The difference between for-profit and non-profit/not-for-profit is not that one can make a profit and the other can't. The non-profit/not-for-profit entity still has to take in more money than it pays out, to keep from going out of business. The difference is that the non-profit/not-for-profit is not allowed to distribute profits to the owners: it is REQUIRED to plow the money back into the business of the entity. For educational institutions, this is where they get funds to build and equip new buildings, update your computer centers, hire distinguished professors. For hospitals, this is where the money for indigent care comes from: it is baked into the fees charged.

Both for-profit and not-for-profit entities still have to deliver good service for the money they take in, or the money stops flowing in and the entity soon after ceases to exist.

The most dangerous thing about rooftop solar panels is you still have to do maintenance on them, which means someone has to go up on the roof, and risk falling off and breaking something, like his/her neck. Solar farms are on the ground, or close to it, and have a lot lower risk.

The dangerous thing about power lines is that a single failure at a substation can take out a significant chunk of a city. A worst-case scenario can take out the north end of the state for several days. Even a simple car wreck can take out several city blocks. South Huntsville, Alabama, has seen all of this, some of it several times while I've lived here.

The FUNDAMENTAL concept is that wind and solar are, for the reasons cited in the summary, NOT SUITABLE for baseload power. Too many things can Go Wrong.

The VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) database does a pretty good job of answering that question. The COVID-19 vaccine adverse event numbers are a few orders of magnitude higher than would normally be considered even remotely acceptable.

To a first approximation, one metric shit-tonne is approximately one Imperial shit-ton.

One tonne = 1000 kg = 2200 lbs. One ton = 2000 lbs. 10%. That's usually close enough for government work.

*IF* the PC in question can take a memory expansion.

What I have is an old Celeron, that is convenient for travel. 64-bit CPU, a few hundred GB of disk, but only 2 GB of RAM, which is NOT expandable. It was fine on Windows 8.1, has "issues" on Windows 10 (Malwarebytes and Avast Antivirus insist on grabbing all the CPU and disk bandwidth for a LOOONG time at boot time).

Most likely, I am going to save the data files down to a big USB drive, install Linux, and reload the data.

I can live with it if Microsoft doesn't try to stuff Windows 11 down its throat, the way they did with Windows 10.

Windows 10 calls out 32-bit processor, 2 GB RAM, 32 GB storage. Windows 11 calls out 64-bit processor, 4 GB RAM, 64 GB storage.

That's 2X across the board.

It'll probably take twice as long to boot, and twice as long to login, as well.

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are not remotely comparable.

Nor is Chernobyl remotely comparable with Fukushima Daiichi.

The RBMK reactor at Chernobyl was a graphite-moderated positive water-cooled positive void coefficient design. That design has an inherent thermal runaway failure mode. If it loses the water, or boils it all, the nuclear reaction continues, the plant goes into runaway, and explodes. That is exactly what happened at Chernobyl. To make matters worse, the Chernobyl plant had NO containment structure whatsoever.

The reactors at Three Mile Island are water-moderated water-cooled negative void coefficient designs. This design has no thermal runaway mode. If it loses the water, or boils too much of it, the nuclear reaction stops. It still has a heat problem, which will (and did) result in a meltdown, but the containment structure was designed to contain the meltdown.

And it did. It was literally YEARS after the failure at Three Mile Island before they actually confirmed that it had in fact melted down: they had to cut the containment structure open to look. Until they actually cut it open, they DID NOT KNOW that it had melted down. They thought it had, but they didn't know.

Positive void coefficient designs have always been illegal in the US, precisely because of the well-known thermal runaway failure mode. This was deliberate on the part of Teller et al, who wrote the original specifications and laws. They were not stupid. Positive void coefficient designs were legal in the USSR when Chernobyl was built. They were later outlawed, for the same reasons as they are outlawed everywhere else, but the Chernobyl plant was grandfathered.

Fukushima Daiichi was hit by the worst earthquake and tsunami seen in those parts in several centuries. There used to be a fair-sized town next to the plant. After the tsunami, there was quite literally NOTHING left standing, except for the nuclear plant structures. After the tsunami, the plant structures were immediately pressed into service as emergency shelters, for the people who managed to survive, by being inside the plant when it happened.

At best, conflating the three is ignorance. At worst, it is fear-mongering and demagoguery.

It will be high-rise high-density housing.

1 square mile / 35,000 people works out to 800 square feet (or about 80 square meters) per person. Raw. A significant chunk of that will be "shared" space (roads, shops, schools, probably no airport, but probably a helipad or three, and so on...), which means it will probably be closer to 400 square feet at ground level per person. To get "acceptable" footprints, they're going to have to go up.

There is a simpler example.

Build a cabinet "X" inches tall and "Y" inches deep. How much clearance do you need to rotate it up from horizontal on the floor where you built it to vertical standing against the wall?

Answer: When you rotate it up, it will be riding on either the front edge or the back edge. The opposite edge on the other end is what will hit the ceiling, if it is going to hit. The distance between the rotate edge and the opposite top edge is "Z", the hypotenuse.

