He will enlighten us through a video call from his private jet or straight from his 22-room mansion jacuzzi!

Uneducated, illiterate people are vastly different from highly educated Ph.Ds who produce research. But keep telling yourself all brown people are the same.

If you can buy food there, and eat it there, it's a restaurant. Which means Starbucks, and similar high-end coffee places, count. That's a lot of middle-class restaurants with no pop on the menu. So do the various wine bars/gastropubs/etc. which have been known to be pop-free-zones on the menu until the AAA complains.

As for whether middle class folk think pop is childish, have you ever tried to go a month drinking nothing but pop? In multiple social classes? I work for Home Depot, and my dad's a lawyer, so I actually get to do this experiment. I always have to argue with middle class people. They are stunned that an adult has ordered Coke. If had some of explanation that involved an actual medical condition I would be forced to spread my business far and wide, but that explanation would be accepted. My actual explanation -- that I just like it more -- is never accepted without some sort of dispute. Because I am apparently a perfectly reasonable, grown-ass adult, who acts like a member of the middle class. My love for pop at 38 must be explored, at length.

When I go to the company picnic at Home Depot, this is not an issue. When I go out with co-workers after work. It is just not an issue. The working class just assumes a grown-ass man who has ordered pop wants pop, they do not make a big deal out of it.

Actually he said there is no such thing as life or intelligence in existence.
The rest of his claims are even dumber than that.

Indeed. You're judgmental and wrong.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. What kind of example exactly do you want me to list? And how would it be different than ether?

The thing is, it's going to be energetically cheaper to run a simple air conditioner with evaporator below the dew point and then gather the condensation.

While I agree that the comparison is somewhat nonsensical, I think it is valid to consider the information density of Morse code and the conveyance rate (based on the speed of a typical human operator) in the same way they did for the spoken language models in the article.

This is an article about information theory, not computer science.

Actually, once electric adoption hits 20% (perhaps as low as 10% but not more than 30%), I believe that the oil industry will start crashing. First the price at the pump will tumble because removing 20% of the demand will cause such. Next the big drillers will start to have problems getting funding for their projects, Then the local gas stations will start to disappear because who would want to spend tens of thousands of dollars to change out the storage tanks (which need to be done every 20 years or so). After that gas will start creeping up util it's a luxury item.

I'm guessing that's between five to twenty years before your 'personal standard of living' will require an electric car. Then you'd want the charger, in part because it's a 'plus' to home value.

I assume you just drive around in Ludicrous mode all the time? Or do you ask the Porsche driver to kindly wait for a few minutes whilst your battery pack heats up?

UK homes typically also have a 15A or higher circuit for cooking or heating...

It's also pronounced "tie".

That has about as much chance of sticking in North America as the correct pronunciation of Porsche.

I am. That's because there's a lot of people that believe the UK will not meet their CO2 emission reduction goals without more nuclear power.

https://uk.reuters.com/article...

I took a look at it, and it will not be enough as pointed out by the article I linked to.

Estimates are that the UK will need at least 30 GW of nuclear power to reach their CO2 emissions goal in 2050. Hinkley Point C is 3 GW. The UK will need 10 more of these in the next 30 years.

Electric cars are a good idea to meet this goal, but only if that doesn't mean building many more natural gas power stations to charge them. Electric cars are nice for a commuter vehicle but no battery will power the big trucks that need lots of power over long distances. For those a switch to natural gas would certainly help in their CO2 emission goal.

What I would like to see is the Taycan post a good lap time around the Nurburgring. The performance of the Tesla has been faulted because it can only go all out for a number of seconds at a time. Tesla has not even posted a Nurburgring time.

Sure for myself I don't need to race the Nurburgring and nor do I need to spend $170K on any car. But, that's how a Porsche should stand out.

Garages are often too narrow to practically contain a car (ie you can drive in, but then you cant open the door and have to climb out the sunroof).

this legislation was paid for by the tobacco industry.

No, the bit rate from the article has nothing to do with binary 1s and 0s. It is in reference to Shannon's information theory,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

To compare speech with Morse code, you have to take the 40 words per minute, convert to syllables per second (let's say 2 syllables / second, assuming an average 3 syllables / word), and then multiply by the information density of the language (7 bits / syllable for English). That works out to an information rate of 14 bits per second for your speed demon Morse operator.

I didn't see where they did this calculation in the article, so not sure where the statement comes from, but I think it should be fairly obvious that we communicate with speech at a higher information rate than would be achievable with Morse code. So I agree the statement is somewhat nonsensical.

