but Google has no obligation to provide their product to you for free.
Maybe not, but if they can serve you video, they can serve you ads. If your ad-blocker is working then maybe Google should explain the details of what's so different about that stream. Is it running a crypto miner, for example?
I agree that they're free to do this, but my ad-blockers are active for security purposes, and I am free to do that.
> the demand and supply must always match
Correct. Overproduction results in increase in grid frequency which can cause a lot of damage.
> this means that that you produce more than you need and have to either sell outside
Or import less (Cali imports up to ~30% of its power from Arizona and Utah). In this case, the a good chunk of that excess power seems to have been absorbed by temporarily increasing demand through charging grid scale batteries. That energy can be (and has been) released later in the day to help offset peak loads, allowing utilities to avoid spinning up expensive gas turbines.
> If on the other hand they invested in say nuclear this would not be necessary
Nuclear is far and away the most expensive and has the longest lead time. It also has a problem of needing large supplies of water, and that water needs to be not too warm or else they need to throttle or shut down the plant. Drought and heat waves are both issues in California so expanding nuclear power is difficult even if the local population was accepting of their presence.
=Smidge=
> What the heck kind of tortured cherry picked thing is this?
It's pretty simple? For 30 of the past 38 days, renewable energy production exceeded energy demand for at least 15 minutes.
While the 38 days part is a little strange, this is overall good information. Paired with their burgeoning energy storage capacity it means we are starting to catch a glimpse of the break-over point where we have 100% renewable energy 24/7. 15 minutes of surplus means 15 minutes of not burning fossil fuels after the sun sets.
It's a start, and already more than the shills told us was impossible.
=Smidge=
It's impressive how this talking point has been getting proven wrong for the past 20 years, and yet people still front with it as if it's a real gotcha.
=Smidge=
> perhaps the ones that pay a kickback to the ISP
Kickback? What about apps *owned* by the ISP? Most service providers also offer their own brand of on-demand services. Even if anyone can buy priority traffic for better speeds, they can give it to themselves for free. It's extremely anti-competitive.
=Smidge=
Buy from a reputable source. Just because you don't like paying the extortionary prices for official HP ink and supporting their bullshit business model, doesn't mean you must, or should, buy the cheapest shit you can find off eBay or a random vendor at a convention.
At the very least buy from an established business that has a refund policy and customer service to complain to...
=Smidge=
> Son, I wrote and published one of the first 15,000 web sites.
That's great! Lots of people had shitty Geocities blogs, though. Doesn't mean you know shit about the internet, which you clearly don't if this is the credentials you front with. (And if you really know anything about the history of the internet, you'll know why Geocities specifically is relevant to your claim lol)
> Chickenshit money
0.09% of the federal budget for that year. The money you're complaining about now? 0.3%. Where's the line? At what point does it transition from "Chickenshit money" to something worth bitching about?
> The government came up with a bullshit number after everyone threw a fit over the first bullshit number??
No, conservative ne'er-do-wells came up with a bullshit number and you threw a fit over it, because you didn't think twice about what you were told. Probably didn't even think once, to be honest. The $93M is from the company that was contracted to build the site - which you'd know if you read the sources. Not like it's not a matter of public record or anything.
=Smidge=
> I helped build the Internet, Tubby. I know its history backwards and forwards. The federal government played a minimal role, if that.
Unless you're in your 70s, you're a lying sack of shit. Also wrong even if you are that old. (FYI $124.5M in 1970s money is about $1B today when you adjust for inflation)
And that's not even including all the investments since that initial research, like the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 which threw another $1B at it ($2.3B today's value) to actually built the physical "internet" in the United States. I suppose I shouldn't have needed to mention any of this if you actually know the history of the internet though...
> Therefore it is forbidden by the Tenth Amendment.
According to your own criteria, the Tenth Amendment doesn't exist because it wasn't part of the original Constitution ratified in 1789. You don't get to invoke it for your arguments. Too bad, so sad.
> Remember the $600 million health care web site that didn't work?
I don't, and neither do you, because the contract was only for $93 million. Fuck man, even Glenn Beck debunked that claim at the time. When Glenn Beck thinks you're wrong, that's something truly exceptional.
=Smidge=
Also worth remembering that horses poop. A lot. A horse produces about 20 pounds of manure per day.
At the turn of the 20th century, New York City had an estimated 100,000 horses. That's about 2 million pounds of horse poop per day. Naturally this wasn't a problem unique to NYC.
