If California joins the larger grid, it would most likely lower the electricity price in California
Almost certainly.
and also in the rest of the USA
This is far less likely, and in fact whoever they interconnect with probably ends up paying higher rates than they do today.
Mess with them: place triggering content on it like Tank Man, Taiwan-is-real-China meme, and Satanic Pooh Bear.
When they spot it just say, "It's a burner phone I bought on the street, I didn't put that on."
However, they'll still probably hold or harass you for a few days.
They won't hold or harass you. They'll simply say "Entry denied. Your flight home is at 2:00. Have a nice day." and your expensive vacation or business trip is now ended. Congratulations on the self-own.
They don't care. It's that simple; their strategy is all about maximizing short term profits and there is no interest in "next generations" or any other kind of market growth.
Notice the number of re-masters coming out recently and how songs you play on streaming services from the 80s and 90s from big artists don't sound how you remember them? That's because the artists re-record them due to the copyright coming to an end making minor changes from the original so they can refresh the copyright to that song and continue to make royalties from it.
This is... utterly untrue.
Reperforming the song is not going to change the end date of the copyright of the work by a single day. The copyright term was fixed when it was created (if a corporate work) or when the author dies (typically 70 years from that date) for anything for the last half century or so.
As an example: Bohemian Rhapsody was written by Freddie Mercury who died in 1991. The copyright is going to expire in 2061 and no amount of re-recording will change that.
Liberated from the rails at last! Free East Palestine!
From Pittsburg to the Lake!
Remember when the internet was the best communications tool ever devised by man instead of just another way to funnel advertising to you and a mechanism to control what you are allowed to speak about? I do, too.
A scientific paper featuring an AI-generated image of a rat with an oversized penis was retracted three days after publication
If O'Reilly ever publishes a book on e.g. ChatGPT, this needs to be the cover.
So no citation then?
[citation needed]
The idea that new build anything is cheaper than nuclear that has been operating for three decades or more is ridiculous on its face. If I'm wrong, please, by all means, direct me to the evidence thereof.
Sorry, you were talking about prices today and "still using" nuclear. Your comment re: subsidies suggests you are talking about Hinkley Point, which is not yet generating power and no subsidies for said power generation are being paid.
Existing nuclear is probably the cheapest energy in your grid. The "good news" at least for you is that almost all of it is scheduled for decommissioning by the end of the decade, so you will be able to see just how "expensive" it was when your rates go up as a result.
You should have been replying to the other guy. Something screwed up with my quote block so it looks like the ignorant statement was written by me, but I was trying to quote him. Agreed it's a pretty dumb take, which was my point.
the only electricity plants getting approval in the next few years, will be coal/gas-driven ones.
Darth Cheeto is not going to permit any coal plants--not because of anything related to him, but because no one has any plants to permit. Anything currently being discussed is a pencil exercise at best (and will almost certainly never come to fruition).
I work for a company that provides equipment for fossil power plants. There is a shit ton of gas coming in the next five years but no coal at all. New coal power is dead in the US.
Energy prices in the UK are high because we are still using too much gas and nuclear
You realize the vast majority of cost in nuclear is in the construction, yes? The idea that "energy costs are high because we are still using nuclear" is absurd. Decommissioning nuclear plants will increase your costs.
Wrong. Virtually no government agency's staffing levels have kept pace with population growth. Total federal government employees per capita now is half of what it was in the 60's 70's and 80's.
I wonder if there is anything that has been going on for the last half century or so that could explain why employees could be more efficient and you might have less of them for the same task, even in the face of having more customers. Some sort of revolution, maybe of the computer sort?
On second thought, nah, that wouldn't make any sense.
It was definitely a big problem because if some of the kids have them, the ones that don't are excluded.
This was a huge issue for my oldest in middle school. She was in a very small minority that did not have a phone. It was made worse by the fact that we don't have a landline, so if friends wanted to call her, they were calling either my wife or my phone (and the kids calling were not a huge fan of that, so they didn't call much). In addition to the social aspects, it caused a few issues with extracurriculars where one of us wasn't present and things like pickup times were fuzzy rather than fixed.
We stuck to our guns and didn't let her have a phone until 14 but I'd be a liar if I said it didn't have negative aspects in addition to positive ones. Our youngest might end up with a phone closer to 12 as a result, though that remains to be seen.
I'm all for computer dating, but I wouldn't want one to marry my sister.
