Up until 2025 this was true, the U.S. was by far the most reliable partner,

Too bad it no longer is.

The summary says "The automaker has set a 2027 deadline for some suppliers to dissolve their China sourcing ties." So, yes, 2 1/4 years.

Up until 2025, the answer was it's easier to get along with the U.S.

With the erratic policies and random tariffs of the U.S., however, it has become easier to get along with China, which, if nothing else, does not change their policies on a whim.

Things like, putting a tariff on Canada because the president didn't like a commercial from Ontario that (accurately) quoted Ronald Reagan.

The long term result is that the other nations of the world are shifting to industrial policies that do not include the U.S.

Too many people don't mentally convert the phrase "16th century" into "from 1501-1600".

In words that anonymous cowards might be able to understand:
The Little Ice Age started in the 1500s. The Maunder Minimum was a period around 1645 to 1715. So your dates do not line up.

Yes: the "little ice age" in Europe started before the Maunder minimum.

On a billion-year time scale, true. On a time scale of a human lifetime, no, way too small to notice

We have been measuring solar intensity from satellites constantly for decades. Short answer, no variation in intensity enough to measure on climate. There is a very small cyclical variation due to the solar (sunspot) cycle, but it's only about 0.1%, and it averages out over the 11 year solar cycle.

All the models include the solar input. It's just that the solar constant is very close to constant, so it's not a driver of changes in climate.

The Earth's magnetic field is slightly weakening, but this is primarily affecting the south-Atlantic magnetic anomaly, not affecting Europe or North America. The overall weakening is only a few percent.

Any suggestion that a magnetic pole reversal is likely would be completely speculation.

!!!

That's a key point. Most of the AI generated slop is done by people representing themselves.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...

120 Watts during 8 hours of daytime will not be "50% of the electricity you need over a year". Period.

If you want to talk about something else, that's fine. It was your statement that you could provide 50% of your electrical use with a 800 Wp array that I was disagreeing with.

We'll probably never know. When actual secret sites get hacked, they keep the fact secret.

Another worry is the fact that DOGE penetrated all the sites and vacuumed up data indiscriminately, so the adversaries only have to hack DOGE, who have already shown that they don't pay much attention to cybersecurity.
https://www.newsweek.com/doge-...
https://www.bankinfosecurity.c...
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fa...
https://thehill.com/homenews/s...

Wow, this anonymous rant is so incoherent I have no idea even whether it's a left-idiot or a right-idiot dribbling.

I'd call it AI trolling, but AI-written slop has a veneer of seeming to make sense.

800 Wp will not generate 50% of the electricity you need over a year. Do you even know what Wp means?

800 watts (peak) will be about 120 Watts average, That won't run a house.

https://www.ecoflow.com/us/blo...

This point was rather buried:

Yes, EVs require a lot less maintanance. This is a big profit center for car dealers.

You keep posting this. It keeps being wrong.

Good lord, that's what they like to say, but nowhere near true. The only fusion reaction likely to be achieved soon is D-T, and that sprays neutrons out like a firehose. Everything nearby gets neutron activated. The reactor itself has only a finite lifetime before it's too radioactive to use.