And, Godwin'd. That's a wrap everyone, have a great evening, see you in the next thread.

In a large number of scenarios, the limiting factor is the skill of the (often easily-intimidated newbie) programmer, not the speed of the resulting program's execution.

In those cases, a "slow" language that is easy to learn and use (e.g. Python) typically produces a better result than a really fast/powerful language that isn't as newbie-friendly. Computers are fast enough these days that for a lot of things, a slow/inefficient program is nevertheless more than adequate to the task at hand.

In particular, I think the ability to run the Python interpreter and enter python code into it interactively is an easy and convenient way for people to experiment and learn how Python works. Compiled languages make that harder to do, as you have to enter all your changes at once, then recompile, rather than being able to type in a single line and get an instant result.

It's not retarded at all; it's a simple fact that each language comes with its own set of design decisions that make some tasks easier and some tasks more difficult. Thinking that all languages are equivalent would be a newbie mistake.

For example, Python, while it is a great high-level language and easy to learn and use, will almost never produce software that runs at the speed of an equivalent compiled C or C++ program. Furthermore, its continuing reliance on a Global Interpreter Lock means that multithreaded Python programs will not utilize multiple cores efficiently for the forseeable future.

Java, OTOH, avoids those problems but using Java means you'll need to include a Java runtime environment and JIT on any platform you deploy on; that makes it inappropriate for many embedded devices or otherwise constrained environments. Also the non-deterministic timing of the built-in garbage collector makes Java a poor fit for real-time programming.

C/C++, finally, can run mostly anywhere, but their low-level nature makes them a bit harder to learn, and a great deal more conducive to shooting yourself in the foot with (if you don't use them correctly).

I'm reminded of this quote:

"The determined Real Programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language." -- Ed Post

Not very cost-efficient upstream of those output wires, though. You could save a good bit of money by skipping the PV panels and harvesting the heat directly instead.

A possible twist on this outcome: before this happens, the price and performance of energy storage (e.g. electric-car style battery packs) improves to the point where it becomes economical for most solar panel owners (or perhaps even the power company) to store any excess electricity that would otherwise be wasted. Dunno if or when it will happen, but it certainly would simplify things.

I'm not so sure about that -- anything with moving parts is liable to wear out and need expensive repairs. I certainly wouldn't expect it to last anywhere near the 20-25 years that the rest of the system will. Given enough space, it's probably cheaper and easier just to buy more fixed panels than to add motorized sun-tracking equipment.

Girls aren't the target audience of a toy like Buzz Lightyear.

And then you've got Darth Vader: the blackest brother in the galaxy. Nubian God.

As the human population approaches the planet's capacity, such authoritarian measures are going to proliferate, if only because the alternative is economic failure and societal collapse.

In a sparsely populated, open system (e.g. the Old West), there are effectively unlimited natural resources, so no formal resource management is necessary. Libertarian/individualist principles work fine there, as what group A does or doesn't do to the environment has limited effect on group B, who (in the worst case) is always free to find a new plot of land to live off of.

In a submarine at sea, at the other extreme, resources are extremely limited, and everybody depends on everyone else to keep the environment stable. Bad actors cannot be tolerated. Therefore, in submarines you will find only very authoritarian social systems, as more permissive structures would tend to get everyone killed in short order.

Population growth moves us steadily away from the "old west / do whatever you want" scenario and towards the "submarine / co-operation is required to stave off disaster" scenario.

Decry it as creeping socialism (or whatever) all you want, but you're looking at a symptom, not the underlying problem.

That's a very good point -- but OTOH if you are worried about that, you also have the option of leaving your Car2Go car "locked" (and thus guaranteed to stay put) while you shop. You'll pay more if you do that, of course, but it's up to you to decide whether you prefer "cheaper" or "guaranteed available".

The point is, non-renewables run out. That's why they are called non-renewable. That means we will be transitioning away from them at some point, whether we like it or not.

Whether we end up transitioning to solar, wind, fission, fusion, or just to shivering-in-the-dark in an open question, but we will be transitioning to something, because once the oil and coal has been burned, it won't be coming back.

Residential power demand grows over time, as more houses are built, and/or people in existing houses start using more power.

When an area's peak power demand surpasses the capacity of the power company's existing power plants, the power company has to build more power plants; otherwise they risk brownouts or blackouts during peak usage periods (e.g. hot summer afternoons when everyone is running the A/C).

Building (and then maintaining) those additional power plants costs the power company money.

On the other hand, if the new houses (and/or some of the existing houses) add solar panels, that reduces the peak power demand, which means that additional peaking plants no longer have to be built, or maintained. That reduces the power company's future costs.

That's why it's not "charity" -- it's a win/win situation for both the consumer and the power company.

Bird kills do happen. The relevant questions to ask would be: (a) how much do wind-farm bird kills effect the bird population, relative to other sources of bird mortality, and (b) how many birds would die in the alternative scenario, where the wind farm is not built?

The answer to (a) is: not very much.

The answer to (b) would of course depend a whole lot on how society chose to produce its energy instead of by from wind. If society continued to burn fossil fuels instead, the likelihood is that climate change would wipe out a lot more birds than windmills ever could. OTOH, if society chose to build nuclear plants or solar plants instead, it's possible that those options would kill fewer birds. As with most hypotheticals, there isn't an easy answer; but pretty much every energy solution (other than energy conservation, which is very much underrated IMO) comes with some environmental cost, and of course bird conservation is only one of many considerations that have to be taken into account.

How much of a support cost did I claim it was? I don't recall putting an actual value on anything. I only pointed out that a benefit exists. Whether that benefit makes the lock-everything-down strategy worth pursuing or not (for a given product) would depend very much on who the product's target-market it is and what the product is used for.