There's always a sense of urgency with these warnings of global warming. I'm reminded of a common sales tactic that people must buy before the limited time offer is gone. They create the urgency with their sales tactics so people buy before they have the time to talk themselves into sanity and walk away. It's like the political joke about how a lawmaker will point to some urgent matter and demand that "something must be done" which is then followed by them holding up a bill they wrote and declare "this is something therefore it must be done!"

I used to believe in this urgency also until enough deadlines have passed and nothing notable happened. Just because global warming isn't an urgent matter does not mean it is not a concern. We will need to act, but we have time to think this through and implement mitigations and adaptations at a pace that won't bankrupt us or cause some other harm to society.

I feel I must type it out one more time or someone will twist my words. I am not denying global warming, climate change, or whatever it is people want to call the effects of humans releasing CO2 that has been locked up in the Earth from long ago. I am merely questioning the urgency of the need to act. We will need to act, but we have time to act calmly, deliberately, and logically than jump into whatever solutions are popular right now.

I doubt that will keep people from calling me a "denier" but there's no reaching such people.

We know what solutions are workable but they will take time to implement. Rome wasn't built in a day. People should be mindful of their CO2 emissions, as well as air and water pollution, but not to a point where it can cause them distress or harm. Don't act like Greta Thunberg and nearly starve yourself because you fear by eating a full meal the CO2 emitted to produce that food will cause you harm in the future. Her parents got her so scared of global warming as youth that she's not mentally well right now after many years.

I recall talking to some people that saw USB on Windows computers years before the iMac. A quick look at Wikipedia puts the earliest date of production at 1996 so it checks out, though that could barely be called "years" earlier. USB was pretty worthless on Windows computers though because drivers were either buggy or nonexistent for Windows 95 and Windows 98. USB on Windows was a joke until about 2001 when USB 2.0 and a few updates to Windows XP came about to support it.

I don't know for sure what is right but the impression I got was that USB ports were nearly ubiquitous on Windows-Intel systems by 1998. I also got the impression people didn't know what the port was, and if they knew what it was they didn't know what good it did them, and if they knew what good it could do then it simply rarely did any real good for a lack of drivers and devices to plug into the port. Once Apple made USB popular with the iMac then people knew what it could do, then demanded that Windows make those ports work. Again, early Windows drivers were crap so Windows users kind of looked on Apple users with envy until about 2001. By that time Apple fell behind again for not having USB 2.0, likely because they believed FireWire was a more appropriate interface for devices demanding ~400 Mbps of bandwidth.

Apple had to give up a lot of ground on FireWire after USB 2.0. If they were going to sell the iPod to Windows users then they needed to have full support of USB since FireWire on Windows computers was rare excepting Sony which jumped in on FireWire with Apple early on.

The short of it is that seeing a Windows computer with USB ports in early 1998 is a near certainty, at least from what I was told. The problem is that it would take a few years for Microsoft and friends to develop the drivers to make the USB ports useful.

The word "fossil" derives from a Latin word that means "dug up". This means that "fossil fuels" are fuels we dug up. If you don't believe me on the origin of the word then look it up. The description is accurate.

Because "fossil" has taken on the meaning of something old I find a double meaning to "fossil fuels". Fossil fuels are the fuels from old times, or for old thinking.

Feel better about the term now?

Apparently not. There's a lack of drivers and settings seen in the beta so while the connection can be made physically there's no means for the OS to communicate with the hardware. Would there be third party drivers like was seen with Windows when Microsoft started to kill support for FireWire?

FireWire is apparently still in use in audio equipment. Not home hi-fi but more like broadcast radio and TV, recording studios, DJ gear, and similar. It's falling been falling out of use for some time with USB and Ethernet replacing it. If Apple drops support then that's likely the final nail in the coffin for that.

There's FireWire in aerospace equipment but I doubt people are plugging that into their Mac.

I don't know if they claimed it "impacted" anyone really, other than enthusiasts of old Apple gear. It was more that it was the sign of the end of an era. This would be something like Apple finally ending use of ADB with the PowerMac G3. Or was it the G4? Or the end of an era with no longer having SCSI on the motherboard.

