Yes. Watt peak. And it does, at least for me. Let's say I can get 120 Watts on average over 8 hrs at 300 days/year, this means that I can get 300 kWh a year. If I pay 20 ct/kWh, it will pay back my initial investment of $300 within 5 years.

There is nothing that forbids me to install more than one of those $300/800 Wp systems in general. But I am no longer allowed to just plug them into the next wall socket according to local regulations, and inform my utility after the fact. If I want more than 800 Wp, I have to apply for a larger system, and I have to get it approved. If for instance, I want 10 kWp, I buy 12 of them, costing me $3600, a power management system for maybe $1500, and I need a board certified engineer to approve the setup. At the end, I'll pay maybe $8000 for the whole 10 kW setup, but not $50,000.

That's not what I claim. But for $300, I can halve my energy bill.

No, but it's not about being off-grid. It's about generating about 50% of the electricity you need over a year yourself - for $300.

That's a very U.S. centric problem. Apparently, the U.S. make it extremely cumbersome and expensive to build and own Solar, while I can go to the next departement store or to an online store and buy a 800 Wp setup for $300, mount it myself, and all the paper work I have to do is to tell my utility, that I have that 800 Wp system in place.

I suspect that these streams are costing Youtube money. They can't monetize them, and they have to spend effort shutting them down or they get in serious legal trouble. If things persist I suspect that Youtube changes its live streaming service in ways that make this impossible.

We will see though.

If we listen to the current rhetoric, every country is a direct rival. And the idea was that people who trade with you are seldom interested in killing you, because that would stop the trade they profited from all the time.

The problem, of course, is that Sports content is paying more than its fair share of the bill for all televised content. It is easy to see the large bills and assume that sports is a cost center, but the reality is that sport tends to pay its own way, while scripted television is much more of a gamble. To a certain extent that is why most scripted television these days is so formulaic. The television studios know that they can make money with modern versions of "The Rockford Files." That's why NCIS is in its quadzillionth season.

Severance is great, but it is a prime example of what I am talking about. Apple has spent billions of dollars on content at this point, and they are still hemorrhaging money. People like their shows, but they aren't lining up to pay for them. Shoresy is in a better spot, but only because Disney is doing its level best to tie Shoresy to ESPN and other sports related content that people are willing to pay for. The folks wanting to buy ESPN can get the rest of the Disney bundle for pennies. You can't just buy ESPN, you have to buy it with a television package. Disney does this because they know that if people have their other channels, then they tend to watch them. They are willing to pay a premium, however, for sports.

Hulu is cheap, and you can get it by itself. The same goes for AppleTV. All of these cost Netflix amounts of money $12 (or so) a month. When I worked for Sling it's entire packaging was based around making it possible to bundle ESPN for less than anyone else. If you want ESPN the least you can pay is $45/month, and that doesn't give you the other channel's sports package, that you probably want if you are a sports fan as well. It is very likely that the team that you follow will have at least one game on ESPN's competitors. That means that if you are purchasing from Sling you need the blue package as well (which is another $45, or bundled will total $60). You could easily sign up for all of the non-sports streaming channels for less than an Orange+Blue package (which once again is as competitively priced as it is possible to do). I was just looking at Disney's bundle, and you can get Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN for $35/month, which is definitely the least expensive way to get ESPN these days. That's with ads, which are added even to VOD content. If you want to watch your VOD content without ads that's another $10. Linear content (like watching cable) always comes with ads. Sports fans can't dodge ads ever.

I bring up pricing like this to make it clear which parts of television customers are actually willing to pay money for. If you don't want to pay for sports (and I don't blame you), then you can easily pay $12/month and switch between streaming providers and watch whatever shows you want to watch. All of those services allow you to easily stop and continue your subscription, and none of the content is likely to go away. Heck, chances are good that, if you wait long enough, you can watch the shows that you want on one of the free services. In most cases they are literally giving away old scripted content. The problem with this model, is that it doesn't make Hollywood enough money to be profitable with their current structure. The reason that Disney (and everyone else) bundle channels the way that they do is because they know that they can't afford to gamble on scripted content unless they bundle those risks with the proven money generation of sports content. More and more people like you, who don't want to pay for sports content, are opting for less expensive alternatives that still get them the shows that they want.

