You're not in the slightest interested in the data, or the conditions in the UK.
You have yet to present ANY data except anecdotal evidence. I repeat: you have presented ZERO evidence and when reminded about that, you got upset.
I'm done with you.
So you will never admit you have zero evidence. That seems indicative of a denier.
Air conditioning? In UK? Really? You must be in the US.
1) Record heatwaves in the last several years in UK (and Europe) have increased the need for AC. There this thing called climate change that people wish to ignore. 2) You are aware the while most homes in the UK do not have AC, some do. Businesses also have AC.
You seem do not seem to acknowledge your small sample size does not lead to your conlcusion.
You need to size your energy needs based on when you need them.
Again, you have a sample size of 1 instance of panels and your experience of 2.7% of days. But you made your conclusion that ALL panels in the UK generate 10% peak power ALL the time. You seem not to acknowledge that your sample size is not enough to make your conclusion.
I can make conclusions based on my biases too. For example, studies have found that many parents are sleep deprived which affects them and their children's health. But I know at least 5 or 6 parents who get plenty of sleep; therefore, that study must be wrong according to my sample size of 5. Bear in mind the 5 parents I know have children who are past college age and moved out of the house, that that is unimportant in my sampling--according to me. OR I can see that there is bias in my data and not draw the conclusion that someone who has done research must be wrong.
An extra long day in summer is useless when you need power in December.
Also you do not seem to understand demand and supply are different things. Someone might need less power in December than in summer. For example, AC is required more in the summertime than in winter. Heat can be supplied through other means electricity. You still have not made any reasonable arguments of what is demand vs what is supply.
How would you even remotely test to make sure you could handle that load?
As far as I know, stress testing a website exists. Ticketmaster either did not do a test or did not do an adequate test.
Sure, if they didn't take the question as a warning and prepare to spin up as many virtual environments as they needed, but again this was unprecedented and it's absolutely bonkers that anyone would use that event to declare an antitrust violation.
Er what? The fact that TicketMaster failed during the Eras Tour sale is not a direct indication of antitrust in linear path of Step 1. Ticketmaster failed. Step 2. Antritrust. Step 3 Profit! Overall, the Taylor Swift situation highlights the fact there was no alternative to TicketMaster that any artist even someone of Taylor's wealth and power could overcome. It is more indicative of the last straw.
Again, even if they had competition, the competition sites would have crashed. Guaranteed because ticket bastards has had years to deal with surges and well there is no competition so they haven't had the opportunity.
And how would you know that? A competitor might have actually stress tested their site and prepared better. You also seem to ignore the obvious solution that multiple competitors could have been used. For example, dates are split among different sites. But no other competitors exist is the hallmark of monopoly.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire