Sigh. Ontogeny is NOT evolution. It is not the same thing as having a low MHC diversity due to a genetic bottleneck as well as lacking tens of thousands of years of evolution to a pathogen. Not the same at all. It's silly to even suggest that. Epigenetic shifts in an individual do not create new HLA genes.

Consider COVID. Novel bat coronavirus, nobody had preexisting immunity. Did everybody die? No. Because we had high HLA/MHC diversity, making it easier to target SARS-COV-2 epitopes. Native Americans lacked this diversity. It left them ill prepared for novel pathogens.

Also, you seem to believe that any disease you've never encountered before is fundamentally dangerous to an adult. That's simply not the case. Rhinovirus is intrinsically mild. It's an upper respiratory infection; it's not adapted to lower respiratory or systemic infection. It's not ebola. It's not going to become like ebola just because you've never caught it before. If a rhinovirus strain was reintroduced after 200 years after having been eradicated, we'd all get a cold, but by and large, we'd be fine.

And what would happen if Yamagata reappeared? We'd just add it back to our flu vaccines. Furthermore, the reintroduction of Yamagata wouldn't be catastrophic without that. You do not have to catch every Influenza B lineage at all, let alone every year. If you had been infected with B/Victoria and you were exposed to B/Yamagata, you'd have little sterilizing immunity against it - you'd very likely catch it. But your past exposure to B/Victoria is still greatly protective against hospitalization and death; B and T immunity against NA and the HA stem and stalk are conserved.

And this is about whether or not to catch every lineage. Well guess what, even with air filtration, that's still going to happen. Air filtration only has a meaningful impact for people at a distance, not people close together. It's about protecting the person across the room, not the person you're standing 50 centimetres away from. What it does change is how often you catch them. And if lineages or whole viruses go extinct, that's great. Worrying about some sort of reintroduction 200 years later is just inventing your own unrealistic misery when we have actual pandemic threats to worry about.

My voltage doesn't vary much at all no matter how much power I'm pushing. And, unfortunately, I couldn't set my inverters to derate if I wanted. I'm fighting with the installer over access to configure/manager my inverters. They offer quite a good repair/service warranty and also a production guarantee, and won't give me control without voiding both of those so I'm debating which I care about most.

(I somehow replied to myself instead of you. What am I, some sort of /. n00b?)

And there won't be unless we motivate research into it.

Indeed! This is an ideal use for overprovisioned capacity.

Wow. I generate way more than I use in the summer, but my (also rural) grid connection can absolutely take it just fine. I have 200A service with a 150A breaker (so, about 37 kW), but my generation peaks at about 20 kW. My bigger problem is that if I try to charge my house batteries (20 kW) and my car (12kW) and run my AC (4 kW) and the steam generator (9 kW) and run basic house loads (2 kW) and run my welder (10 kW) that's 57 kW or about 235A. In practice I don't ever do all of those things at the same time (and rarely charge batteries from the grid), so I've never actually tripped the main breaker, but I could do it easily if I tried. I imagine it will happen someday. I could swap the breaker, but the wiring from the main panel isn't big enough to have the proper safety margin at 200A. Running new wiring would be... a big project, likely involving tearing up and replacing a big chunk of my driveway. So, 150A will have to do.

Me neither. I ran the math on doing some BTC mining (I think BTC is a scourge on the planet, but I'm happy to take money) but it didn't pencil out. Free power is great for mining, but the cost of the rigs is high enough that you really need to keep them humming 24x7, and I don't have enough battery capacity for that.

And there won't be unless we motivate research into it.

Indeed! This is an ideal use for overprovisioned capacity.

Wow. I generate way more than I use in the summer, but my (also rural) grid connection can absolutely take it just fine. I have 200A service with a 150A breaker (so, about 37 kW), but my generation peaks at about 20 kW. My bigger problem is that if I try to charge my house batteries (20 kW) and my car (12kW) and run my AC (4 kW) and the steam generator (9 kW) and run basic house loads (2 kW) and run my welder (10 kW) that's 57 kW or about 235A. In practice I don't ever do all of those things at the same time (and rarely charge batteries from the grid), so I've never actually tripped the main breaker, but I could do it easily if I tried. I imagine it will happen someday.