There are some ideas that have been around for some 50 years.

In "Hints on Programming Language Design", published in 1974, Tony Hoare said "Finally, it is absurd to make elaborate security checks on debugging runs, when no trust is put in the results, and then remove them in production runs, when an erroneous result could be expensive or disastrous. What would we think of a sailing enthusiast who wears his life-jacket when training on dry land but takes it off as soon as he goes to sea?" He was referring to subscript checking.

I did some work on a FORTRAN program in 1982, that had a habit of crashing if one or another internal table overflowed. The compiler documentation said the compiler could do subscript checking. The documentation lied. I wound up having to put explicit subscript checks on every table, and add run-time error messages that told the user "Table blah overflowed. Increase such-and-such named constant and recompile." It was all I could do, and it took me literally 160 hours of staring at FORTRAN code to understand it well enough to be able to do that much. That code had ISSUES.

The early capability machines were designed around, among other things, a very basic concept: EVERY array reference was checked by hardware. It was not possible to disable this feature. That makes "buffer overflow" vulnerabilities 100% impossible.

Later in the 1970s, Charles Hoch wrote a short paper, showing how the memory mapping hardware on higher-end PDP-11 minicomputers could be perverted to do basically the same thing.

A paper on an early PASCAL compiler mentioned that, if the programmer was reasonably conscientious about specifying the bounds for arrays and variables, the compiler could usually prove at compile-time that an array subscript expression could not go out of range, and hence eliminate the run-time range check. I don't have a URL for this one. I saw it in a book that collected several otherwise-unavailable early papers, including two of Urs Ammann's papers on the original PASCAL compilers written at ETH Zurich for the CDC 6400. For this to work, of course, it has to be possible in the language to specify those bounds, and "modern" languages (C, C++, Java, and the like) don't provide that capability.

Yet, when the Ada programming language came out, for which the first draft required subscript checking to be enabled by default, the very first thing that the "professional" programmers in the United States demanded was the ability to disable it, because of "performance" concerns.

As long as it is fashionable to let programmers do anything they want, and rely on them not to make a mess of it (as the late Edsger W. Dijkstra was fond of saying), we are going to have problems. As long as we pretend that C and C++ are good languages, and Windows is a good operating system, we will continue to get what we deserve, and we will generally, as Jerry Pournelle used to say, get it good and hard.

References:

http://flint.cs.yale.edu/cs428... fo
https://homes.cs.washington.ed...
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145...

With the director of said organization being bought, paid for, and quite safely safety-pinned in the pocket of the People's Republic of China.

There's more.

We know from the early data in Washington, when the virus first really got noticed in the US, that doubling time in clinically significant cases in a "virgin" (no prior exposure, no immunity, no vaccinations (DUH!)) population is about four days. Taking 174 cases, assuming a "patient zero" model, and you find that it takes about 7.5 doubling periods to get there. That's a month.

So 174 patients in December means their "patient zero" was in November. This is consistent with other reports.

NOW, the closest natural habitat for the bats that supplied the base virus, before the spike protein "mutation", is several hundred miles from Wuhan. For the mutation to have happened spontaneously, as opposed to it being a lab chimaera, the cross-species jump had to occur in the bat's natural habitat. At that point, according to the official theory, you have the virus in existence several hundred miles away from Wuhan, and you have to explain how it GOT to Wuhan, to infect Wuhan's "patient zero". AND you have to explain how it got there without infecting anyone or anything else along the way, because the data makes it EXTREMELY clear, undeniably so, that the first HUMAN cluster of COVID-19 was in Wuhan, China.

I know this triggers all the special snowflakes out there, but the fact of the matter is that the likeliest source of SARS-nCOV-2 is the bat coronavirus "gain of function" research that was being done in the Wuhan Institute of Virology at the time. The "natural spontaneous cross-species jump and mutation" hypothesis that China is pushing so hard just doesn't pass the "straight face" test: If you know the rest of the picture, you just can't say that with a straight face.

One of the more interesting "APPROVED!" claims is that the COVID-19 vaccine will NOT prevent someone from getting COVID-19.

This makes it just about UNIQUE among vaccines. Every other vaccine is specifically intended and designed to prevent one from getting the target disease, STARTING WITH THE ORIGINAL SMALLPOX VACCINE, continuing through the poliomyelitis vaccines, and the "childhood disease" vaccines.

It is true that the annual seasonal flu vaccine may or may not keep you from getting the flu that year, depending on whether they guessed right about which strain(s) of flu was (were) going to show up.

The COVID-19 vaccines are specifically designed to produce ONLY the (apparently modified or mutated) SARS-nCoV-2 spike proteins. The spike proteins are what differentiate SARS-nCoV-2 from the root bat virus, and NOT incidentally make it much more infectious to humans than the root bat virus. From the point of view of other coronaviruses, if it doesn't have the SARS-nCoV-2 spike, it isn't COVID-19 and the vaccine isn't going to do any good against it.

No, unfortunately, I don't.

It was in the last few months, and it should be easy enough to find. It came out of Wuhan, Ground Zero in China for the virus.