Large houses in hot climates don't have enough roof space to accommodate the number of panels you would need to displace grid power. Using obsolete panels that generated less power when they were new is only going to make the problem worse.

Leaning into unreliable power sources when demand is increasing is just going to make any supply issues worse.

Someone posted what they pay for electricity in California and what their buy back rate is and their rates are insane.

The ghost of Enron.

I dunno. China is a "market socialist" system -- which is a contradiction in terms. If China is socialist, then for practical purposes Norway and Sweden have to be even *more* socialist because they have a comprehensive public welfare system which China lacks. And those Nordic countries are rated quite high on global measures of political and personal freedom, and very low on corruption. In general they outperform the US on most of those measures, although the US is better on measures of business deregulation.

I have mine connected to a Raspberry Pi and a Google Chromecast. I can update the Pi myself and if the Chromecast fails, gets EOLed or just enshittified, I'm out $30 and still have a functional TV with the Pi. Then I just throw some other inexpensive device on it.

By contrast, the 'Smart' TV leaves me stuck. If it gets enshittified or EOLed, I don't have much in the way of options unless I can figure out a way to lobotomize it and make it a dumb TV.

Meanwhile, the all-or-nothing Smart TV removes real disincentives for enshittification.

So no, for the consumer, it really does NOT make sense. For corporate executives rubbing their hands waiting for enshitification day, it makes a lot of sense, unfortunately.

The only 32-bit Windows version currently supported by Steam is Windows 10, and I doubt you're going to have any better compatibility with old games running the 32-bit version of Windows 10 than on the 64-bit version.

It makes no sense to claim Chinese courts have a lot of power, although it may seem that way â" itâ(TM)s supposed to seem that way. One of the foundational principles of Chinese jurisprudence is party supremacy. Every judge is supervised by a PLC â" party legal committee â" which oversees budgets, discipline and assignments in the judiciary. They consult with the judges in sensitive trials to ensure a politically acceptable outcome.

So it would be more accurate to characterize the courts as an instrument of party power rather than an independent power center.

From time to time Chinese court decisions become politically inconvenient, either through the supervisors in the PLC missing something or through changing circumstances. In those cases there is no formal process for the party to make the courts revisit the decision. Instead the normal procedure is for the inconvenient decision to quietly disappear from the legal databases, as if it never happened. When there is party supremacy, the party can simply rewrite judicial history to its current needs.

An independent judiciary seems like such a minor point; and frankly it is often an impediment to common sense. But without an independent judiciary you canâ(TM)t have rule of law, just rule by law.

Hereâ(TM)s the problem with that scenario: court rulings donâ(TM)t mean much in a state ruled by one party. China has plenty of progressive looking laws that donâ(TM)t get enforced if it is inconvenient to the party. There are emission standards for trucks and cars that should help with their pollution problems, but there are no enforcement mechanisms and officials have no interest in creating any if it would interfere with their economic targets or their private interests.

China is a country of strict rules and lax enforcement, which suits authoritarian rulers very well. It means laws are flouted routinely by virtually everyone, which gives the party leverage. Displease the party, and they have plenty of material to punish you, under color of enforcing laws. It sounds so benign, at least theyâ(TM)re enforcing the law part of the time, right? Wrong. Laws selectively enforced donâ(TM)t serve any public purpose; theyâ(TM)re just instruments of personal power.

Americans often donâ(TM)t seem to understand the difference between rule of law and rule *by* law. Itâ(TM)s ironic because the American Revolution and constitution were historically important in establishing the practicality of rule of law, in which political leaders were not only expected to obey the laws themselves, but had a duty to enforce the law impartially regardless of their personal opinions or interests.

Rule *by* law isnâ(TM)t a Chinese innovation, it was the operating principle for every government before 1789. A government that rules *by* law is only as good as the men wielding power, and since power corrupts, itâ(TM)s never very good for long.

... switching the company to Linux.

Says the loser who likes to stalk people as an AC when he's not sucking McCarthy's rotting cock.

The computer was 3 years old on release of Win11 and is plenty powerful enough in this day where each generation of CPU only gives a minor speed bump. Even in the 90's when computers doubled in speed every 18 months, you were free to install the latest OS with perhaps a warning that the experience would be bad.

The thin is, the artists WANT to keep the prices down because they (or at least their managers) understand that fans able to get tickets and see concerts is a driving force for their fandom. You don't get big or even stay big by only being seen by a few wealthy patrons (or their kids).

Actually, they own a few and have a contractual lock on many many more.