The point is that I only found Bluetti diesel generators and nothing with batteries at all.

Why would I?

If it would make point to google "bluetti battery power station" - you already had done it, and provided some links to the fire.

Hint: I googled it long ago ... and there was not a single hit.

I assume you mix up the company name.

Last time, I looked the "don't mind a reunion" was 45 %.

China will get its ass handed to it if it ever tries with vast majorities of its forces being wrecked long before ever reaching Taiwan.
That is an extremely uninformed attitude. China is tech leader in nearly every military category. And the farking strait between mainland and Taiwan is short

Luckily for mainland China, an invasion is out of the question, so no one has to fear anything.

Again: that are myths.
Or as we call in our days: fake news.

Yes, because you quoted me there.
And gave a stupid answer which had nothing to do with your quote.

Temperature "overload" - is not what the term "overload" in a grid means.

Overload means the voltage spiked. Not temperature.

Get a clue. No idea why you jumped into this discussion if you even do not remember what the topic was I talked about with my previous parent.

"politically considered"
And when and where was that term used :P

Year, something like this, I would wear, too.
According to the weather app, it was 17C in the morning, with the note: "feels like 15C".
I had a long sleaved - relatively thick - long sleaved cotton shirt over my t-shirt, and: it was uncomfortably cold.
However, I had only slept 4h during the night.

Safety does not need to be absolute to be present.

It is just your idiotic definition of your perceived idea of "safety". A safety belt is a safety belt. Nevertheless your car can be hit by a fuel truck, spilled all over and catch fire.

for instance not misusing NULL, but do you trust them, or, do you write code to check them?
Nope, if a language is null safe, like Dart, I do not check for null.

That would be idiotic.

The compiler would optimize away the null check, as it perfectly well knows: it can not be null.

And as soon as you change the code at a different place and introduce a null error: the compiler perfectly well knows that at the specific point a null can pop up, and a null check is needed (again).

Stupid question: are you actively setting variables to null, to help the garbage collector ... ???

I can take a C program, lint it with multiple linters, compile it with multiple compiles, a smart check to do when its critical code, and be sure the code is safe.
Nope, you will never be sure. As "unsafe" is not a flaw of the language or coding, it is a feature of the language.

int* ptr = 0xFFeF;
*ptr = 0; // or any other value

There is no farking way to know if that is safe or not: unless YOU know it. Hint: in Apple ][ it is either: ROM and what ever you write never happens, or it is the "language card", and you might destroy the Integer Basic interpreter or the Pascal P-Code interpreter, or what ever you have loaded there.

Or: You actually place a value there, that you really want to have there. No compiler or linter can know anything about that.

And that above: can in Rust only be placed inside of an unsafe block. In C you can do it anywhere, and no one - and especially no linter - can know if the code is correct and does what intended, or not.

Overloading != overheating.

Get a dictionary.

If both happened, get writing lesions :D

It makes no sense to spread different Informations into different posts and assume people catch the connection.

+7 funny

Learn to read:
Using temperature sensors is a pretty odd way to measure your grid, don't you think so?

You implied they use temperature as proxy measure for the power going through the lines, instead of measuring the power.

I'd be wearing a sweater or a jacket....not both.
I also would not wear both :D

You have some serious misconceptions.

Either it is a linguistic problem, that you do not grasp the meaning of words, or you are a kind of autist.

I am happy that you are not in my team.

I simply do not like to argue about idiotic claims like this:
C is not unsafe, the developer writes unsafe C code, C is just as safe as Rust,
If you do not intentionally write unsafe code in Rust: the code is safe.
If you write C, then frankly, an uneducated moron - or idiotic nitpicker - like you seem to be: does not know if the code is safe or not.

Without explicitly using "unsafe" it is impossible to write unsafe code in Rust.

Has nothing to do with "heating up".

The original claim was: the grid got overloaded. Which is in a sane grid impossible.

And now your parent says """At 3:42 p.m., a power line sagged into filbert trees near Hillsboro, Oregon, just southwest of Portland." This developed into a cascading failure that affected a very large region.""

Which is the opposite of an "overloaded" grid. It is a broken grid.

""At 3:42 p.m., a power line sagged into filbert trees near Hillsboro, Oregon, just southwest of Portland." This developed into a cascading failure that affected a very large region.
And what has that to do with: "the grid gets overloaded"?

Nothing obviously.

The opposite happend. The grid got cut into pieces and the areas that were not connected anymore: lost power. Same what happens to your computer when you pull the plug - oops.