I could swap the breaker, but the wiring from the main panel isn't big enough to have the proper safety margin at 200A. Running new wiring would be... a big project, likely involving tearing up and replacing a big chunk of my driveway. So, 150A will have to do.

Me neither. I ran the math on doing some BTC mining (I think BTC is a scourge on the planet, but I'm happy to take money) but it didn't pencil out. Free power is great for mining, but the cost of the rigs is high enough that you really need to keep them humming 24x7, and I don't have enough battery capacity for that.

Bahahaha. Why don’t you ask Iran? You really are clueless aren’t you?

You wrote; "Show evidence." And I gave that to you. Now you are complaining I didn't give you all the evidence that you never asked for.

I wrote " It seems pretty clear they did not BUILD their own power plant." No one is complaining that these data centers did not plan to USE electricity. That is either dishonest or idiotic.

The Iran situation has nothing to do with MAD. A key component of MAD is "mutually assured" part. When MAD was the strategy between the USSR and the US, both sides collectively had tens of thousands of warheads. At best, Iran might have the ability to produce a few nukes if they had the uranium.

The part you missed or trying to deflect is the part where Iran DOES NOT have nukes at the moment as it is not clear if they have the required enriched uranium and capability.

"Here's a thought experiment: Will you go to any lengths to excuse Trump of things we know he did?" Still going to any lengths to defend Trump.

Bahahahahah. I wrote about no bid contracts. You tried to pivot to how every past President was also bad. Then you tried to speak abou WMDs. Still nothing about no bid contracts.

You: I DEMAND answers to everything while I am not going to address any of your points by trying to change the subject. Buddy, no one owes you anything..

You know we can scroll up, right? You wrote: "I find it absolutely hilarious when so many piss-poor plebeians like you say that others are morons." Leaving out that part where you took offense is dishonest nd you know it. Now, you are trying to lie about wrote you wrote.

How would you know? You don't do you? That is just your attempt to insult me for calling you out by insinuating English is not my native language. But to my point you have yet to actually address a single point of his.

And no one talked about WMDs either. How about you trying to continuously change the subject?

Not sure what you are talking about I would guess it has nothing do with the topic on hand. Every post of yours is just another example of you trying excuse everything Trump does that was predicted.

It doesn't take a genius to realize if Micron makes lots of HBM instead of DDR5 in the next year and the HBM demand suddenly disappears, Micron is stuck with lots of product that will not sell at the same time not having product like DDR5 that would have sold.

His insults were towards Micron, not you. But you took offense at that and instead of addressing any of his points, you started insulting him.

They sued both over the same issue.

Apple won, Google lost, in spite of the fact that Google had the more open ecosystem and the better case.

Indeed. We should also, however, recognize that emissions reductions can never get us to net-negative CO2 and that is where we need to get. We should be investing heavily in research into carbon capture and sequestration, because it is the ultimate long-term solution to greenhouse gas emissions, the thing that will allow us to actually reverse global warming.

In the meantime, as you say, we should start by looking at the CO2 emissions sources that allow us to most quickly and cheaply reduce our emissions. The easiest area is electricity production... made even easier by the fact that wind and solar are the cheapest technologies we have for producing electricity, in many cases even when the cost of battery storage is included. And of course as we convert electricity production to non-emitting sources, we should electrify as much as we can the other areas where we burn fossil fuels.

But we also need to be investing in carbon recapture, because some things are going to be hard to convert and, as I pointed out, only recapture can get us to net-negative. We should also be researching geoengineering techniques, such as methods of reducing insolation. Geoengineering isn't a solution (e.g. reducing insolation does nothing to fix ocean acidification), but it may be a necessary short-term measure, and we should be prepared, having already done what we can to understand it in case we need it, and before we need it.

Carbon reduction is good, but it's insufficient and I worry that we're not putting enough into other approaches. A large part of the reason is that people are afraid that attention on anything other than carbon reduction will harm the emissions reduction efforts. That's not a ridiculous concern, but it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scale and scope of the problem.

[sarcasm]Yes because these days we have tubes to take people everywhere where cars are not.[/sarcasm]

And no one said every past president was an angel. No one. It is just more denialism to excuse everything he’s done.