Isn't that a lot like how people can buy an iPad for "tablet stuff" but if they want a "real computer" then they can get a computer running Windows or Linux? I'm not seeing how buying an iPad locks people into buying a Mac laptop, desktop, or any other Apple product.

If people wanted a portable computer that ran macOS then they'd buy a MacBook. If people want to run iOS apps on their MacBook then they need only go to the App Store and download it. So long as the app behaves well with the "accessibility" alternate UI functions to allow use of a mouse or such then it should behave fine, if not then there's "touch alternatives" settings to fine tune the controls. It's not exactly like running iOS but it allows running the apps.

Unless there is some kind of outrage from Apple users on maintaining the distinction between iOS and macOS it is unlikely Apple is going to do any different. As I see it Apple consumers are generally content with how it is now. I'll see some complaints here and there that the MacBook doesn't have a touch screen, or some complaints that their iPad can't be more like a MacBook, but for the most part few people find this "repugnant" or some kind of means to squeeze more money from consumers.

I recall seeing some company, long ago, that would make touch screen conversions for MacBooks. Does that company still exist? Or some other company offering the same service? If so then that is evidence of demand for more convergence of the MacBook and iPad. I'm pretty sure they closed up shop once the novelty of the idea wore off.

I believe there is a reason to keep the different platforms distinct. Not every person wants the same OS on every device. Each type of platform has different use cases and so calls for different kinds of user interfaces and capabilities. Load up your iOS with the added features of a MacBook and it can become slower, more power hungry, perhaps less stable, and that diminishes the utility of the iPad than add to it.

I've expressed in another comment on how I wished my iPad was more like my MacBook but that could just mean I should have bought a MacBook instead. Or maybe a Linux tablet.

I expect the products to continue to evolve so we may yet get ourselves a tablet that runs macOS. Apple reversed on features before. The Touch Bar appears to be dead, maybe I missed it still being available. MagSafe and the SD slot returned to the MacBook. Give me time and I can think up more. Maybe Apple will reverse on not having macOS on iPad.

Oh, and Lightning is on it's last dying breath, that's a reversal on policy of keeping it around in spite of pressure to adopt USB-C. That may have been a case of being dragged kicking and screaming into it by EU mandates than any realization that Lightning should have been considered obsolete much earlier. People forget that Lightning came before USB-C, and the early days of USB-C was not a smooth transition from micro-USB on portable electronics. I believe Apple was correct to hold out on Lightning for a bit until the kinks were shaken out of USB-C, but they got there eventually.

Isn't that like saying that Apple stopped selling the "toaster" Macs so that Apple could sell both a computer and a display? You should have heard the cries when Apple started to sell the keyboard and mouse separately too. As if other computer manufacturers did things any different.

The iPad is something like the "personal digital assistants" from ancient times. They'd function relatively well on their own but to get the most from them meant having a computer. With an iPad equipped with a SIM slot it can connect to the internet on it's own most anywhere, as well as connect to WiFi, allowing it to act quite independently for all kinds of functions. So long as your printer, scanner, or similar device, is new enough to be equipped with WiFi then it can do all kinds of office productivity stuff, and certainly as run quite a few apps for those looking to be more creative than a spreadsheet or slide presentation.

It can't make phone calls though, which is a bit disappointing in spite of having a SIM slot.

Isn't there a Windows app like for the iPhone to sync up music, contacts, documents, and such? Maybe that went away. I haven't used Windows in a while so I'm ignorant on that.

The iPad certainly has its limits but it is far from an accessory to a Mac like the first few iterations of the iPod. As I recall the iPod Touch could act quite independently, allowing for installing apps and new music from the internet on its own. Pairing it with a Mac certainly added some capability. But then so could pairing it with a Windows computer.

Does every iPhone owner also have a Mac? I'm fairly certain that is not the case.

I'd like it if my iPad ran macOS.

When I decided to get an iPad it was in part because I learned that the iPad was now running an OS separate from the iPhone and so was more suited to be an actual tablet computer than a big iPhone. I was quite disappointed when trying something as simple as attaching a USB printer so I could print out something. There was no "add printer" function like with macOS. Instead I had to use AirPrint or install a vendor specific app. Even after installing the app I could not do something so simple as connect the printer directly to the iPad by USB to print.

