If you want to communicate "nuance", maybe start by not using the word "immediate" when you mean in "a few decades".

Well, technically that is the entire point of some of the major sports in the world, and it would be problematic to say that deliberately causing brain damage for competition is ok in one sport but not in another.

On the other hand, I am not altogether convinced it should be openly encouraged in any sport.

This is a tricky one, because I would also argue that I should have no say in what a person does to their own body for their own reasons, that my firm belief that people should have bodily autonomy when it causes no actual harm to others does not permit me to condemn others for doing stuff to their own body for their own reasons when it does no actual harm to others even if it's a context I don't agree with.

Given that (ethically) I cannot condone wilful irreversable damage but (ethically) cannot condemn personal choises that harm nobody else, the obvious conclusion is that I don't believe such sports should be actively promoted or encouraged, but that what individuals do in the privacy of a private sporting event should not concern those outside until or unless actual harm outside of those events occurs.

Maybe they have to be as big a bunch of cunts as the cunts they go up against. Last time I checked cunts were ruling the world. We're seeing leaders with psychopathic characteristics, you're probably going to have to be a cunt just to go up against a more cunty set of cunts or the cunts will walk right over you.

They died as well, for workers rights and human right and were used and deceived by another bunch of cunts. Some here have fought against unionization without the consideration that maybe, just maybe, people in tech who wanted to try would see these flaws and find a better way to outsmart the cunts. If only for the cunts amongst us, they may have succeeded.

Kennedy once said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable"
loosely translated
"Cunts that make you be a cunt makes everyone have to be a cunt."

If you shift school times, you impact parents who have to go to work, so businesses will need to shift their times, too. At that point, you've just reimplemented the clock shift, but in an ad-hoc, unsynchronized and patchwork fashion.

Thanks for the info.

I've done it for most of my career, probably 20 of 35 years, including the near-decade I was a manager -- and I was WFH full-time, not half-time (1000 miles from the office). I did try to get onsite for a week every couple of months. Making it work requires a lot of overcommunication, but it can be done.

Nonsense.

Oh, there are some forces slowing us down, especially the orange man, but even if all of those forces went away or even reversed course 180 degrees there's no way we'd make "an immediate switch". It would and will take many years. It's complicated, there are a lot of moving parts, and we'll get to a point (CA is already there on a lot of days) where renewables frequently have to be curtailed because there isn't enough storage to shift that generation to times of low renewable generation.

Indeed. Case in point immediately above this post.

Indeed. Though, total capacity matters, too. I had a 2014 Tesla that only had ~200 miles of range, and road-tripping with that car was moderately painful. It was especially bad in areas where Superchargers were further apart and when there was a lot of elevation increase from one to the next, because it meant that I often had to charge to full to be able to reach the next. The smaller battery meant a lower miles per minute figure even at the best charge rate, but if you have to charge to full you're also waiting through the abysmal charge rate of the worst miles-per-minute part of the charge cycle.

I don't think you can really boil it down to just one figure. Though if I had to, "miles per minute while charging from 10% to 60%" is probably the best.

Absolutely wrong. A 1C battery is a 1C battery, regardless of how large it is. Different chemistries and configurations can affect this, but size absolutely does not, assuming the charger is capable of delivering power at the max rate the pack can take it at peak flow -- but 350-400 kW chargers are the norm.

Also, learn how to post. All it takes is trivial HTML markup knowledge.

Name-calling, especially when coupled with calling me clueless while demonstrating your own complete lack of understanding, earns you a Foe, which means it's unlikely I'll ever see your posts again.

Not really. You size the power to what the batteries can take at the fastest phase of charging. 350 kW is the norm for fast charging now. A 50 kWh 1C battery that charges at 4C when low (meaning that if it could sustain that rate for the whole recharge it would charge empty to full in 1/4 hour), would max out at around 200 kW. 3C is a more typical max rate, so 150 kW.

From the summary:

The small battery pack also means faster charging times

That's not how this works. Charging time is unrelated to battery size, except that in a given amount of time a larger battery can take in more energy. You charge all of the cells in a battery in parallel, so unless your input power is limited by something, charge time is dominated by how long it takes a single cell to go from empty to full. The number of cells (i.e. the size of the battery) is only relevant to how much power your charging system needs to deliver so that all of the cells can charge as quickly as possible.

There's a little variability among chemistries, but to a first approximation, the Li-ion cells we use today all take about 1 hour to fill from empty, when given power at the highest rate they can handle without sustaining damage. And they can take it faster when they're close to empty.

If you want to minimize the amount of time it takes to add X miles of range, what you want isn't a smaller battery, it's a larger battery. Suppose you want to add 50 miles of range in two minutes. Assuming 165 Wh/mile, you need to add 8.25 kWh. In two minutes a low battery (say, 20% SoC) can add about 10% of its capacity, so to get 50 miles in two minutes at the assumed mileage, you need an 82.5 kWh battery, and a 250 kW charger.

I'm sure Tesla has done the math carefully and weighed size and cost against range and charge times for their expected usage pattern and determined that 50 kWh is the right balance. But a smaller battery doesn't reduce charging times. For a given demand profile, a smaller battery increases charge time and a larger battery decreases charge time.

Treadmill? That can be optimistic.

One place I worked for, I was hired to do DB and coding. Sped their database up by a factor of 60, and resolved tickets efficiently.

Another place I worked for, I was hired to do QA. Found numerous performance issues and dangerous security holes.

Didn't last in either, because politics are more important than people, and revenue is more important than wages. Once all the factors that seriously impacted profit were removed, keeping me would merely have meant a better product, not more cash. The market is only so big, and once you've taken all the share you're going to, being better won't increase it. Companies don't think beyond the next quarter.

Two other places I worked for, the CEO was using it to scam money off investors and get cheaper healthcare. They never intended to produce a product.

If you're forced to treat employees well, these things will still happen but they'll happen less often. Because the risks are higher, the payoff is lower, and penalties for getting caught are a whole lot worse.

That's how it works in a coupled system.

Agreed. There's deliberate undercounting for the long-term unemployed, and a failure to account for the fact that firing seasoned workers with acquired skills isn't the same as hiring inexperienced yoofs who have no meaningful experience in producing robust, high quality products. Although, to be fair, corporations don't seem keen on producing those.

However, there's another factor to consider. The number of retirees is smaller than the number of people entering work for the first time. Due to Covid, a LOT smaller than usual. This means that the markets are expanding. If the markets are expanding but the numer of people being added is only keeping pace with job circulation and retirement, then the job market (as a percentage of those who can work) must be smaller relative to both the markets and the work that needs to be done.

This is the most misleading part of employment statistics. Whilst total unemployment is important (but only useful if not deliberately undercounted), you also need to know the employment:activity ratio and the employment:expected employment in a fully functional market of that size ratio.