and then the process starts
at the top and kind of works down?

BG: That’s right.

Today, you’re always
refueling the reactor,

so you have lots of people and lots
of controls that can go wrong,

where you’re opening it up
and moving things in and out –

that’s not good.

So if you have very –

(Laughter)

very cheap fuel
that you can put 60 years in –

just think of it as a log –

put it down and not have
those same complexities.

And it just sits there and burns
for the 60 years, and then it’s done.

CA: It’s a nuclear power plant
that is its own waste disposal solution.

BG: Yeah; what happens with the waste,

you can let it sit there – there’s a lot
less waste under this approach –

then you can actually take that

and put it into another one and burn that.

And we start out, actually,
by taking the waste that exists today

that’s sitting in these cooling pools
or dry-casking by reactors –

that’s our fuel to begin with.

So the thing that’s been a problem
from those reactors

is actually what gets fed into ours,

and you’re reducing the volume
of the waste quite dramatically

as you’re going through this process.

CA: You’re talking
to different people around the world

about the possibilities.

Where is there most interest
in actually doing something with this?

BG: Well, we haven’t picked
a particular place,

and there’s all these interesting
disclosure rules

about anything that’s called “nuclear.”

So we’ve got a lot of interest.

People from the company
have been in Russia, India, China.

I’ve been back seeing
the secretary of energy here,

talking about how this fits
into the energy agenda.

So I’m optimistic.

The French and Japanese
have done some work.

This is a variant on something
that has been done.

It’s an important advance,
but it’s like a fast reactor,

and a lot of countries have built them,

so anybody who’s done
a fast reactor is a candidate

to be where the first one gets built.

CA: So, in your mind,

timescale and likelihood of actually
taking something like this live?

BG: Well, we need – for one of these
high-scale, electro-generation things

that’s very cheap,

we have 20 years to invent
and then 20 years to deploy.

That’s sort of the deadline

that the environmental models
have shown us that we have to meet.

And TerraPower – if things go well,
which is wishing for a lot –

could easily meet that.

And there are, fortunately
now, dozens of companies –

we need it to be hundreds –

who, likewise, if their science goes well,

if the funding for their pilot
plants goes well,

that they can compete for this.

And it’s best if multiple succeed,

because then you could use
a mix of these things.

We certainly need one to succeed.

CA: In terms of big-scale
possible game changers,

is this the biggest
that you’re aware of out there?

BG: An energy breakthrough
is the most important thing.

It would have been, even
without the environmental constraint,

but the environmental constraint
just makes it so much greater.

In the nuclear space,
there are other innovators.

You know, we don’t know their work
as well as we know this one,

but the modular people,
that’s a different approach.

There’s a liquid-type reactor,
which seems a little hard,

but maybe they say that about us.

And so, there are different ones,

but the beauty of this
is a molecule of uranium

has a million times as much energy
as a molecule of, say, coal.

And so, if you can
deal with the negatives,

which are essentially the radiation,
the footprint and cost,

the potential, in terms of effect
on land and various things,

is almost in a class of its own.

CA: If this doesn’t work, then what?

Do we have to start taking
emergency measures

to try and keep the temperature
of the earth stable?

BG: If you get into that situation,

it’s like if you’ve been overeating,
and you’re about to have a heart attack.

Then where do you go?

You may need heart surgery or something.

There is a line of research
on what’s called geoengineering,

which are various techniques
that would delay the heating

to buy us 20 or 30 years
to get our act together.

Now, that’s just an insurance policy;
you hope you don’t need to do that.

Some people say you shouldn’t even
work on the insurance policy

because it might make you lazy,

that you’ll keep eating because you know
heart surgery will be there to save you.

I’m not sure that’s wise,
given the importance of the problem,

but there’s now
the geoengineering discussion

about: Should that be in the back
pocket in case things happen faster,

or this innovation goes
a lot slower than we expect?

CA: Climate skeptics:

If you had a sentence or two
to say to them,

how might you persuade them
that they’re wrong?

BG: Well, unfortunately,
the skeptics come in different camps.