I got the folding keyboard/trackpad cover thingy and intended to use it as a kind of dock on my desk. There's a USB-C port on the thingy that I thought I could use to attach a USB-C hub so that when I snapped the iPad to the thingy I could get power and data from that port. No, that USB-C port is only for power. If I want any data USB-C devices then I'd have to use the USB-C port on the iPad itself. I can attach a number of different docks to that port but it was disappointing to have to take that two step process to snap it to a stand then attach another cable, which again has limited functions because printers are apparently not supported by USB-C.

There's enough hardware in the iPad as it is to allow macOS to run. It would certainly require some work on Apple's part to get the OS to run but since they have access to all the hardware specs and the source code this should be a trivial matter. It would take time but it's not like they'd be forced to reverse engineer anything like someone trying to run Linux or make it a "hackintosh".

I was disappointed somewhat with my purchase but not enough to take the effort to try to return it for a refund. I'm not sure I'd buy another iPad, I'd get a laptop instead. Maybe I'll look into some kind other kind of tablet, but I'm not seeing any that people are standing in line to get.

Oh, it was about being electric. Why not lead with that?

Why would someone that denies the existence of global warming write a scientific paper about it any more than they'd write a paper about Santa Claus or unicorns?

That's nice, but they aren't for everyone. I prefer hybrid electric vehicles myself, I expect in time they will make the ICEV as we know them obsolete. After that the BEV will likely be relegated to budget and hobby cars, not for those that have places to go and work to do.

Perhaps, until that electric car needs to charge.

Sure, they care about such things, but there's a priority to people's concerns. Maybe you haven't read the news lately. Energy costs are rising. Food supplies are being threatened by war and drought. Oh, and war alone is a concern. AI is taking people's jobs. There's been rioting in the streets of some major cities. The price of eggs and other commodities are high. I could go on but it should be clear that CO2 emissions ranks pretty low on the list of concerns right now.

I don't want fertile land to be covered by solar panels because that "kills" the land below them. If there's not something growing in that land then it will not remain fertile. Remove the sun for plants to grow by covering the land with solar panels and anything alive in the soil dies. That dead soil turns to sand and starts to erode away in the wind and rain. Removing the solar panels alone will not allow that land to grow food again. After the solar panels are gone it could take decades of careful nurturing of the land to restore the kind of fertility that land had before the solar panels were put in. If you believe climate change will damage our ability to grow crops in the future then you should not want fertile land covered in solar panels.

If reasonable alternatives existed then we would not have to make selling petroleum illegal to get people to stop selling it, people would naturally move to the alternatives from a combination of natural market forces and public shaming into switching to the alternatives.

Reagan? That was 36 years ago! I believe you mean Bush.

These companies selling petroleum would stop selling petroleum if people stopped buying. If you bought petroleum then you share in the blame.

Offer something better and people will stop buying petroleum products. Because of people complaining about mining the materials needed to produce alternative energy there's been difficulty producing alternatives in the USA. On the other hand it is real cheap and easy to ship in petroleum and natural gas by pipelines and tanker ships.

If people want something other than fossil fuels then we need mines for rare earth metals, high grade sand (for silicon and high grade concrete), steel, copper, lithium, nickel, uranium, thorium, manganese, magnesium, and so much else. No mining, no alternative energy. We can only get what we can import. Sure, we import plenty of solar PV panels and windmill parts but that is nothing like how easy it is to ship in fossil fuels.

Did you link to Volvo for some reason I'm not picking up?

Because it is not just PR people getting paid, they have their own scientists too.

Oh, now I think I'm seeing where this is going. You are thinking I'm defending the fossil fuel companies because I'm pointing to how they have better PR people.

I'm not defending fossil fuels. I'm pointing to how the fossil fuel companies are selling what people want, while the alternatives look pretty bland in comparison. That means they make money while the alternatives do not.

While you point to that there's scientists and PR people paid by the fossil fuel companies spreading doubt about that. And they sell fast cars.

There you go, now you are learning. Don't make this about global warming since that is a something few people care about. What they care about is saving money, personal safety and security, and not having foreign nations influence domestic matters.