Sure, energy costs money. But pollution (associated with energy production) doesn't cost money (to the user). So, energy doesn't cost as much as it should cost with externalities included, and people are more inclined to use incandescent bulbs than they would be.

Actually, pretty much every good has externalities associated with it, so having no regulation at all is a good way to turn the Earth into a trash heap. You can argue about how much regulation is worthwhile though.

To boil this down, activities that you do can have positive or negative utility. And they can have this for yourself, or others.

People are fine being left to their own to choose activities that have positive utility for *themselves*, but those activities can have negative utility for other people. Still if the total negative utility is less than the positive utility that you as an individual gain, then everyone can freely do that activity, and overall, net utility of the society increases because of that activity. So, a small negative utility for other people can be ignored.

However, there's no guarantee that the negative utility is less than the positive utility. There are activities you can do where the negative utility to other people exceeds the positive utility to yourself. If everyone does these activities, then we all become poorer, even though from an individual perspective, the activity makes perfect economic sense. This is also exemplified in "The Prisoner's Dilemma" of game theory, where from any individual perspective it always makes sense to backstab, rather than cooperate, even though cooperation is clearly the optimal outcome for all involved.

The Free Market being the most efficient option is only true if there is no distortion. Externalities create such a distortion, and almost the rules and regulations are about removing those distortions. For example, food safety rules are a cost to the food industry, but they remove the external cost of people getting sick, which was a hidden variable. Free Market = Food Poisoning Epidemic. Or at least, the lowest level of food safety they can get away with with plausible denial when people start dying.

Really? The Interstate highway system was designed in 1956.

Stats from Wikipedia - M48 Patton weight 45 tons (1951). Current M1A2C Abrams weight 66.8 tons (48% higher). Put them on a carrier and it gets just a bit heavier and the weight distribution gets worse. Are the roads that are commonly used to move armor between required specific points up to snuff? Sure. Is every single mile of the interstate highways and all their bridges up to snuff? I doubt it. Exactly how bad the situation is at any given point in time is classified. But since all construction is done by the lowest bidder and patching usually wins over rebuilding from scratch to higher standards due to dollar issues to say there wouldn't be issues moving armor around anyplace in a nationwide uprising is probably optimistic.

None of that negates the point I was making. This is a big country and if there really was a nationwide insurrection, there isn't enough armor around nor the means to move it around to suppress a true nationwide insurrection in short order. Add in the whole psychological issues for the troops of fighting their countrymen instead of an enemy and you have more issues. Everybody does readiness tests when they can in order to try to ensure that command and control works, but I doubt anybody wants to play out that scenario in real life. If it gets bad enough there is a nationwide insurrection, there will be a lot of troops that simply won't do what they're supposed to do. They'll go home to protect their families. And that truly isn't meant as any disrespect to any of them.

One of the biggest problems the Germans had in WWII (other than US air bombing of factories leading to spare parts shortages and new finished product shortages) was their later bigger tanks couldn't navigate many of the bridges - and the bridges are my primary concern now here as well - especially with the increasing yearly flooding toll.

Railways are more likely to be used for long distance, but also have infrastructure issues and are more vulnerable. So yeah, armor is great, but not the end all you seem to think it is.

On a more constructive note, a person who is drinking multiple sugar sodas a day is bound to say, "Yipe! That's enough," far earlier than the person drinking the diet. Consuming equal volumes of each is not a fair comparison.

As best as I can tell, they are two separate processes, one MOF (metal-organic framework) for H2O and another for CO2. The MOF works by being a 'cage' which targets a specific molecule, which can seemly be coaxed to release by applying heat. It seems that the H2O producer has a functional model they are prepping for commercial sales, but the CO2 trap has only recently been shown to capture the gas. The idea of turning CO2 into an energy source is an idea for using the gas produced, but not part of the MOF breakthrough. In all likelihood the gas would be sequestered underground, but without the solvents used by the currents scrubbing tech.

The thing is, you're not supposed to be drinking the water from a dehumidifier. It's full of all sorts of particulates from the air and is generally not safe to drink.

Which is why you use a filter that only lets the water through. (Or in this case, a molecular-scale "filter" that has holes that a water molecule will find cuddly and a particle won't even fit.)

Also, hasn't it already been proven that you can't harvest humidity if there IS NO HUMIDITY?

Ain't no such thing, at least in the wild troposphere. There's low humidity, and lower humidity, and seriously parched. But there's still some water molecules banging around to be grabbed (making the exhaust air still MORE parched, but so what?)

