From what I've seen mentioned on this they are getting high electric bills not because of high generation costs but because of high distribution costs.
So someone is out blaming solar when it's hardly the problem and if it really were the problem the solution is spreading out 7-14kWh batteries on homes with solar.
But instead, we see massive mega battery stations getting funded by State and Federal agencies and being put out in the boonies so expensive distribution lines need to be installed or upgraded. A win for the utilities and even more costs to the consumers.

Home storage using LFP batteries are the way to go for flattening the solar output curve and eliminating the 4-9p high energy usage bump.

LoB

The machine I had was a HeathKit H19. This had it's own OS called HDOS. Not sure what the quality of that was or how it compared to CP/M. However the hardware also had ROM mapped to the first 2K or so (to run the program controlling the front panel display) which made it incompatible with CP/M. I somewhat remember it was already clear that all the good software was only for CP/M and I had the wrong machine and HeathKit screwed up. Anybody else remember these, have any comments on them? It does sound like creating HDOS was not a trivial amout of work, was anything interesting lost with it?

Because, it's not a fuel?
Yes, demand on lithium is increasing as manufacturer of battery-powered devices ramps-up.

But the lithium in a battery powered device is merely a one time inital affair. Once the battery has been built you don't need any more lithium over the life time of the battery. There's no need to constantly pump more lithium into an EV for it to function.

Contrast this with the fossil fuel pipelines.

That's why switching to EV hasn't had an as dramatic effect on Lithium prices as ICE have had on fossil fuel.
Same reason why even if they EV are more complex to build and manufacturing one has larger climate impact than manufacturing an ICE, ICE's constant guzzling of gas overtakes EV's environmental impact after a couple of years (2 to 3 depending on the local energy mix).

(And similar differences of scale also concern nuclear power generation: yes it needs to "burn" a fissile fuel. But it uses so little of that fissile fuel and it amount for such a minute fraction of the overall cost that even insane fluctuations of prices would barely have any noticeable impact on electricity bills)

I've heard there are more slaves now than at any time in history. Of course that might not be true if normalized to a percentage of the work force; but the mere fact that it even still exists is of course awful. We've sanitized slavery by re-naming it as "convict labor" or in this case pushing it overseas and wrapping it in layers to disclaim responsibility.

Task: Recite as many digits of pi as you can.

Me: 3.14159. I know there are ways to get more.

AI: Arbitrary number of digits subject only to some hard-coded constraint, as well as able to tell you about all the algorithms for approximating pi along with their strengths and weaknesses, then run the algorithms for you.

Let's see 29 Watts do that.

Good flick if you want to get a feel for how Pharma sales work.

I'm surprised it hasn't be Pfbanned yet based on who it highlights.

Almost, as today, being an idiot is mandatory and fellow idiots will take you down if you don't agree to their idiotic worldviews.

"Politicized science" is the keyword here. We have the smartest people on the planet deliberately and voluntarily goring their brains out to complete today's uni.

No, ignoring the XY position of windows is a specific design decision by Wayland. They did it on purpose because they think it is a security problem. The idea that the desktop could just look at the requested positions and only ignore bad ones apparently is foreign to them. Instead they made it impossible for an application to store window positions.
They also purposely designed it so it is impossible to work with overlapping windows, by requiring that clicking in a window always raises it,a design that was removed from X10 to make x11. Their arrogance shows no bounds.

Technically speaking the crime of fraud has three elements: (1) A materially false statement; (2) an intent to deceive the recipient; (3) a reliance upon the false statement by the recipient.

So, if you want to lie to people and want to avoid being charged with fraud, it's actually quite simple. You lie by omission. You distract. You prevaricate (dance around the facts). You encourage people to jump on the bandwagon; you lead them to spurious conclusions. It's so easy to lie without making any materially false statements that anyone who does lie that way when people are going to check up on him is a fool.

Not only is this way of lying *legal*, it happens every time a lawyer makes an closing statement to a jury. It's not a problem because there's an opposing counsel who's professionally trained to spot omissions and lapses of logic and to point them out. But if a lawyer introduces a *false statement of fact* to a trial that's a very serious offense, in fact grounds for disbarrment because that can't be fixed by having an alert opponent.

We have similar standards of truthfullness for advertising and politics because in theory there's competition that's supposed to make up for your dishonesty. In practice that doesn't work very well because there is *nobody* involved (like a judge) who cares about people making sound judgments. But still, any brand that relies on materially false statements is a brand you want to avoid because they don't even measure up to the laxest imaginable standards of honesty.

