As I said,

You haven't been following A.I. closely have you? Because it's being used in many high value applications and exceeding the current human experts in those fields.

Even in it's current dumb state, combined with robots, the current A.I. can replace about 60% of human beings and that includes some fields that require a masters degree or doctorate to get a job.

Most manual labor jobs are easy to replace (stocker, shelving, janitorial services, landscaping, simple assembly, etc. etc. etc)
And A.I. is already replacing radiologists and other analytical jobs.

I agree with the other guy, if your breakeven is over 9 years, then solar isn't worth it yet.

Get a smaller off grid system for disaster planning and then wait for prices to drop further (and another 40% decline is due within the next 5 years.) Plus the panels are getting smaller for the same power. 10 years ago, a 100w panel was 32sq feet and $750. Last summer, a portable 100w panel was 16 sq feet and $129. A fixed panel was under $100 and also about 12 sq feet. And that's after 10 years of inflation on the price.

You face significant risk of inverter failure over 15 years. Maybe twice. At about 10 years, you would need new batteries.

But you can have a small, non-grid tied system to keep your refrigerator, a fan, a router, a laptop/tv, and a couple lights going. Saving a fridge full of food is both a reduction in misery *and* potentially a $200 to $400 savings so one disaster outage will reduce your payoff period quite a bit (2 to 4 panels are suddenly "free" or 1 battery is suddenly "free").

You haven't been following A.I. closely have you? Because it's being used in many high value applications and exceeding the current human experts in those fields.

Even in it's current dumb state, combined with robots, the current A.I. can replace about 60% of human beings and that includes some fields that require a masters degree or doctorate to get a job.

That's why you combine generation and storage (and note I didn't say "batteries"). That storage can include turning atmospheric co2 into fuel.

But underlying your point is that we simply have too many people. Generating baseline power for the current population is rendering the planet uninhabitable.

Seems to me that focusing on increased efficiency would have huge payoffs. Brains do this with a very tiny amount of electricity so the potential power efficiencies are vast.

Oops... senior moment. Should have said 2024.

Hmm. This is like the old military joke, "Everyone wanting to volunteer for this mission, take a step forward...", and everyone but one poor schmuck takes a step backward.

This sort of seems to cancel most of the good intentions of NN. Or at least it leaves a loophole wide enough to drive at truck through.

And why is a lawyer the one finalizing the divorce order?
Shouldn't that power solely lie with the judge (or the judge's staff)?

Also, it's Türkiye. Because Türkiye saw how well the rebranding worked out for Myanmar and decided it wanted nothing to do with dumb flightless birds from now on.

Seriously... this is the first I've heard of it. At 9:22 pm on 4/15/22.

I think a lot of Linux users will wait a bit to get the bleeding edge from now on...

for the rest of his working life?

I admire him for doing that. He essentially torpedoed his entire career for the sake of doing the right thing.

Thanks!

Then my questions stands: why do teams of scientists chase lunar eclipses around the world at great expense? What's the added value of a real eclipse.

Not really, because I didn't in fact read the article :) My question about the value of eclipses for solar observation is tangentially related to the satellite thing, which doesn't really interest me at all.

I understand that, by sheer coincidence, the moon has the right size and is currently at the right distance to mask the just enough of the sun and let only photons from the sun's upper atmosphere and corona through, making their observation easier.

But why is the moon needed? Why are even clever sun-blocking satellites needed? Do sun-blocking things need to be placed far away to observe the corona? Couldn't a beer coaster placed a few feet away from the telescope serve the same purpose?

I'm oversimplifying of course, but you get the idea.

The only reason I can think of is that the farther the sun-blocking object, the less fuzzy its boundary is when the observed through a telescope focused at infinity, making the moon truly useful when observing the thin boundary layer between the sun and the corona. Other than that, I don't see why a beer coaster - or perhaps a larger round object placed a bit farther out - wouldn't do the job.

Perhaps a reader who is better versed in solar observations can shed some light (pun not intended :)