If they're smart, they'll put batteries near the loads. And then when the wind blows, they can de-energize lines and keep peoples lights on.

Except people aren't smart. I don't know about California, but here in Washington State, communities in the woods out on the fringes of the grid are fighting a battery installation. Because Teslas catch fire. Teslas have batteries. So everything with batteries will catch fire.

You can build a fire break around a battery substation. Not so much around a garage with an EV.

It's California. They get a gold star for being California.

Compared to when? Hoover Dam, in 1936? The Four Corners Generating plant in New Mexico since 1963? The Pacific DC Intertie since 1970?

California has a long and storied history of integrating everyone else's power for years to feed their air conditioning, hot tubs and motorized sex toys. It's almost as if they have been all on their own, running on San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. Poor little things.

Unions are OK for automakers pushing F150s out the door. But who is going to play the latest Blizzard game when it is coded by some boomers with union seniority?

A few million union activists downloaded the app.

The use of gmail.com should have been a dead giveaway.

I think they still need a vote to accept that union as their collective bargaining representative. That does not appear to have happened yet. And that's where the 70% have their say.

Nearly as much as a union official, I imagine.

Why stop at workers when pursuing public funds?

"Where are you going with that EBT card, sir?"

... referring to them as gig workers. They are employees, with all of the concomitant benefits and payroll deductions. And soon, they will be subject to union fees, and the other perks of representation. Including calls for daily workers at the union hall. You thought it was tough, having to wait for Mr. Friendly to pick you out for a crew. Now it will be a faceless app on your phone.

Didn't read the details of the appeal. But it's possible that SBF's counsel is appealing the rejection handed to them by the 2nd Circuit Court. Which would make this USSC business. Appealing is the defence counsel's right. And duty to their client, if they don't want to start an "ineffective counsel" case.

If the 2nd Circuit Court did their job correctly, the USSC may refuse his appeal. I have mixed feelings about this. If the Supreme Court could take the case but then slap an extra 10 years on SBFs sentence for wasting their time (frivolous filing) I'd be in favor of it.

Don't feel too bad. Einstein did the same thing with his "cosmological constant". Trying to hang onto an outdated idea that the universe was eternal and static. Lemaitre and Hubble demonstrated that he was wrong. And he accepted that.

... to debate such subjects. But given that issues involving the Hubble Tension have yet to be resolved and Hubble expansion is at the heart of the accelerating/not accelerating universe, I'd say: Fix that before running off to explain obervations that might not even be valid.

Depth of field =/= field of view.

They are related by the optics' parameters, but two different effects.

Sort of like handing a chimpanzee a loaded gun.