For other uses the agency categorized as "limited," such as use in electric vehicle batteries

Naturally the Biden admins sacred cow is excused.

Rules should apply to every - and sure I guess these apply to everyone in that everyone can engage in the manufacture of electric vehicle batteries but. Still this is backdoor to picking winners and losers as usual. If the stuff is so dangerous all industrial applications should be prohibited not just ones the admin does not have a hard on about!

"For other uses the agency categorized as 'limited,' such as use in electric vehicle batteries and the manufacturing of certain refrigerants, there would be a longer transition period and more stringent worker protections."

You appear to have dropped something, sir. Probably because you can't claim that existing refrigerants are "the Biden admins (sic) sacred cow." But by all means, ban the ability to repair current central air conditioners and you'll show everybody, won't you.

"And literally they'll probably be working three-and-a-half days a week."

What fantastical bullshit. I'll tell you what, how about if that prediction doesn't pan out by the time that I hit Jamie's age (67), his bank gives me his job for five years. That'll give him more than a decade to make that the norm at the bank.

Academic economists have been touting the short workweek for what, a century now? It doesn't happen, because business owners and their accountants are governed by an iron rule: it's cheaper to work your FTE employees for an additional 15-20 hours per week than it is to hire an additional FTE because the marginal costs are less than the costs of administration and benefits for an additional hire. The only industries where this isn't implemented are ones that try to hold most of their employees in PTE slots which lack benefits.

So hell will freeze over before your job, even if it benefits from AI, will be reduced to 30 hours per week. Most of those productivity benefits are going straight to executive compensation and bonuses, with a piece going to the shareholders (but only through speculative increases in stock price -- not dividends), and a smidgen going to increased wages in connection with the increased productivity.

Just curious, what do you refer as A/C if not a heat pump - what other technology would they use for cooling? At least the air-to-air heat pumps I have installed are dual-function - during winter they heat and during summer they cool.

I'm going to assume that you're not in the U.S., so if you are I apologize.

Central air conditioning systems in the U.S. are one-way systems which only support a cooling mode. The evaporator coil in your indoor air handler only functions to absorb heat from the inside air.

Central heat pump systems in the U.S. are essentially the same setup, but the exterior unit (the condenser and compressor) includes a reversing valve and other hardware to reverse the operation of the system. The evaporator coil in your indoor air handler then functions like a condenser (without the built-in compressor, which is still in the outside unit) and the heat is rejected into the indoor air handler to heat the inside air.

The difference between the two tends to run about $1400 these days.

Only 5% may currently have A/C, but more and more UK homes need A/C. Perhaps the modest additional cost to make the system reversible (i.e., buy a heat pump) is indeed worthwhile, eh?

But again, a lot more UK residents are finding themselves in need of A/C. Perhaps the modest additional cost to make the system reversible (i.e., buy a heat pump) is deed worthwhile, eh?

Yet a lot more UK residents are finding themselves in need of A/C. Perhaps the modest additional cost to make the system reversible (i.e., buy a heat pump) is deed worthwhile, eh?

The article was focused on the UK, where only 5% of home have air conditioning.

Funny, because more and more UK homes need A/C, the article says that the research "used data from seven field studies in North America, Asia and Europe" and that "France, for instance, installs 10 times as many heat pumps as the UK" with "the findings show[ing] that heat pumps were suitable for almost all homes in Europe, including the UK."

Also very many people living in the U.S. are commenting, including yourself?

Yes, heat pumps are more expensive than a furnace. A/C is more more expensive than a furnace. But the difference between A/C and a heat pump is not more expensive than a furnace, capeesh?

If heat pumps cost a lot more than furnaces, this will discourage people from buying them. Most of us live on a budget, and can't necessarily afford to buy a heat pump just because it's a more virtuous choice. Price matters, if we want people to make more environmentally-friendly choices.

How does a heat pump cost more than a furnace?

A heat pump costs about $1400 more than an A/C unit of the same capacity.

A 95% AFUE natural gas furnace costs more than that.

Unless you're living without A/C (and how's that working out for you), the heat pump doesn't "cost a lot more than furnaces."

O2 is a big part of CO2 and oxygen levels in the atmosphere are decreasing. If it was found that we could lock up all of our excess CO2 in the ocean, we'll probably start generating even more of it and binding up our breathable oxygen.

No.

CO2 has increased from 200 ppm to 420 ppm in the atmosphere. Even if we were to assume that the oceans were well mixed and in equilibrium with the atmosphere, that would only be equivalent to 21,000 ppm CO2 (if all held in the atmosphere). That's a substantial overestimate, but so be it.

O2 in the atmosphere is 210,000 ppm, and has declined by 0.1% since industrialization (so by about 210 ppm). OSHA defines an oxygen deficient atmosphere as one with less than 195,000 ppm oxygen. So only 15,000 ppm to go.

So no, we're not going to be running out of breathable oxygen due to that fantastical mechanism. We're not even going to be able to remove enough CO2 to negate the last 150 years of emissions. Don't worry about the supposed effects of locking up CO2 until we've shown that we can actually do it at scale.

ou appear to be seriously invested in being paid to do nothing.

Considering that I bill by the hour, the incentives are directly opposite to that. Furthermore, my clients don't care where I perform the work, so long as it is delivered to them. It's amazing how when my label is "service provider" rather than "employee," the cares drop away.

More rigiorous studies conducted with business-focsued metrics all tend to arrive at the same conclusions - WFH results in poor team performance, outputs, cohesion and innovation.

"Barely studies but if that's what we're working with, I'll stick with personal experience."

Shockingly, yet again you change your position on what qualifies as rigorous evidence, while failing to cite any.

Would love to get my hands on these rigorous studies you're referring to...

Would love to get my hands on this rigorous personal experience referring to...

Jesus H Christ, just declare that you don't care what evidence anyone has, you want it done your way. Own it.

or the maintainer of the upstream fork? The latter is where this is headed.

Good luck with that.

Others do, which is why they have policies in place for this sort of thing.

That's an others problem, not the maintainer's problem. Declaring that you have a policy does not mean that the projects that you draw from are required to comply with it.

Because it does. More and more games are cross-platform and these kiddies with their aimbots (sorry, "aim assist") are muscling in.

My solution is I don't play with kids or other people who can't resist using aimbots. To quote OP, "Self-censor if you're too thin skinned to handle whatever you find offensive this week - the rest of us can handle it, thanks."

*snark*

Granted, I'm not a console customer. Maybe that's why I'm satisfied.

But it applies to Xbox community servives (including PC games), and let's face it, if it doesn't affect you or your satisfaction, then why are you commenting at all?

Old man yelling at someone else's clouds?