To bring this back on topic; MacMann posts are similarly a nearly unmanageable amount of horse shit. For example, he conveniently disregards the billions of federal dollars poured into automotive infrastructure in the first half of the 20th century, so say nothing of the billions more spent on propping up the fossil fuel industry to power them.
We needed government funds to get those technologies into common use then, and I'd argue we need them more so today because we're up against much more powerful and entrenched incumbent industries.
=Smidge=
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Congress has the explicit authority to do make the laws needed to do their job. So what are the "foregoing powers?" Well one of them... the first one listed in fact... is the authority to provide, and collect taxes to pay for, the defense and general welfare of the nation.
It is unarguably in the nation's interest - its general welfare - to decouple our energy needs from international market influences for the sake of our independence and national security, to reduce local and global pollution for the sake of its citizen's health, to preserve critical resources, and to foster an environment that will support future the population.
The federal government has the legal authority to invest in clean energy in exactly the same way it had the authority to invest in literally everything else. If you don't like it, get off the internet, throw out all your computer equipment, and cut your power lines, because the federal government invested heavily in all that shit and you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you?
> why don't we abide by those that were ratified in 1789
Because the world isn't like it was 235 years ago, asshole. Even the people who wrote the constitution understood that the world would change and included mechanisms to expand and evolve both the Constitution itself and the laws that apply it. Fuck man, by saying 1789 you even cut out the bill of rights (ratified 1791) so I guess you should throw out your guns, let the cops search and take your shit without a warrant, and let yourself be jailed without trial... none of that was in the 1789 version either.
=Smidge=
> I'm posting this from a windows 7 machine. It also works just fine.
It won't if you ever go to upgrade your hardware. It's more than just security concerns, it's an entire industry literally conspiring to make what you own obsolete and force you into their ecosystem.
I'd still be using Win7 myself except several of the applications I use decided that they will no longer support anything older than Win10 for no clear reason. Hell, the laptop I'm typing this on came with Win10 and I spent three whole days getting a custom modified Win7 to install because there aren't sufficient drivers for this hardware. Even when it was working the USB was kinda janky...
=Smidge=
> The states ABSOLUTELY have to rezone things
They absolutely do not. Would be nice if they did, maybe, but the chargers usually get installed on private property and, other than local building permits, requires no government intervention. Even on government property there's no need for the government to get involved beyond giving permission (via a contract.)
> because while we pretend that private companies do that stuff, in effect they are government-sanctioned monopolies
They are still private companies and the state cannot compel them to build anything. To the extent there is any state control, it's almost entirely economic. They are not operated or managed by the government, only regulated.
> I'm pretty sure a charging station needs to sit on land, no? Who buys it?
Nobody necessarily needs to buy any land; If it's private property, then it's up to the owner to install the chargers. If it's public property, the the government that owns that land will put out an RFP and contract out the development of that infrastructure to a private company. Now, is it possible that some private company would seek to purchase property explicitly for this purpose? Sure, I guess, but that's usually a poor business strategy compared to piggybacking off of an existing business and cutting a deal with the existing owner. EV chargers by themselves are not much of a business.
> Quite often where there are private companies actually involved
If by "quite often" you mean "always" then yes.
> RFQ
RFP. Request for proposal. Assuming the construction is the state's responsibility at all instead of just offering cash incentives to private developers, they will seek a turnkey solution from a vendor who can coordinate everything from groundbreaking to ribbon cutting, then contract the maintenance as well. States generally do not have the excess manpower sitting around to do that work on top of the other charter-obligated responsibilities they're already underfunded to do. Source: It's in the fucking article and the underlying law that they bid out the work. (See subsections starting at "[[Page 135 STAT. 550]]").
"An eligible entity receiving a grant under this subsection shall only use the funds in accordance with this paragraph to contract with a private entity for acquisition and installation of publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure
In other words, the government, tribe, territory etc. that gets the funding is obliged to hire someone who knows what the fuck they're doing to install and maintain everything. The government's involvement is essentially limited to outlining approximately where the stations should be located and explaining to the feds how their plan complies with the requirements to get the money.
=Smidge=
You're talking like you know what all Google does with your data but you don't.
> For the FDA to imply that ivermectin wasn't safe for human use when they had approved it to be, they should have been sued.
They were saying to stop eating veterinary ivermectin sold as a dewormer.
There's a world of difference between a doctor prescribing a human-formulated drug for off-label use and eating tablets or paste you bought at the local Tractor Supply intended for livestock.
=Smidge=
> states have to y'know, but the land, set up the infrastructure, and build the things with actual money
The state does none of this, private companies do. The states are just middlemen handling the money.
=Smidge=
This file will self-destruct in five minutes.