This market contraction is why Hollywood is so focused on franchises that have historically been popular. So instead of new shows we get derivatives of things that were popular in the past. Scripted content is risky, and as it gets uncoupled from less risky sports content producers do whatever they can to hedge their bets. So we get a re-re-remake of the TMNTs, Spiderman, or we get another cop show. Recently we have also been blessed with shows that have been popular in other countries or markets (that is legitimately cool in my opinion), but that is also likely to dry up as entertainment becomes more global.

Which leaves what can be done on Youtube budgets for anything remotely risky. Which is fine, I suppose. Personally, I like watching people restore old sailboats. That's not something that is ever going to be more than a niche market, but on Youtube that's enough of a market to make it financially viable for a few people. Maybe with AI it will even become possible to do good SciFi with that sort of a budget. Who knows? One thing is certain, it is definitely interesting times ahead.

Sorry. The matter densities lost their minus signs in the exponent. It's 10^-28 grams per cm^3 respective 10^-31 grams per cm^3.

If you read Fritz Zwicky's original 1933 and 1936 papers, that's what he actually said about Dark Matter.

Helvetica Physica Acta, Vol. 6, p. 122

An expansion rate of 500 kilometers per second per million parsecs is equivalent to an average density of rho = 10^28 grams per cm^3, according to EINSTEIN and DE SITTER. From the observation of self radiating matter HUBBLE estimates rho ~ 10^31 grams per cm^3. Of course, it is possible, that radiating plus dark (cold) matter put together result in a massively larger density, and the value rho ~ 10^28 grams per cm^3 seems not unreasonable.

As you can see, Zwicky himself coins the term Dark Matter as the place holder for non-radiation stuff out there to resolve a discrepancy of 1 to 1000. Better measurements of the Hubble constant, which at the time was estimated to be 500 km/sec per million parsecs, and is now estimated to be 70 km/sec per million parsecs has shrunk the discrepancy to about 1 to 5, but still, Dark Matter is exactly that, postulated stuff to make up for a discrepancy.

It is always confounding how people always point at Dark Matter and Dark Energy and complain: See? Physicists make things up to keep their theories intact. And physicists then try to explain, that yes, they make those things up, because otherwise theories break. And people then complain: But you don't know what it is! And then physicists replay: Exactly. We don't know what it is. And people cry: But this is a problem! And physicists answer: Yes, this is a problem.

Writing derogative statements is easy. Coming up with better theories is hard.

So you are taking the easy way out, the Ignoramus Ignorabimus.

You know what panels are made off? Silicon. You know which is the most prevalent metal in the Earth's crust? Also Silicon. Only Oxygen is more prevalent. A quarter of the Earth's crust is silicon, and you are wondering if we have enough of it in 30 years time?

Let's put it like this: I live in a village (less than 10,000 inhabitants) directly neighboring a small city (130,000 inhabitants). In my village, we have seven bus lines, one train stop with trains running every 30 mins, and a tramway line (and a second one, which is technically not on village territory, but from my place, it's a 5 min walk).

Just in the Alpine region, where for instance Homo neanderthalensis lived, we had

1. Biber Complex (2.6 mio to 1.9 mio years ago)
2. Danube glaciation (1.8 mio years ago)
3. Gunz complex (800 tsd to 600 tsd years ago)
4. Mindel glaciation (475 tsd to 370 tsd years ago)
5. Riss glaciation (300 tsd to 120 tsd years ago)
6. Würm glaciation (115 tsd to 10 tsd years ago)

Plus, IBM owns RedHat. So that's probably something. Then again, maybe that is the hyper growth software and services bit that they want to keep.