Apologies for my keyboard’s apparent inability to put out the correct code for the single quote.

You mean raking the forest floor?

G+ lasted 7 years and I was one of the happy users. Yes, it was a data-gathering exercise, but we all made many âfriendsâ(TM) who were much closer than you ever find on Facebook. The discussions tended to be intelligent and covered every topic under the sun, yes, including what weâ(TM)re having for lunch, but far more likely to be about tech, science, politics, the environment; and the big one was , of course, photography.

I joined by invite in the second beta wave and ended up with over 19,000 followers (though I know this figure was inflated by Google. As for engagement, right up until a month or so ago, I found it difficult to keep up with my feed each day, with hundreds of posts on my stream on an average day. People who called it a ghost town simply werenâ(TM)t engaging effectively, and probably not generating content. Rather than just getting what you pay for, it was more a matter of getting out to the degree that you put in.

Itâ(TM)s annoying that theyâ(TM)re still soliciting for new users, as it does look like they just donâ(TM)t care. Theyâ(TM)re also still putting up âDo you know [these people]?â(TM) cards in the feed, as if they want us to grow our following in a dying swan gesture. And just yesterday I saw a card inviting me to give G+ a positive review on the Play Store. You know what? I donâ(TM)t really care to.

Nobody knows (except Google) how many active users there were but informed guesses ran from tens of millions up to about the same as Flickr. Many thousands of us have gone to a new Diaspora* pod called Pluspora, run by a couple of really nice Plussers; many thousands more have gone to MeWe, and many to other sites. Many are still looking.

Iâ(TM)ll always fondly remember my seven years on G+. But I wonâ(TM)t mourn it. Iâ(TM)ll be too busy elsewhere.

The PUC of California sets a maximum rate and profit level for PG&E and other utilities, and they do this each year. This was what caused the first bankruptcy awhile back when electricity prices were spiking but PG&E couldn't raise rates. This ceiling forces the utilities to find ways to conserve and run more efficiently.

Not really a beach though, it's pretty rocky there with steep drop offs. The tsunami inundation zone map for the area is very minor, not even going up to the plant. It's nothing like the Fukushima area. The bigger danger there is potentially from earthquakes.

This seems to be what happens to all the services Google decides to end.

Yeah, but people like the boom and whoosh and zing.
Give me a decent script instead.

Google+ was as unfortunately named as the WiiU. People must've thought it was a rewards program like Bing Rewards or something. My dad accidentally clicked on some 'make a G+ account' prompt, and suddenly he had a Google+ account. He never seemed to realize this though, and he kept using Facebook blissfully unaware of Google+. They shot themselves in the foot with the '+1' terminology, when every other social media site was using the 'Like', not just Facebook. Hell, calling it an 'upvote' would've been an improvement.

Google was notorious for killing their projects, so savvy netizens were wary this one would get the axe too (spoiler: it did). Those concerned over privacy considered Google+ a sidegrade over Facebook, at best.

They really should've just brought over some realtime functionality to Gmail, promoted that to all the people still using yahoo/AOL/hotmail accounts, and called it a day.

Ha, Slashdot is just as bad with science as well. Knee-jerk responses without reading articles to declare someone's research was a waste and that there was a better analysis just waiting for the Slashdot experts to reveal. So many show up here on any topic to start blabbing out their opinions without ever once doing any research to get their facts sorted out; they go on a gut feeling alone based on a headline and pretend to be experts. Ie, blowhards who make the Slashdot editors look like geniuses.

Yeah... I don't get where that guy was coming from. 40% of water is diverted to wetlands restoration and over 80% of the remainder is used for farming...

Cities in California are already *really* strict with water, and you can't water your way out of fuel build-up (since water helps make more fuel). The Camp fire wasn't a climate change fire. It was a poorly maintained infrastructure fire.

Then pull your head out of the Fox News/Infowars bubble. The only people who "don't believe" the assessment are the people who worry that significant Russian interference delegitimizes Trump's presidency (which it kinda does).

LOL

The evidence that they're morons is they presented the timestamps as proof, apparently not realizing a USB transfer likely came AFTER the remote download.

The quick stamping out of fires was a common practice in the past, and one done across many states and also by the feds in their federal lands. But everyone knows now, including forestry officials in California, that controlled burns are necessary to prevent more catastrophic fires. The snag is that after many decades of bad management, you can't just correct it all quickly. You're making it sound like California is still acting like the 1950's era with Smokey the Bear.

Right now Facebook's market cap (basically how much it would cost to buy all the stock) is $480billion. That's going to be an expensive purchase, but maybe worth it.

PG&E is exactly what an economist would tell you will happen when government sets a price ceiling and supply isn't allowed to be reduced to compensate. Instead of quantity supplied being reduced (because that's illegal), quality is reduced as much as possible (Same exact economic issue with rent control price ceilings creating slumlords). The whole thing is the State of California's fault, a predictable result of their laws and regulatory mismanagement.

But sure, blame the power company which isn't allowed to make any significant decisions (who to sell power to, for how much and how top roduce and sell it) that California effectively runs via regulation.

San Diego Gas and Electric has the exact same issue as PG&E, just to a lesser extent because they're smaller.

Then PG&E needs nuclear power to lower their carbon output. Nuclear power has the lowest CO2 produced per kWh produced as well as the lowest rate of deaths per kWh.

If global warming caused these fires then PG&E is contributing to the problem by not using the lowest CO2 energy source we have available. This is their own fault, they deserve to go under. Let someone that understands the science of CO2 production replace them. Maybe then we can actually solve this problem than use the non-solution that is wind and solar. Wind and solar not only produce more CO2 per kWh but also cost far more. They also contribute to an unreliable grid since they cannot produce energy when it is needed.