The ones who make scientific
arguments are very few.

Are they saying there’s negative
feedback effects

that have to do with clouds
that offset things?

There are very, very few things
that they can even say

there’s a chance
in a million of those things.

The main problem we have here –
it’s kind of like with AIDS:

you make the mistake now,
and you pay for it a lot later.

And so, when you have
all sorts of urgent problems,

the idea of taking pain now
that has to do with a gain later,

and a somewhat uncertain pain thing.

In fact, the IPCC report –
that’s not necessarily the worst case,

and there are people in the rich world
who look at IPCC and say,

“OK, that isn’t that big of a deal.”

The fact is it’s that uncertain part
that should move us towards this.

But my dream here is that,

if you can make it economic,
and meet the CO2 constraints,

then the skeptics say,

"OK, I don’t care
that it doesn’t put out CO2,

I kind of wish it did put out CO2.

But I guess I’ll accept it,

because it’s cheaper
than what’s come before."

(Applause)

CA: So that would be your response
to the Bjørn Lomborg argument,

basically if you spend all this energy
trying to solve the CO2 problem,

it’s going to take away
all your other goals

of trying to rid the world
of poverty and malaria and so forth,

it’s a stupid waste
of the Earth’s resources

to put money towards that

when there are better things we can do.

BG: Well, the actual
spending on the R&D piece –

say the US should spend 10 billion a year
more than it is right now –

it’s not that dramatic.

It shouldn’t take away from other things.

The thing you get into big money on,
and reasonable people can disagree,

is when you have something
that’s non-economic

and you’re trying to fund that –

that, to me, mostly is a waste.

Unless you’re very close,

and you’re just funding the learning curve
and it’s going to get very cheap,

I believe we should try more things

that have a potential
to be far less expensive.

If the trade-off you get into is,
“Let’s make energy super expensive,”

then the rich can afford that.

I mean, all of us here could pay
five times as much for our energy

and not change our lifestyle.

The disaster is for that two billion.

And even Lomborg has changed.

His shtick now is, “Why isn’t the R&D
getting more discussed?”

He’s still, because of his earlier stuff,

still associated with the skeptic camp,

but he’s realized
that’s a pretty lonely camp,

and so, he’s making the R&D point.

And so there is a thread of something
that I think is appropriate.

The R&D piece –
it’s crazy how little it’s funded.

CA: Well, Bill, I suspect I speak
on behalf of most people here

to say I really hope your wish comes true.

Thank you so much.

BG: Thank you.

(Applause)

Summary

Bill Gates delivered a speech on the critical importance of addressing energy and climate issues. He emphasized the significant impact of climate change on the world’s poorest populations, highlighting how their livelihoods are directly affected by climate-related challenges such as crop failure and food insecurity. Gates underscored the essential role of energy in poverty alleviation, stating that affordable energy is fundamental to improving living standards, especially for those in impoverished regions.

Gates outlined the urgent need to address carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, citing the necessity of reducing them to zero in order to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change. He explained the straightforward relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperature increase, emphasizing the severity of the consequences if emissions are not curtailed. Gates stressed the importance of achieving zero emissions, emphasizing the need for drastic changes in energy production and consumption practices.

In exploring potential solutions, Gates identified five key pathways, including advancements in renewable energy, nuclear power, and carbon capture and storage. He acknowledged the challenges associated with each approach, such as cost, safety concerns, and scalability. Despite the obstacles, Gates emphasized the importance of pursuing innovation and investing in research and development to drive progress in energy technology. He called for increased collaboration, research funding, and policy incentives to accelerate the transition to sustainable energy sources.

后记

2024年4月30日22点23分完成这篇演讲的学习。

本文来自互联网用户投稿,该文观点仅代表作者本人,不代表本站立场。本站仅提供信息存储空间服务,不拥有所有权,不承担相关法律责任。如若转载,请注明出处:http://www.coloradmin.cn/o/1635702.html

如若内容造成侵权/违法违规/事实不符,请联系多彩编程网进行投诉反馈,一经查实,立即删除!