Now investors have lots of money, so they receive a somehat better class of legal protections than consumers or voters do. There are expectations of dilligence and duties to disclose certain things etc. that can get someone selling investments into trouble. But that's still not as bad as committing *fraud*, which is stupid and therefore gets extra severe punishment.

They always rant about Wayland, systemd, Pulse/Pipewire, devops, dkms, quic, zfs, etc.

I used to wonder why they don't just not upgrade their os, but then I realized they are lazy and want somebody else to maintain their old system for them.

I mean, even compiling gentoo with the right use set is too hard for these bellyachers.

Yet the humility never occurs to them that the non-lazy people who actually build distros are embracing the newer technology.

Instead the Old Farts case aspersions and ad-hominems at these hard workers. It's pathetic.

I'm done with their BS and won't help them understand anymore - the arguments are almost universally in bad faith.

Because otherwise they would just not upgrade. I have some Infomagic Slackware CD's from 1993 they might be interested in. Yeah, my first Linux box was over 30 years ago and I competently run all those technologies now. I don't fear change even though understanding new tech takes work and I can't just rest on my laurels.

I'm sure the EVs the Chinese are currently selling in the EU would pass NHSTA certification. Are those the $10K Chinese EVs? Nope, those are absolutely death traps that have no chance of getting certified. However, the ~$30K Chinese EVs, those have a shot of passing NHSTA certification. Honestly, I hope Ford and GM stop being distracted with hybrids and commit, but I think it will take a systemic shock like the Chinese EVs arriving to break the grip of their ICE agenda and parts revenue stream. Same thing happened with fuel efficient Japanese imports in the 80s, the old guard poo pooed them and lost that market to the imports.

Ford and GM have been crowing that consumers don't want EVs. So what harm can possibly come from letting China flood the market with EVs nobody wants? If Ford and GM are right, the Chinese makers will be shooting their own foot. However, I have a feeling Ford and GM are being a little disengenous and the issue might be that people don't want Ford and GM base EVs at $65K a pop.

If I understand your argument properly, you're suggesting that things will be OK with the reefs because "survival of the fittest" will produce a population of corals better adapted to warmer conditions.

Let me first point out is that this isn't really an argument, it's a hypothesis. In fact this is the very question that actual *reef scientists* are raising -- the ability of reefs to survive as an ecosystem under survival pressure. There's no reason to believe reefs will surivive just because fitter organisms will *tend* to reproduce more, populations perish all the time. When it's a keystone species in an ecosystem, that ecosystem collapses. There is no invisible hand here steering things to any preordained conclusion.

So arguing over terminology here is really just an attempt to distract (name calling even more so) from your weak position on whether reefs will survive or not.

However, returning to that irrelevant terminology argument, you are undoubtedly making an evolutionary argument. You may be thinking that natural selection won't produce a new taxonomic *species* for thousands of generations, and you'd be right. However it will produce a new *clade*. When a better-adapted clade emerges due to survival pressures, that is evolution by natural selection. Whether we call that new clade a "species" is purely a human convention adopted and managed to facilitate scientific communication.

You don't have to take my word for any of this. Put it to any working biologist you know.

Oh hell no. Out on the open road, cruise control is a godsend. It's not that I can't maintain speed without it. In fact, on hills I'm better than cruise control. It's about preventing soreness and fatigue. It doesn't distract. Quite the opposite. With auto-throttle you can focus more on other things like critters that might jump out at you. Hit the brake and it's back to normal driving. I'm not a big fan of most self-driving tech; but you can have my cruise control when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

The conservation laws are statistical, at least to a degree. Local apparent violations can be OK, provided the system as a whole absolutely complies.

There's no question that if the claim was as appears that the conservation laws would be violated system-wide, which is a big no-no.

So we need to look for alternative explanations.

The most obvious one is that the results aren't being honestly presented, that there's so much wishful thinking that the researchers are forcing the facts to fit their theory. (A tendency so well known, that it's even been used as the basis for fictional detectives.)

Never trust results that are issued in a PR statement before a paper. But these days, it's increasingly concerning that you can't trust the journals.

The next possibility is an unconsidered source of propulsion. At the top of the atmosphere, there are a few candidates, but whether they'd impart enough energy is unclear to me.

The third possibility is that the rocket imparted more energy than considered, so the initial velocity was incorrectly given.

The fourth possibility is that Earth's gravity (which is non-uniform) is lower than given in the calculations, so the acceleration calculations are off.

When dealing with tiny quantities that can be swamped by experimental error, then you need to determine if it has been. At least, after you've determined there's a quantity to examine.