Where the curves cross is the highest profit the seller can get away with. This is precisely how the curves are defined.

When talking about supply and demand, people commonly misunderstand that both curves are fundamentally about price, not availability or desirability. The supply curve is "How much is available at each price level". The demand curve is "How much will be bought at each price level". At prices above or below the intersection point, sellers are failing to maximize their profit.

It's profit-maximization that pushes prices to the supply/demand intersection point.

Note that monopoly or monopsony don't invalidate the supply/demand curves, they just alter them. Even with a perfect monopoly, the supply and demand curves still exist; at different price levels the monopolist can obtain more or less to sell, and at different price levels the buyers will purchase more or less. Supply and demand curves don't work or not work in different market conditions. Supply and demand curves always hold, non-competitive market conditions just shift the curves. Even government price setting doesn't change this fundamental reality... it makes price ranges legally inaccessible, which just alters the curve shapes by adding legal risk to the "price".

Supply/demand curves aren't a prediction, they're an observation, and the basic concept is near-tautological.

Here's hoping he leans into crypto currencies big time, then.

I remember selling my hoard of Bitcoin at $4500 thinking how absurdly high it was and that it was just a fluke and how stupid it all seemed. Look who's stupid now. I still retired, but "if I'd just HODLed" I'd be a retired philanthropist instead of just retired and comfortable.

I have no knowledge of that, for which I'm happy. But... Windows 10 was released in 2015 and will apparently be supported through late 2027. Outside of RHEL no Linux distro comes close.

Well, if by "many, many, many" you mean "about five". Red Hat provides longer support terms, but not for free.

True, sort of. Assuming the upgrade works, which it often does... but not always.

I'm no Windows fanboy, in fact the last version of Windows I used was Windows 2000. I switched to Linux completely by mid-2001 and I've never looked back. But it's really not as rosy as you paint it. The commercial OSes (Windows and OS X) actually do a much better job of delivering long-term support and (in the case of OS X) upgrades. I don't personally care about that for my machines, because I have no problem managing them, and even debugging the occasional update or upgrade failure. But I'm actually glad most of my relatives use Windows, because I would not enjoy having to help them do the same.

You seem to have completely missed the point, which is that what Biden *should* have done -- while his party held both houses -- is changed the law, rather than issuing an order that broke the law. Trump has been far, far worse about this, but it's clear that part of Trump's goal (or the goal of someone with his ear, since I'm not sure he is capable of making and pursuing goals over longer time periods than a few days) is to establish that the president doesn't need Congress.

What do you think he's going to do with it?

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.

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.

Construction isn't expected to start until 2030 at the earliest. From TFA:

By that time, the AI bubble may have burst, or the grid may have gone even further into renewables, or both.

We need more power, but nuclear isn't the way anymore. I was a supporter of nuclear until around 2020, when I saw how fast solar and wind were gaining. Both have consistently shown enormous growth because they are not as specific in their land requirements, can be installed in small numbers, and the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for them has plummeted to become profitable even without subsidies. Storage is still a challenge, but we're seeing rapid improvements in that, too, with sodium batteries rapidly catching up in capacity.

TFA says that construction on these won't start until at least 2030, and if they make that, it would be amazingly fast for how reactors are built these days. In that time, wind is expected to expand by almost 50 GW and solar by 40 GW. Battery storage is expected to almost quadruple in that time. By the time the reactors are built, they will be a tiny fraction of the new power generation installed and they will probably be the most expensive part of it.

That would be ideal, but I don't think it's really necessary. Just keeping the list a subject of public debate is sufficient to prevent things from getting too skewed.