相关文章

.NET C# ORM 瀚高数据库

SqlSugar ORM SqlSugar 是一款 老牌 .NET开源ORM框架,由果糖大数据科技团队维护和更新 ,开箱即用最易上手的ORM 优点 :【生态丰富】【高性能】【超简单】 【功能全面】 【多库兼容】【适合产品】 【SqlSugar视频教程】 支持 &#xff1a…

判断字符串由几个单词组成(C语言)

一、N-S流程图&#xff1b; 二、运行结果&#xff1b; 三、源代码&#xff1b; # define _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS # include <stdio.h>int main() {//初始化变量值&#xff1b;int world 0;int i 0;char c 0;char string[81] { 0 };int num 0;//提示用户&#xff…

一个docker配置mysql主从服务器

这也就是因为穷&#xff0c;不然谁用一个docker配置主从&#xff0c;哈哈 既然成功了就记录下。过程挺折磨人的。 首先要保证你的电脑安装好了docker 为了保证docker当中主从能正常连网&#xff0c;现在docker里面创建一个网络环境 docker network create --driver bridge mysq…

C++-9

C 1.已知C风格的字符串&#xff0c;完成对字符串通过下标访问时的异常处理机制(越界访问) 2.写一个程序&#xff0c;程序包含两个类&#xff0c;类中实现一个成员函数&#xff0c;MyGetChar(), 类A中每调用一 次&#xff0c;按顺序得到一个数字字符&#xff0c;比如第-次调用得…

社交论坛问答发帖系统源码-java+vue+uniapp开发前后端

源码说明&#xff1a; 前后端分离社交论坛问答发帖BBS源码&#xff0c;社交论坛小程序|H5论坛。 下 载 地 址 &#xff1a; runruncode.com/php/19462.html 该项目是一个使用Java、Vue和Uniapp开发的前后端分离的社交论坛问答发帖/BBS项目。它包括了论坛图文帖、视频、圈子…

新唐的nuc980/nuc972的开发1-环境和源码同步

开发环境安装 1.1更新源 服务器端&#xff1a;可以参考&#xff1a;Linux替换清华源_更改清华源-CSDN博客 下面是桌面端的方法&#xff1a; 打开系统的软件中心&#xff0c;选择自己想要使用的源 更新缓存 1.2安装必须的库 apt-get install patch apt-get install libc6-dev …

SQL提升

1. SQL TOP 子句 TOP 子句用于规定要返回的记录的数目。 对于拥有数千条记录的大型表来说&#xff0c;TOP 子句是非常有用的。 **注释&#xff1a;**并非所有的数据库系统都支持 TOP 子句。 1.1 SQL TOP 语法 SQL Server 的语法&#xff1a; SELECT TOP number|percent c…

C#基础|了解对象在程序中的状态及垃圾回收机制

哈喽&#xff0c;你好啊&#xff0c;我是雷工&#xff01; 本节了解对象的生命周期及对象状态和垃圾回收机制&#xff0c;以下为学习笔记。 1、对象的生命周期 对象在内存中不断地被引用&#xff0c;被释放&#xff0c;形成了类似生命周期的过程。 2、对象在内存中的状态 对…

记一次生产事故的排查和解决

一. 事故概述 春节期间, 生产系统多次出现假死不可用现象, 导致绝大部分业务无法进行. 主要表现现象为接口无法访问. 背景为900W客户表和近实时ES, 以及春节期间疫情导致的普通卖菜场景近似秒杀等. 二. 排查过程 优先排查了info, error, catalina日志, 发现以下异常: 主要的…

一文掌握Vue依赖注入:原理、应用场景以及最佳模块化与单元测试实践,提升代码的可维护性与模块化程度

Vue 中的依赖注入&#xff08;Dependency Injection, DI&#xff09;机制通过 provide 与 inject API&#xff0c;实现了跨组件层级间的数据与服务透明传递&#xff0c;使父组件能够向其任意深度的子孙组件“注入”依赖&#xff0c;而不需要通过层层传递 props 或使用全局状态管…