I don't know if there's any way to stop people from turning cropland into an industrial park full of solar panels. If it makes them more money than any crop they can grow then it's likely to happen. Maybe this would stop if we stopped the federal subsidies on solar power.

I don't follow.

I can recall so many comments on how the iPhone was crippled, inferior, or something for using the Lightning connector. Apple started putting USB-C on their new iPhone models how long ago? A year and a some months ago? Maybe it took a bit for people to learn of this switch.

I'm half joking. I'm sure that there's more to it. USB-C ports almost certainly helped with improving sales.

I'm not going to argue about the definition of an externality as it seems beyond definition any more. Using the term as defined in economics works, so I'll stick with that as best I can in the future.

To internalize these external costs there must be a means to quantify them or people will go around and around on any kind of law to internalize those costs by some kind of tax or fee paid to the government, and to pay out this collected money to those harmed to make things right.

If someone wants to call the external costs of fossil fuels "monumental" then there must be some way to quantify it enough to define it that way. Can we get an order of magnitude cost? I doubt it. Can we trust the government to pay out this collected money in a reasonable manner to those harmed by these externalities? Absolutely not.

So, argue all you like about how bad it is for fossil fuels to produce these external costs, there will not likely be anything the government will do to make sure those that are harmed get compensation from those producing or burning the fuel. The only solution I see is to produce an alternative that is priced such that people will buy it over fossil fuels. That doesn't necessarily mean it is cheaper per unit of energy, but it must produce some other benefits to make up for the added monetary costs.

It appears you are not following. You cannot have only a heat pump for heat by building code around here. There must be a backup heat source. If we assume no fossil fuel heat then it must be electric. For the typical house that means a 100 amp breaker. Because of the 80%/125% rule that means the electric resistance furnace may draw no more than 80 amps, but it still counts as 100 amps when determining the size of service to the property.

If we assume we can count the heat pump as something that will not run at the same time as the electric heat then maybe we can count the heat pump as adding no additional load to the service requirements. I'm not sure that is a safe assumption under electrical code though. If we assume an EV charger on top then that is anywhere from 15 to 60 additional amps to sizing the service load requirements. Just the heat pump and resistance backup heat could be enough to require a separate 150 amp service. Add the EV charger and maybe it can stay at 150 amps, or maybe it will require going up to 200 amps.

However you like to add up the other household loads is up to you. I know that when I had to replace my breaker panel I was told by the electrician that building code required I have at least 150 amp service. I didn't ask how having electric resistance heat would impact that as I had no intention of installing such. I can read the handles on the breakers I have now. 50 amps for the oven. 30 amps for the heat pump. 30 amps for the dryer. I know more efficient driers exist now that would only need a 15 or 20 amp breaker but that's not how service to the home is sized yet. I may have gone overboard on what a water heater takes as I have not seen an electric water heater in some time, people use fossil fuel for that around here. A quick web search tells me that 20 to 30 amps is pretty typical.

So, argue if you like with my math but I've seen the electrical code for my area. If there's going to be electric resistance heat for a home around here then a separate breaker panel and meter is fairly typical. Not everyone does it, but it does happen often if only because by having a separate meter for the heat they get a discount on electric fees.

Maybe you are confusing the size of the service panel with the size of the heat pump. First, that panel must assume electric resistance heat as backup if there is no fossil fuel heat installed. Second, the heat can draw no more than 80% of the rating on the breaker handle "continuously", which means something like more than an hour. Third, I don't know if electrical code will allow for a lower service amperage by assuming the heat pump and resistance heat will not run at the same time. So, assume a 100 amp breaker for resistance heat, and a 30 to 50 amp breaker for the heat pump, and you must have a 150 amp service and breaker panel for that. If we can assume an EV charger on this same panel for the discounted electric rate from the utility and that could bump that up to 200 amps. Then by building code the rest of the loads in the house will be on a separate 150 amp minimum breaker panel and service line. Something like 100 amps of the allowed 150 amps will be for the oven, dryer, and water heater. That might not be what is used but that will be how they add up the minimal service requirements by code. The only exceptions I've seen on that is old houses having been grandfathered to as little as 60 amp service. There's no electric oven in that place, certainly not electric heat.

As for the outdoor temperature, we have seen -40C in the area. Not often but it happens. -25C is pretty typical for January nights.