If you discontinue support for a device that prevents the user from accessing or modifying critical functions then it your company should be required to make a final update available that enables users to use the device as they please. Effectively destroying functional devices because it's not profitable is the worst kind of waste.
Do they want people to burn down datacenters? Because this is how you get people to burn down datacenters.
Not only is there a significant difference in insolation between seasons...
You have failed already if you are relying on a single form of energy generation. Try again.
You failed to answer a simple question about what the heck your statements were responsive to in the first place.
No, I have redirected from your denial of suggesting wood burning to the alternative of renewable energy. fossil fuel in general. If not one then it is the other.
Now instead of answering you appear to be making additional statements also lacking a nexus to anything I said.
The nexus is simple: if you aren't using renewable energy then you are supporting polluting. Polluting has additional costs to it that you have failed to incorporate into your concept of economic feasibility.
Angelenos have been noticing something strange: the Google Maps satellite imagery depicting the Los Angeles areas of the Pacific Palisades and Altadena now shows pristine neighborhoods untouched by the devastating fires of January 2025.
Of course, as we all know, those neighborhoods are in ruins. Why would Google pretend otherwise?
On Reddit, user TinyPinkSparkles asked, “Why is Google maps back to showing old satellite images of Altadena?" She continued:Not too long after the fire, Google updated the satellite imagery to reflect the fire and thousands of lost structures. Now it's back to pre-fire images of houses and businesses that are no longer there. Why?
There is no reason to expect this to change anytime soon. There is no enabling technology on the horizon and no relevant enabling cost trends.
It has nothing to do with the technology, the technology is entirely sufficient, the problem is people. Just because people are refusing change does not mean there is a problem with the technology, it means they are ignoring the external costs. When the consequences finally bear fruit, the whole lot of you will wail about how wrong it is and that it needs to be stopped, not for the sake of other people but because you will feel inconvenienced.
Over-provisioning at required scales is economically infeasible and environmentally unsound.
And you are basing this on what exactly?
Say what? Where is this coming from? I made a single statement about renewables/solar not being up to the task.
Then by all means, factor in the consequences of climate change. It only becomes more expensive to deal with as times goes on.
we use our wood burning fireplace insert during the winter whenever possible.
Have you considered the health consequences to yourself and the public?
If you want to encourage environmentally friendly behaviors amongst us regular folk, make electricity cheap and plentiful, and sourced from non-greenhouse gas generation itself.
That is not going to happen because people keep voting against it.
Modern, safe nuclear as a primary, stable source
And yet NIMBYs everywhere have eliminated that as a possibility. Also guess who paid to ensure there were extreme regulations on nuclear power? Extremists get funding from the incumbents.
When the price of owned solar comes down
The costs of solar panels has plummeted. The problem is you don't want to pay for it to be installed it and you don't want to install it yourself.
people who want artificial scarcity and a lower quality of life for no good reason
Fools will always exist. The question is if you are empowering them with your vote.
TL;DR: People refusing to operate in an altruistic manner isn't new behavior but it's always disappointing. Hyper-individualism is a plague.
That is dumb.
No, it's the unfortunate reality of the situation.
I have a multi-stage electric heat pump more than capable of keeping my entire home warm enough.
Good because the primary issue with burning wood is the scale in which is it burned. The scale of impact is always an important matter to consider.
I also have a wood stove, and ~18 or so acres of wood lot.
That is entirely your choice. The question is how much of an impact are you have on air quality and how contaminated your soil is. I will tell you that burning wood release a surprising amount of particulate matter that can travel much further than you would expect. Given the option, burning wood should be avoided which is what the article is suggesting.
In short in the right situations wood for heat is wonderful!
Everything is wonderful when you don't consider the external costs of doing it.
External costs:
* releasing the lead back into the atmosphere (negative health implication, especially for children)
* pollution decreases air quality by increasing particulate matter (negative health implications)
There is simply a psychological disconnect between your actions and the consequences. If you understood the exact impact of burning the wood then you may no longer think it is so wonderful.
Where it matters where most heating energy is used there is no economically feasible renewable solution absent technology breakthrough enabling seasonal energy storage.
The crux of your argument is that it is not "economically feasible" but that is a mercurial argument because economics are subject to change. The cost of building out renewable energy sources is not exorbitant which means you simply need build out enough energy generation for both winter and summer. Besides, you failed to account for the economic costs incurred as a result of burning wood. Believe it or not, people get sicker and die sooner as a result of pollution like wood burning. That means they aren't working but instead have to be cared for and that care isn't free.
Furthermore, you are predicating your argument on the idea that polluting is free and will always be free. Like I wrote, economics are subject to change and that is something that should change not to spurn the general public but to benefit the general public.
On top of everything else, economic feasibility has been never been an issue when it comes to building weapons or making tax cuts.
The problem was never economics, the problem has always been shortsightedness.
for people who live somewhere with lots of sun.
Earth?
1) The elite want you to be dependent on them in as many ways as possible.
That must be why they are promoting solar panels for everybody. All that renewable energy can only come from one source and they control access to that, right? Wind? Solar? Tightly controlled by... a cartel or wind and sunlight dealers! If only we used something natural like highly refined hydrocarbons that we are pump out of the ground! DRILL, BABY DRILL!
They want to sew division and discord in homogeneous communities that have high numbers of these individuals.
"homogeneous communities"? Is this your way of telling us that you're a racist? I think it's funny that a racist is accusing other people of elitism.
you will pry my texas brisket from my cold dead hands.
Nice try, buddy! Another guy, like you, said something similar and so I did the right thing by trying to assist him in his suicide. What did that jackass do? HE FILED CHARGES AGAINST ME! Two-faced people like you give compassionate angels of death like me a bad name!
But as long as we're parting ways, I feel like we should part friends. Would you like a cyani^H^H^H^H^H^H breath mint which is entirely safe and not used to end your texas brisket related suffering?
What kind of elitist crap is this?
Well if you read tot he end you read that it has "negative consequences on air quality, and therefore public health." Sounds about as elitist as saying you want people to stop pouring used motor oil into the creek behind your home.
wood may very well be the only thing some can burn, especially if they have a source and they cannot afford insane oil or gas heating prices.
Which part of "if given a choice" did you not understand? Right not, it seems like you just stopped reading half-way through the quote.
Important questions:
Are you suggesting that telling people to act wisely in the interest both themselves and the general public is elitist?
Do you call everyone that cares about other people an elitist?
"A legal requirement to keep games playable indefinitely could place publishers in an impossible position -- forcing them to renegotiate licenses indefinitely or alter games in ways that may not be legally or technically feasible,"
They aren't wrong which is why they should merely be required to....
* declare a minimum timeline for the servers to be online.
* put an independently buildable copy of the source code for the server in escrow with the state.
* source code of updated versions of the any changes to the server.
* ensure the client program can easily use a third-party server.
If they don't want to do that then keeping the servers online indefinitely is the alternative. You do not have a right to a particular business model.
So do low budget film makers.
What genocide?
1) Which*
2) This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Children begin by loving their parents. After a time they judge them. Rarely, if ever, do they forgive them. - Oscar Wilde
