it's only in the last 15-20 years that people have started cowardcowwing behind smartphones and turned into introverted fuckfaces.

Rarely do I see comments that better evidence themselves than this.

Pretty stupid plan to spend money to buy equipment to turn electricity into heat for no compensation constantly in the hope that you may get paid occassionally to not do it.

The economics in the article are pretty misleading. It is using the value of BTC mined in the same period as they earned the credits for not consuming power. In a month where they earned record amounts for not using power it shouldn't be surprising that they produced considerably less BTC. The figures don't make clear what proportion of Riots production was given up for credits or how much BTC they normally produce so there's no way to see how much it was impacted.

I don't know the details in this case but if you have a spike in use and your options are bring on additional capacity if you have it for $0.40 per kwh, rolling blackouts, or pay someone $0.25 per kwh not to consume for a few hours then having that last option is helpful.

I know /. is all about ridiculous analogies but as funny as they are they really don't add much insight.

In this scenario the State's energy providers / regulators don't want Riot to use electricity at certain times because the state providers aren't able to generate enough electricity to meet all demand. Riot is being offered cash to decrease its power consumption, this isn't Riot being unable to use power and asking for cashback.

It's actually a very logical idea, although I can't speak for the Texas implementation, because the alternatives are: > Maintain the ability to produce so much power that you never, or virtually never, have more demand than supply. The cost of maintaining the ability to quickly cover your once a year / two-year / five year peaks will be vastly higher than covering everything except your top 10 peaks of the year or similar. Keep in mind that in practice this means having to keep multiple conventional powerplants at a state of perpetual readiness just to use them for a few hours a year, or it means investing in huge amounts of battery capacity which would also only be used a few times a year. > Have power cuts, rolling or otherwise, to decrease power usage down to supply when their are peaks. Not suprisingly this option is not at all popular.

Having a large energy consumer that is willing to decrease consumption at short notice for a relatively small amount of money is a great option for managing a grid if it means you can avoid paying for a coal powerplant to be kept ready and staffed just to turn it on for 40 hours a year.

You'd think but it happens. I've worked somewhere where during a product recall the team sending the comms instructed people to contact an email address that didn't exist on a domain we didn't own; the domain was at least similar to a domain we did own but it still meant that for the first 5 days or so before anyone realised people contacting us were getting bouncebacks. Companies, generally, as really bad at managing anything that happens rarely and years apart like domain renewals etc.

GPT-4
User: Quote the opening sentence of The Dark Tower.
ChatGPT: Certainly! The opening sentence of "The Dark Tower" series by Stephen King is: "The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed." It's a memorable line and serves as the beginning to King's expansive series. If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask!

So are you lying or just ignorant about how Chat-GPT works and the consistency of answers.

It doesn't even improve their ranking, it just gives them a chance to win in events that by definition are less prestigous than the open events. I, don't agree with but, understand some concerns about transgender athletes in sports where their is a significant difference in typical capability due to gender but in this case the risk seems even more theoretical that someone would 'fake' being trans with all that entails.

Companies 100% tend to have a culture (as much as any group of individuals can be considered to). But although I disagree with you on that point, the point you are making about companies wasting money on changing culture is absolutely right. Companies think they can spend years hiring people based on criteria, managing and promoting in certain ways, filtering down hires and people who stay to share certain values and preferences, then spend a couple of months talking about culture and expect the whole organisation to change and it's obviously nonsense. If you want to make a fundamental change to company culture and you don't expect to have considerably turnover (due to people who don't like the new culture leaving, and people who don't align with it being encouraged to leave) then you're naive and like 90% of culture change initiatives it will fail.

If the FBI was willing to send in staff, diggers, trucks etc to clandestinely dig up millions in gold from someone's land do you really think they'd be able to do all that then suddenly find it impossible to fake a couple of vague documents saying they looked and found nothing? As to excavations without workorders... you do know the FBI deny the overnight excavation happened so unsurprisingly they wouldn't have workorders for it.

