Coal is one of the most expensive sources of power now.

The Coal lobby has been promising "Clean Coal!" since George Bush's 2000 presidential campaign.

They've had 25 years to implement their solution, this rule gives them another 8 years to put up or shut up...errr down. Considering coal usage has dropped by about 30% in the last 15 years and is only 15% of the remainder it's not unreasonable to give 8 years to install this magical equipment that they've been promising or for utilities to replace the lying industry with a real working product.

>"I don't see why Google gets away with this shit while Microsoft couldn't."

Because Google actually started with a good browser. Then they used it to take over and/or destroy all competition, except Firefox (which is trying to hang on). Ironically, it was Firefox that saved us from Microsoft taking over the web, and it might be Firefox that saves us again, this time from Google taking over the web. If it isn't too late.

>" Google did not outline a more specific timetable beyond hoping for 2025."

Meanwhile, Firefox ended 3rd party cookies (by default) more than 4.5 years ago.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/pr...

Why? Because they actually *do* care about privacy (and security, and choice, and open standards). And unlike Chrom*/Google, they don't have a major conflict of interest about it.

That is exactly what this is. An Ad platform. They are just trying to disguise it with a little content.

Not on my phone, no way.

It doesn't matter how painful, no ransom should be paid. That is the ONLY way to take away the main motive to attack.

That said, it doesn't mean security isn't just as important, because attacks can also be motivated by politics or just mischief as well.

I would be one who supports laws preventing such payments. And no bailouts either- the corporation should be allowed to fail and all the stockholders will get shafted. And that is the other deterrence- pay now for security and make it count, lest you run the risk of losing everything later.

>"I know there are limits, but when we know the power is out, we could avoid certain activities such as doing laundry (unless everything else is off)."

Without a massive battery, you won't be doing much of anything for the majority of each 24 hour day :)

My generator is only 6KW with no load shedding, so I know how to play the power budget game, myself. It is enough to run the central AC, frig, lights (all LED), computer/router/modem/monitor/tv/TiVo, microwave. Have to plan a bit if I want to do too much else.

>"Those are noisy and smelly."

Noisy for damn sure. At least mine is... very annoying. Especially since it is in the attached garage (with exhaust insulated plumbed to outside, exhaust fan, and with heat shields). And it is all manual.

Smelly, not so much, at least not gasoline or natgas.

Solar panels are not "backup" power when there is no battery. They can't any any base load under many, many conditions. And even with a very expensive battery system, many are still mediocre for "backup" power.

If you want power backup, you can spend $60,000 or whatever for panels and a battery system that might last a day or something. Or you can buy an ICE generator (gas/diesel/natgas) at a fraction of the cost and have it working as long as you need, under any conditions.

What I see with solar stuff in my area is a total scam. People are spending $30K+ for just panels/install/connect and a "loan" for it, with the hopes that it MIGHT pay for itself in 20+ years (don't forget the interest), at which time the panels might be too old, or the support stuff breaks, or you have to rip them off anyway to re-roof the house, etc. The only ones actually making money is the solar panel company/installer. I think many people are doing this just to "feel good" and without much economic sense.

I can see it working out well, but only if the panels/batteries/controller/install costs are low enough AND reliable enough AND last long enough AND you can use the power yourself AND sell the excess at reasonable rates AND nothing bad happens. But that is a lot of presumptions. I ran through that just a few years ago and it was way, way in the red and with a lot of risk.

>"Not free, paid for by large corporations."

Which then it is immediately passed into higher consumer prices. And, thus, is a tax on consumers (all of us), again. Kinda like inflation is also a tax on everything, although even worse.

Site says it is under development. So that implies the screen will be capable of supporting it.

It is likely based on an already-created reference design that is ready to go, and they are mostly focused on the software/OS, loading, docs, packaging, distribution, etc. It is pretty common.

They don't say what type of screen; so that, unfortunately, probably means it is LCD and not LED. Also says "2G/3G/4G" in an era when there is no 2G or 3G anymore, and lacks 5G (of course if you are using WiFi, it doesn't matter... but they don't say which WiFi). Also, no mention of SD card or headphone jack.

Still, looks interesting.

>"The main thing is that itâ(TM)s more of a US problem than a world wide problem."

Culture varies. Priorities vary. We live a life in the US of higher standards of living, which also means people are MORE free to pursue their actual interests vs. forcing themselves to enter fields that just pay more in which they may have less interest or ability. This pattern has been noted in many European countries, where as standards of living increased, the differences in fields men and women chose separated even MORE, which blew people's minds. But it does make sense.

>"it needs to be fair and equitable for all that exist"

In almost all cases I know, "fair" and "equitable" are essentially diametrically opposed terms, at least by the current/modern definition of "equitable" (forced equal outcomes, which always comes via discrimination and quotas, or rewarding supposed "victimhood" level, at the expense/opportunity of other people). As long as women are given equal opportunity, that is fairness (and what is meant by "equality"). Anything after that would be attributed to things like personal choices, capabilities, background, interests, etc.

Unless there were some type of strange quota, or unrealistic expectations, why was is a "problem"? It is a problem that there are very few male nurses, interior decorators, florists, payroll mangers, hairdressers, speech pathologists, or daycare workers?

>"GOP turned that into a dog whistle for white supremacy and/or troglodytism."

Um, no. Perhaps people like you are TRYING to turn it into that, and that would be most unfortunate. The 99.9+% of people flying an American flag are doing what they have done all along, for generations- believing in, supporting, and celebraing the principles of America... Things like freedom, equality, prosperity, the Constitution, etc. And that is most certainly not a message about "white supremacy and/or troglodytism."

>"The CCP has a more equitable distribution of salary and benefits than GB does."

Equity = trying to force equal outcomes. So, um, yeah, I imagine the CCP does (except for their ruling class, of course). And it is not usually a good thing, because that is done by taking from the productive and rewarding the unproductive with that which was taken. Or by lowering standards, which hurts most everyone as well. We can all argue how much of that is needed or acceptable, but wearing it as a badge of honor or supposed automatic goodness is disingenuous.

>"we have to get up to date with the increasing authoritarianism of the West"

It is authoritarianism, literally, that is used by the CCP/Socialists to have control over everything and maintain their power.