Air circulates all around the planet. It gets wet when it passes over water. Oversimplified: It gets dry when it goes over cold mountains or up in high clouds, cooling and thinning out until it can't hold as much water. But that stops when it still has as much left as the thin cold air will hold. So it's at 100% relative humidity - not zero - when it quits drying. Then it comes down, compresses, and heats up. So it could hold a lot more water. But the water in it didn't go away. The relative humidity may be down in single-digit percentages, but again there's still water to be grabbed by a fancy MOF.

(Correcting the oversimplification: If there are ice crystals, some of the water may prefer to hang out on them - just like it does on MOFs. So the cold thin air actually gets a bit drier than 100% relative humidity for that particular temperature and pressure. But still it's far from totally dried out.)
(T

I've said this in other posts: watch what these companies DO, not what they SAY. Every word of this recent "responsible corporate citizen" thing is public-relations drivel. Companies care about one thing and one thing only: profit. Google, Haliburton, Apple, Facebook, Koch Industries. Insert whatever other company name you want into that list. They are driven by profit. Period. Google talks softly, but they've recently engaged in union busting, and now this. No surprise. They're just as profit-driven as the next company. Expecting any other behavior is foolish.

This doesn't really bother me. Capitalism. We deliberately set up western society to be like this. You're in a company? You focus on PROFIT and RETURN ON CAPITAL. That's what you do. That's you're job. That's why you exist. Period. End of discussion. Any collective action for the greater good is the purview of government, civic organizations and non-profits. Want to make the world better as a full-time job? A company is the wrong place for you. Try one of those other outfits.

And I'm cool with this. Capitalism has it's problems, but overall it works exceedingly well. There's a reason why lots of people from other parts of the world want to migrate to the west, and very few go the other direction. Democracy has a lot to do with it, but Capitalism provides the opportunity. No other system comes close.

Expecting a company to voluntarily take a financial hit to "save the world" is idiocy. Want to address any sort of societal problem? DO NOT expect a company to provide the solution, unless there's somehow a profit to be made. Google might talk nicely, but they will try their very hardest to quietly assassinate any proposed restrictions on advertising or data selling.

Commercial CFL's lasts decades.

They won't need to fight very hard with Trump at the helm.

"ringer" ==> "wringer"

the two aren't the same. based on the context, he should have used the latter, not the former.

Which tests do the blind 8th graders take then?

This study is the worst example you could use.

If you're studying extremely large effects, like voting, controlling for education level does acceptably. With small effects like this (9% vs. 11% over a 16-year period) it's terrible. I have one cousin who spends all his time being the most working-class-Appalachian man he can be and has a degree. There're quite a few people in every college town who burned out on the officially-geting-a-degree-thing, work for the Campus bookstore, and act like they're Harvard PhDs.

And the single world 'We' can have a trademark?!

Re 'I'm pretty sure the UK knows what the solution is to this problem"
Russian gas at a low price. Anyways very low price direct from Russia. Contract is decades long.
US gas at a "special relationship" price? That can change at any time.
Oil from very evil nations.
A valley to dam for pumped hydro.
Another 40 years on the "1970's" still operational nuclear reactors?
Make all of Lancashire a hydraulic fracturing energy production zone. Try Cornwall again?

No, because they always "settle" before anything goes anywhere near a courtroom.

Utter rubbish.

It's the gold plating of our electrical grid that has resulted in high energy prices, as well as the failure of our government to secure local gas supplies and the absence of any leadership on energy policy providing certainty for investment.

https://theconversation.com/br...

As to the AC parent, the Tesla battery in Hornsdale was never intended for storage, but for grid stabilisation, and should have paid for itself within a few years.

https://lucassadler.com/2019/0...

As I type this, most energy in South Australia is being generated by wind, the rest gas and solar, pretty equally divided, and we are exporting more interstate than we're generating.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/ne...

And... it's not as fast as a Tesla, nor does it have as much range... so what's the attraction again?

It can do a hot lap of the Nuerburgring. Trying that in a Tesla Model S results in the battery overheating.

What about the infrastructure cost to transport terawatts of electricity around to support all this electric vehicle charging? Doing away with petrol and diesel is great 'n' all but that replacement energy has got to come from somewhere.

Parking cameras? It's a Porsche, the valet parks it.

Porsche is all about drivability. Tesla is all about 'living room on wheels'.

Buying a Porsche is buying a driving experience. Traditionally they hug the road extremely well, have virtually no throttle lag. Steering feels super connected to the bitumen you're driving on. And high speed cornering is a dream.

I haven't driven this new electric model, but if it lives up to the expectations as a "driver's" car like their other models, then I don't even seen Tesla competing remotely in the same market segment.

Drivers don't want auto-everything. They don't want boat like driving dynamics, they want go-carts. Most of the features you've listed are a turn off for the people that are buying this sort of vehicle.