In addition I'd suggest your experience, combined with the right tools, means you have good ways to measure quality of code and judgement to determine when more revision or re-writing is required so just throwing away all 'drafts' would be really inefficient for you. A lot of writing code for most people is doing something similar tom and roughly as complex as, previous work.

To use an analogy: People wouldn't expect a plumber to plan out a sink waste trap, throw the plan away, create a revised and then implement because they've done hundreds before and they are all effectively the same; we would expect them to do all that, and even build test models, if they were dealing with moving a dangerous liquid in an unusual or complicated way.

This is completely true. I actually appreciate the article raising the idea and I have definitely produced some code that a mindset of starting over after an early attempt would have got better results but comparing writing, especially fiction, to coding is a little strange (unless this is also common practice in engineering, mathematics etc).

When I am coding I have quite a few definitive criteria to measure success against like whether it passes defined tests, whether the performance is inline with expectations, whether it passes other automated expectations. What is considered a 'draft'? The first version of the code that passes all the tests, or just a quick and dirty attempt that only passes some tests, or is it just an attempt to write it that may not even complete reliably?

I think some geo-engineering is unavoidable if we want to avoid catastrophe, but I want to see the scale minimised with the focus remaining on decreasing harmful activity because I share the concern about the impact. The important caveat to your point is that we are already fucking with the only planet we've got by doing random shit to it, we can't viably stop completely so some engineering to help mitigate that impact isn't automatically more risky.

The issue is that there is a considerable group of people who are either trying to distract from efforts to decrease activity that cause climate change, and the useful idiots who buy their lies and are against any action to decrease harmful emissions. This means it is very hard to look at how we can decrease the impact via engineering without it being latched onto as an excuse not to decrease emissions, and we need to do both given the scale of change required.

We've also seen that engineering on a large scale is pretty much the posterchild for unintentional consequences* That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, and this idea of enhancing clouds with a safer emission from ships sounds promising but assuming we can find the dozens (maybe even hundreds) of large engineering projects required, unless we also considerably reduce harmful activity, without some seriously dangerous consequences is risky.
,br>* Look at the impact of many dam projects have had, the permanent destruction of aquifers caused by industrial water extraction etc

I wish you were right but my UK grandparents (mid-90s) have literally complained about energy efficient bulbs, for being rubbish/taking forever to come on/being the wrong colour light etc, while sitting in their house in a room with energy efficient bulbs that they haven't realised aren't incandescent; their children fitted them years ago. They both vote, and yup you can bet they vote based on nonsense like this.

I think this is an oversimplification and a little selective. The overlap between people who base their life around religions that teach the apocalypse is inevitable and who reject all Scientific warnings like this is huge. As to no one believing it; I can't speak for America but my general experience is that a huge number of people denied climate change 20 years ago, when evidence was already overwhelming, but they generally accept it is happening now but perhaps disagree about the scale of the issue. They now argue that they shouldn't have to pollute less because China pollutes more now or something equally inane.

The truth is generally much more simple. People resist believing things they don't want to believe and don't want to believe things that would require them to change or make them feel bad. It's very easy to do this with things where unambigious evidence isn't literally in front of your eyes, which in general is true of climate change and especially that this climate change is caused by humans.

If you'd watched the video you'd have to be an idiot if you didn't think he was serious, and if you haven't watched the video before you made that comment then you're arguably worse than an idiot for not thinking critically about anything that doesn't fit your agenda.

To the GP poster who asked the question with the comparison. Personally I don't find anything more stupid about a person asking a genuine question of a relative expert about something that seems painfully obvious to me if they learn from the answer compared to someone claiming equally stupid things are true (that forest fires are being created by space lasers for example in MTG's case). Hell just look at the fact Johnson was smart enough to try and pretend he was asking a better question when he realised how stupid it had appeared vs MTG who when confronted about retarded things she believes just doubles down by adding more conspiracy nut junk, the lasers being controlled by Jews or something equally bizarre, to the raging dumpster fire of her idiocy.