Interesting. If some specific types of cancer incidences rise, but the accumulation of all cancer incidences remain the same, does that imply a partially protective effect by cellphones?

It's Microsoft, they would never send open source helicopters. It'll be proprietary helicopters running IIS, and they'll charge a fortune per seat.

"Peak times" have been 4-7 pm since before solar was a thing, and it's the same in markets where solar still isn't a major player. It's the overlap between people getting home from work and ramping up residential usage, while business usage is still ramping down.

I don't know why the peak time in CA has extended to 9 pm, it may have something to do with the duck curve, and/or something else. But solar generation itself did not define peak hours.

Perhaps, and this is speculation on my part, GP envisions a dual-function plant: generate electricity that is used to cook concrete when you need to make concrete, and feed spare power to the grid when electrical prices are especially high and/or you don't have any concrete orders to fill.

IMHO the right balance in a car would be "no touch screens whatsoever"

You just created some content, and the rest of us are reading it. Doesn't that count?

No one knows my real name on Reddit, either, but more people would argue that it's social media. It's substantially similar to Slashdot, though, in all the ways that count: links, discussion, ratings of that discussion (upvotes vs moderation).

Social media is more about the networking than sharing content. (despite how people on Facebook operate, which seems to be entirely shared content, nothing original anymore, followed by a bunch of drivel-as-comments to it.)

This is ridiculous.

• Kids never smile: Kids who get braces frequently become extremely self-conscious and stop smiling in photos, and won't start again until after they're removed. This period can last for years.
• Wife has bruises: A real psychopath quickly learns how to hurt someone without leaving visible bruises. But, more importantly, the type of person who resorts to physical violence as an adult is relatively rare. Most adult bullies work on a psychological level - the kind of bruises that won't show up even on a nude body.
• Owns a pitbull: that's simply not fair and not true. Pitbulls, as a breed, are awesome dogs. Horribly, some people shape them into monsters because (as a breed trait) they're overwhelmingly subservient to humans -- you can't turn most dogs into fighters without running an extreme personal risk to your safety, but you can with pitbulls. A cared-for pitbull is one of the best family and house dogs you can get: good-natured, even tempered, and willing to roll with any flow.

That's how kids bully each other. Twenty years of social pressure puts an end to physical outbursts in most people, the remainder enter specialized environments (jail or the military).

Adult bullying is about social dominance. Think intimidation, putting people in difficult situations, withholding important information from specific people, blocking inclusion, belittling, that sort of thing.

Adults don't beat each other up, that's for kids. We're far more vicious to each other. Bullies are the ones doing it on purpose, over and over again.

It's not an American-only thing.

I went to Egypt recently, and tipped services are rampant there. You're obligated to tip just to use the bathroom.

Turn it around: you potentially get twice as much learning for the same price, and you choose how much to partake between 1x and 2x.

Uh... Your own link indicates that a) the station is planned, b) running into planning problems and rising costs, and c) participants are dropping out.

Now, back to what you said:

Pot... kettle... something or other.

You say "math" but I think you mean "arithmetic". The two are related but are definitely not the same.

Being fast at arithmetic does not correlate well to understanding concepts. A human abacus isn't going to prove many theorems (except by brute force) unless they also have a deep understanding of logic and mathematical concepts.

More to the point: proving difficult theorems isn't rewarded by being fast, only by being right.

Bernie Sanders didn't say actually that. The quote is from an article he shared on his website. https://www.sanders.senate.gov...

You might argue that because he republished it that he believes every word in it, but you could also argue in better faith that almost a decade ago, when Venezuela was a very different place than it is today, he considered that article with a passing reference to Venezuela "food for thought."

You could also consider that maybe, as bad as it sounds, he's saying that even poor Venezuela has a better grasp on Democracy than the United States has. I think that's not true, but the US is certainly no longer the home of the free, nor the brave.

I find this idea interesting:

It's looking ahead at the unintended consequences of how a law may be interpreted. Good job!

I'm totally with you when you say:

Congress stopped growing a century ago, and for a while it was ok, not great but still ok, but we've been losing a lot of effective representation for decades now. It's putting a hurt on our democracy because now only rich individuals can "speak" loudly enough to be heard above the din of each representative's constituency. We need smaller districts.

I kind of think you went off the rails here:

I think you forgot to keep looking at the unintended consequences.

If you make every seat a single-term, you lose your professional class of politicians. Each new representative or senator is now guaranteed to be inexperienced and bumble about Washington for a couple of years -- the Congressional version of Eternal September.

You think politicians have a hard time fending off unethical offers now? What about when they have no idea what they're in for?

Moreover, job satisfaction will dive, so fewer people will want the job. You'll have a constant flow of less and less qualified people, which brings satisfaction even lower. It's a vicious cycle.

What you're really, unintentionally, doing is creating a class of unelected, master political aides who will be pulling the strings on most federal politicians. Your representatives really will be figureheads for their 2- or 6-year term while their staff, who is in for the long haul and keeps getting hired like a "Representative-in-a-Box" outfit, directs them for their own agenda. Imagine House of Cards but where Frank Underwood is being entirely manipulated by his own staff.

Your one-term politician will spend their term courting the people and companies that will give them a job after their one-and-done gig in Washington. Without an upcoming election to keep you responsive and beholden to your constituency, nothing will keep you honest or even working in your district's best interests. Even Boss Tweed couldn't imagine such a sweetheart deal.

I think we have this fantasy that every congressional critter is an honest person trying to get out, but those pesky companies are keeping them pent up with bribes and lobbying. It's reinforced when a politician does an about-face after announcing their retirement, suddenly speaks their mind or now supports some bill that people wanted but s/he never supported.

The reality is, there are honest people and dishonest people in Congress. Those politicians that switch sides at the very end found a higher bidder outside the government, that's all.