See, this guy is a perfect example. Control.

Work being casual isn't a bad thing. Staff aren't being hired to be subject to control or signing up to be controlled. They are being hired because there is a task or set of tasks which needs to be performed in order to make a profit. End of story.

MagSafe is optional. It provides more power than the USB-C PD spec (and classic MagSafe), if you want it or want MagSafe.

Or getting modded down for pointing out the popularity contest that is a blight on science. Nobody should be shunned for research which disagrees with popular consensus there could be nothing more antithesis to the principles of science than that.

They want to treat staff as if they were children who need constant supervision. At our company they've resorted to first requiring pictures on skype and now are pushing for everyone to have functional cameras just so they can stop people from working in their PJs. Anything to assert control.

" But in 25 years we will have much better panels and they will be way cheaper, probably everything will be replaced."

It is not even remotely acceptable to spend trillions of dollars to have to do it again in a couple decades and those aren't minimums they are manufacturer warranties based on when the panel output will reduce to below acceptable levels. Additionally most solar installations are not sized for a double requirement in addition to accounting for average sunshine so they will fail to provide even enough power for the home well before that 25yr mark.

Yes yes, battery technologies exist that last longer... with servicing which itself carries an impact and without decent energy density. The battery problem is perpetually 10-20yrs away from being solved. The ecological impact of gathering enough raw materials to cover the roofs around the globe with these panels and supply all the batteries is massive and PERMANENT and doing it over and over again is hardly a valid solution over the long haul. I doubt we'll make it even a century on that path. Trusting that people in the future will magically pull better answers out of the air is how we found ourselves in this boat.

Fusion is a possible solution for one side of this problem. But not today. Today the answer is nuclear and the waste everyone loves to mention has many uses, including providing power. As I said Hydrogen for the batteries. As a bonus the clean production of hydrogen is also the production of its waste product, clean water.

People hate hydrogen because oil companies hope to retrofit the existing gasoline infrastructure and utilize it so it benefits oil billionaires. Solar and wind get pushed so heavily because a different set of evil billionaires in California and China are robbing us blind in the process.

The panels are rated for 25 at the top end and many much less. Whether they are cleaner than fossil is only relevant when comparing to fossil. Battery tech is generally less than half that with those that technically last longer needing servicing. Both are also delivering diminishing efficiency across that whole time. I've also seen estimates indicating even covering every roof wouldn't actually produce enough output.

If we pretend it is viable. Fusion would be a better answer, especially combined with hydrogen cells such as Toyota has been working on... or rather it would be part of a well designed answer. Even with fusion providing near limitless energy it is still central production and that creates grid vulnerabilities and failure points. Ideally we'd still have a decent redundant distribution of nuclear and renewables to hedge against failures.

Neither those batteries nor those panels last very long and the production and shipping of both is terrible for the environment. Proponents will quickly point at coal plants or gasoline powered cars and the relative difference. Last I checked destroying the planet still counts even if you destroy it somewhat less than something else.

That is hindsight. At the time it wasn't nonsense at all and they branded crackpot anyone who tried to work on cold fusion regardless of their own credentials. Destroyed their careers and pulled the rug out from their funding.

In fairness, It is somewhat easier to realize progress with hundreds of billions in funding, 4,500 companies, 15,000 employees and not having to fear the bullies in popular science will instantly and permanently destroy your career by labeling you a crackpot if you suggest an interest in working on something.

Can I get that in a more established and recognized unit such as library of congresses?

That wasn't me. I'm the one who complained about the TLA being hijacked.

When I need parts that aren't plastic I print them on the SLA printer and use the very high resolution result as a positive for a mold making. SLA is probably the most popular resin printing technology and is most definitely additive, using a laser to cure photosensitized resin layer-by-layer with the platform raising in small increments.

"Tell us you don't know how using corporations to restructure finances to avoid taxation works without telling us"

Keeping money in a corporation to avoid taxation allows you to avoid taxation because it provides a greater overall benefit than taxation. There are currently millions of lower middle class people viewing exhibits around the world, scaling everest, experiencing skydiving, etc and did taxes do this? Only in the sense that Zuckerberg 'restructure[d] finances to avoid taxation.' The process of doing it enabled thousands of workers to feed their children, save for their education and is advancing technology in new and amazing ways.

"The difference between a religion and a cult is that with a religion, all the people in on the scam are dead."

I can't deny, cult has always just seemed like an established religion slur for upstart religions but another difference is scale. I've estimates that seemed reasoned (can't say I'm a religious scholar myself) indicating a couple hundred cultists. Their religion bore little resemblance to the one practiced today. Despite consensus among historians regarding Christ having been a living figure the evidence is pretty scant. The experts in this area are almost universally Christians themselves judging the authenticity of a handful of lines in works which are known to contain transliterations.

As for your slew of links. Yawn. The cash is still in the businesses and not the hands of shareholders. It is called operating capital. They are simply hedging against concerns about the free flow of credit and keeping operating capital. That is paltry compared to the wasteful spending bills passed in recent times and blowing it in a giant load would have the same inflationary result.

"The first thing is limited, the second thing does not happen in actual reality."

Generally false. The very reason they don't pay those taxes reveals the misinformation you are spreading here. They aren't paying taxes because the money is 'spent' on an investment where it is continuing to produce, goods, services, jobs, pay for families/retirements etc. Virtually all of that 'wealth' is represented by the value of some corporation that spends virtually every penny that comes in.

"It's weird that 99% of us would agree with both sentiments but if you start talking about taking away enough of that money that can no longer be wielded as power that's where things break down."

And how is it you propose to take that power without empowering someone with yet greater corrupting power?