Just because you work for somebody doesn't mean you get to get a say in how the organization is run. It just plain doesn't work unless it's a really small organization. Even if you worked a government job, and it was for the most democratic government in the world, you still don't get to do that. At best you get to vote for politicians that will then dictate how it's run. You and several others here talk about these mythical "very democratic" co-ops but you guys can't ever seem to name any. Every co-op I've ever seen is run just like any other business.

Nevertheless, many of us already do have a say in how our organization is run in various ways. But it's not based on votes, it's not based on how many shares you own, nor is it based on seniority or rank. Any well functioning organization is going to have a well defined mission, and nearly everything they do will somehow be in furtherance of that mission. In fact, many jobs that aren't even leadership positions even reward you for contributing to strategic decision making as long as it's in furtherance of that mission. I myself have seeded more than a few strategic initiatives without being in a leadership position. You know how people like me do that? When we have ideas, we roundtable them in meetings. The manager doesn't make all of the decisions, rather we introduce our ideas, talk about the pros and cons of them, and if we have a consensus that it will advance our mission, we begin working on it. We might even be at odds with the manager on a few implementation details that we make, but we're free to do them anyways if we can prove that they work.

Literally for a project I was working on earlier this year, I proposed adding a feature that the manager was always strictly against, yet when I mentioned it to the team, several were on board, so he let me implement it and see what it would bring. After I was done and deployed it to the field, it ended up resulting in sudden and very widespread user acceptance and adoption of our security tool throughout the organization that we had already been pushing users to switch to for quite a while earlier.

And that kind of thing isn't even remotely a first for me. And when you are such a person, you'll inevitably be more valued and thus better compensated. When I left my last job, my boss literally told me that it was a huge loss to the company and that I was welcome back if my new job didn't work out. Nearly two years later I'm still in regular contact with him and I didn't even know him before working there.

The reason you've never experienced anything like this is because you basically expect everybody around you to understand your perspective, but you never take the time to understand the perspective of those around you, except within your own narrow (and really, quite bonkers) definition of fairness. You don't bother to learn what makes an organization actually work, thus you push democracy as the solution to every problem even in cases where it very obviously will not work. Like Powernctl said once, and I've already observed many times: You never see the bigger picture, instead just putting whatever the hell you want ahead of everything and everyone else. If anything I said here was not true, you'd have already experienced exactly what you're asking for and you wouldn't be here complaining about it.

As for unions...well put it this way: Mafia tainted unions like what we have in the US are what companies end up with when THEY fail to see the bigger picture. The reason fewer people join them now is basically because of RICO.

Not necessarily. Never underestimate apple's ego. The homepod was a commercial failure but they kept making more of them for a while.

Besides, you have people like nomoreacs and archiebunker who wear their vision pro headsets even while the battery is dead just they want to make a fashion statement.

Gamecube wasn't will regarded... In fact every Nintendo console after SNES and before Wii was considered a commercial failure.

Also not reliable

The geography here doesn't really permit because, unlike say Nevada and Arizona, there aren't any mountain ranges with major rivers that flow all year long. Besides, that would mean building a dam, which I guess the cool kids aren't doing anymore.

Like everything else in this state: Sure, after we finish funding education for residents of Mexico, the high speed rail to nowhere, and free health care for illegal immigrants.

Nope. They've been trying to get rid of that. The restaurant industry has been fighting the state because apparently gas stoves are too polluting, cause cancer, etc.

That's just sad. Palo Verde has its license for all three reactor units going til at least 2045.

Though another note on #3: In Phoenix, it is a thing to register your smart thermostat with either APS or SRP to voluntarily ease up on your AC on-demand by the power company in exchange for a monthly incentive. *Maybe* you're asking for something similar here, but SRP and APS are both pretty tech savvy companies (likely not a coincidence that Phoenix one of if not THE most reliable grid in the US) where my understanding of PG&E (my rents here have always included utilities so I've never had an account with them) is that they're still trying to figure out what a utility company's job is.

Problem is it's not a simple matter of making it a feature of the EV. You have to get permitting, which is expensive as hell in California, not to mention installing the additional appliances and wiring needed. And then of course, there's the whole matter of your car often being on the road or parked somewhere else when other people in the house might need it to be parked in your garage.

It's just not something many consumers will either demand or use.

So then invest into that instead of more solar like the state has been doing.

Why? They don't even need it. California is the only state in the region that can't figure out how to run a power grid. Or anything else for that matter. Bottom line is nobody buys electricity from California, it's always been the other way around in my lifetime. In fact California is highly dependent upon the Palo Verde plant.

They probably do it at that time because that's likely the time both the supply AND demand are the most predictable. It really wouldn't be a good idea to make it in the middle of the day and then have several weeks worth of overcast come unexpectedly. You know, the kind that we have right now.

So what do you do after the sun goes down?

You misunderstand -- they're paying attention. But telling people that we need less solar doesn't get votes. You know what gets votes? Telling your constituents that under your leadership the state is producing more green energy than ever!

Yeah you're right, fuck em all, California doesn't need no stinkin' utility companies.

No, they really are producing too much. California periodically paying its neighboring states to take electricity during the day and then buying it back from them in the evening has been going on for a long time now.

I get that it's the "in thing" for progressives to defend every dumb policy decision this state makes purely on principle alone, but you wouldn't do that if you actually lived here. You literally can't even wipe your ass in this state without getting taxed, and nobody knows where that money even goes. Sure, we have a vague idea. For example, we know 100 billion of it is being spent on a high speed railway to nowhere. But despite the incredible amount of revenue coming in from taxes, there's going to be a 150 some odd billion dollar budget deficit next year anyways, and it's going to keep getting even bigger as more and more people who apparently "aren't paying their fair share" keep leaving while the state only increases its spending.

I mean it's not as if it's been happening for over 15 years now and they still keep adding more solar this whole time anyways.

Like this one?

https://www.nature.com/article...

Or what about this one?

https://journals.plos.org/plos...

The day after tomorrow wasn't a documentary.

Besides, think about what you're saying for at least ten minutes, because I know it's going to take at least that long for you to process what I'm telling you: You're saying the cold season, which already isn't suitable for growing in higher latitudes anyways, is going to get colder, therefore unsuitable for growing. See if you can figure out where you went wrong.

Not only that, but the "chaotic" weather you're talking about is mostly weather related natural disasters like hurricanes, which bring in more fresh water. Sure, it floods cities, but that's more a symptom of making bad choices about where you build stuff. I'm sure it seemed like a really good idea at the time to build New Orleans where they did, likewise with Pompeii. But in hindsight, it really wasn't. Egypt would be a pure barren desert if not for the Nile periodically bursting its banks, but that doesn't mean you're supposed to settle in it. Likewise you also shouldn't pull a total bonehead move like California did when it encased the LA river in concrete just because you want to build around it anyways, so now the area no longer has its natural means of replenishing its aquifers so now they have to pump Colorado river water over a mountain in order to even have any water.

In most parts of Asia, the standard for what counts as malware are much lower. The typical user tends to not even care if it steals any data so long as it doesn't drain their bank account or break something else. All that really matters to them is that it works.

The courts aren't even relevant. No court will hear any case that it hasn't been asked to. A prosecutor, who is part of the executive branch and is otherwise not affiliated with the court, would need to, in order:

1) believe a crime has been committed
2) believe he can prove it
3) at his discretion determine if it should be prosecuted even if the other two have been met
4) indict, prosecute, etc