搭建智能客服机器人设计流程

一、检索型机器人FAQ-Bot 在客服处理的问题中70%都是简单的问答业务&#xff0c;只要找到QA知识库中与用户当前问句语义最相近的标准问句&#xff0c;取出答案给用户就可以了。FAQ-Bot就是处理这类问题的。在没有使用深度学习算法之前&#xff0c;通常采用检索NLP技术处理。 …

如何用智能获客开启新商机?揭秘赢销侠软件的奇效

在当今数字化竞争日益激烈的商业环境中&#xff0c;企业为了生存和发展&#xff0c;必须寻找新的途径以获取潜在客户。智能获客作为一种新型的营销方式&#xff0c;正以其高效、精准的特点改变着传统的市场开拓模式。而在这个过程中&#xff0c;自动获客软件的作用愈发凸显&…

HTML:元素分类

HTML&#xff1a;元素分类 概述块级元素&#xff08;Block-level Elements&#xff09;内联元素&#xff08;Inline Elements&#xff09;替换元素&#xff08;Replaced Elements&#xff09;表单元素&#xff08;Form Elements&#xff09; 概述 HTML&#xff08;HyperText M…

Mysql从入门到精通——Mysql知识点总结(基础篇)

参考视频 黑马程序员 MySQL数据库入门到精通i 题单推荐 入门 进阶 SQL语句类型 DDL:数据定义语言&#xff0c;用来定义数据库对象(数据库&#xff0c;表&#xff0c;字段)DML:数据操作语言&#xff0c;对数据库表中的数据进行增删改DQL:数据查询语言,用来查询数据库中表的…

拓云启航 移动云全网型经销渠道合作伙伴火热招募

2024年4月28日至29日&#xff0c;2024中国移动算力网络大会在苏州召开。28 日下午大会主论坛现场&#xff0c;中国移动发布移动云全新万象算力网络生态合作计划&#xff0c;加速算力网络新质生产力落地。后续&#xff0c;移动云将依托“拓云计划”&#xff0c;招募超万家渠道伙…

JAVA前端快速入门基础_javascript入门(03)

写在前面:本文用于快速学会简易的JS&#xff0c;仅做扫盲和参考作用 本章节主要介绍JS的事件监听 1.什么是事件监听 事件:是指发生在HTML端的事件&#xff0c;主要指以下几种。 1.按钮被点击 2.鼠标移动到元素上 3.按到了键盘 事件监听:当触发了事件时&#xff0c;JS会执行相…

自动驾驶 | 仿真测试-HiL测试全解析

1.HiL 的定义 HiL&#xff08;Hardware-in-the-Loop&#xff09;硬件在环是计算机专业术语&#xff0c;也即是硬件在回路。通过使用 “硬件在环”(HiL) &#xff0c;可以显著降低开发时间和成本。在过去&#xff0c;开发电气机械元件或系统时,使用计算机仿真和实际的实验就已经…

C语言【动态内存】

1.为什么要有动态内存 我们现在掌握的内存开辟方法有&#xff1a; int val 20;//在栈空间开辟4个字节 char str[10]{0};//在栈空间开辟10个字节的连续的空间但是上述的方式有两个点要注意&#xff1a; 1.空间开辟的大小是固定的 2.数组在申明的时候&#xff0c;一定要指定数…

上位机图像处理和嵌入式模块部署(树莓派4b利用驱动实现进程数据共享)

【 声明&#xff1a;版权所有&#xff0c;欢迎转载&#xff0c;请勿用于商业用途。 联系信箱&#xff1a;feixiaoxing 163.com】 前面我们讨论过&#xff0c;目前在linux系统上面有很多办法可以实现多进程数据共享。这里面比如说管道&#xff0c;比如说共享内存&#xff0c;比如…

Electron开发 umi react 应用

Electron 是一个跨平台桌面端的应用框架&#xff0c;electron 底层依赖3 个核心组件 Chromium、Node.js、Electron API&#xff0c;Chromium 是 Chrome 的开源版本&#xff0c;Node.js可以编写后台应用程序&#xff0c;集成 Node.js 到 Electron&#xff0c;使得 Electron 可以…