Well, sure, but actually, birds absolutely can have something that would be selected for. That could just be very basic risk aversion for large moving options that selection would make more specific over time, so eventually you would have birds who stay away from big tall white towers with moving blades by an instinct built up from a lot of small bits and pieces. Or otherwise they could develop an instinct for the timing of the blades, etc. Of course, the main reason this probably would not happen is because there's simply not enough selection pressure. Not enough birds actually die that way.

To give a rundown here of how this works, there are concepts called power and energy. Energy measures are of the actual, whereas power is the rate of transfer of that amount, generally expressed as an amount per second. So, there is a thing called a Joule, which is a measure of energy, as in the actual amount. Whereas there is also a thing called a Watt, which is a measure of power, with the Watt being 1 Joule per second. Due to legacy matters regarding billing, energy is often expressed in terms of Watt-hours, being the amount of energy you would get from a rate of one Watt (one Joule per second) over one hour. This is confusing to many because it is taking an energy term divided by a time term and then adding another time term and a pretty much random multiplier (3600, the number of seconds in an hour). So, one Watt-hour is actually 3600 Joules.
So, with this you should see that your question is highly confused. There is no such thing as "(is that annually or daily)" for 7 GW since it's a rate. Now, there is some nuance to that because the rate in question, 7 GW, is probably what is called nameplate capacity. That's more or less the maximum the equipment can be expected to generate under any conditions. There is some leeway there. It might actually be able to produce more when it's new, etc. but that's the certified rate you can expect from it under ideal conditions. Now, in the real world, it is subject to a capacity factor. That's basically the percentage of the capacity factor that it actually can be expected to produce under real world conditions. For offshore wind, that's something like 40% to 50%. So 2.8 to 3.5 GW typically.
Now, since that's a rate, if you want to know what that is annually or daily, you just multiply the computed rate based on capacity factor times the number of hours you want to examine. So, for a day, you would multiply by 24 and get 67.2 to 84 GW-hours. For a year, you would multiply by (365.2242 * 24) to get 24.543 to 30.678 TW-hours per year (which I find ridiculous because it's adding yet another time term equivalent to seconds times another arbitrary factor). However, I should mention that the context that's really missing from that post is if they mean wind power, or off-shore wind specifically. If it's wind power in general, the lower bound for capacity factor is a little lower. Fair to say that we're looking at around 20 to 30 TW-hours per year.
So, for the 4.086 PW-hours per year you mention which sounds like total US electrical power usage per year, that would be around .48% to 0.75%. Since that's an amount added in a year, it should be mentioned that's a fairly slow year, just a few years back, the US was adding more than double that per year. In the last ten years, close to 100 GW of wind power nameplate have been added in the US. So, that would be roughly 10% of US electrical usage. That's not too far off on the official figure for total wind power in the US. Then if you add solar, the US gets just under 20% of its electricity from wind and solar. For renewables in general, it's about 25%. Now, I will note that some of the renewable is from burning biomass, and about 20% of that "biomass" is garbage and 45% of that non-renewable materials like plastic that really shouldn't count, but it's a negligible portion of the overall total since biomass burning is under 1%, so we're talking about around 0.1%.

As for universal parts... Interesting, you're not the first person in this discussion to bring up that oddly specific question. It's not like not having standardized parts isn't a real issue, but it's also perfectly normal in a multi-vendor, relatively new marketplace. I am, of course, all for establishing a system of standardized common parts, but the fact that you bring it up seems so odd. Of course, a little research shows that the reason is that it looks like it's part of a so called "messaging toolkit" from the Heartland Institute. Basically, they compile lists of talking points, then distribute them to right-wing media, then consumers of that media are expected to essentially astroturf those points. So I'm curious, did you spontaneously come up with that concern yourself or, if not, where did you pick it up from?

As for the numbers from China being fake... I certainly would not put it past China's government. Honesty is not their strong suit (of course, that's hardly untrue of the US either), but claiming that it's false is problematic. It's a bit like claiming that the moon landings were faked, when you can set up a laser system yourself to verify the presence of the detectors. In other words, we have satellites and wind turbines are big, and you can estimate their output based on their size and other factors. In order to fake that without being called out by the rest of the world, just lying is not enough, instead there would need to be a massive conspiracy to make fake wind turbines. Plus, the fake turbines would need the blades to spin and also for the fake nacelle to turn with the wind.
Now I can't help thinking of the Mitchell and Webb bit on the fake moon landing conspiracy
"So, we're not actually going to make any kind of saving in terms of the cost of a massive rocket?"
"No, but we will be making a saving on the cost of actually going to the moon."
"True, true, and what costs are involved in actually going to the moon."
"Well, the main one, to be honest, is the massive rocket."
"Any others?"
"Well, other than that, it's mainly catering."

I've heard the RAM used in AI rack servers is packaged in a format that isn't useful for generalist PC use. I don't know if that means standard chips surface mounted onto the main board that could be reflowed onto a standard DIMM or if the pin-out of the package is totally incompatible. I hope you are right, but I don't know if it will be the windfall for enthusiast PC builders we're hoping for.

I wouldn't mind having a whole ass compute unit or two to run my own local open weight model though if they ever go on fire sale.

Defending things with (to paraphrase): "it's not as bad as coal" is not exactly what I would call a winning argument. It seems to assume that you're debating with enthusiasts of coal.

Look, it's very simple. See that telephone pole over there. It blocks your line of sight. Someone could hide behind that telephone pole and attack you. I mean, sure you might have multiple friends looking at the telephone pole from multiple perspectives, including behind it. And sure, if they came out from behind to pole to attack you, you would be able to see them. You can't deny that it's a blind spot though. So they can just hide there and attack you from there, OK!? Stop getting all obtuse about this practical reality stuff!

Then why is Trump always attacking them for not lining up behind him to track Iran?

Those seem to be some very specific claims about a technology that doesn't actually exist yet.

While I'm all for doing more fusion research, I do have to point out that it's not some sort of magic bullet. If you replaced the core of any current nuclear reactor or most posited ones that would run on fusion (there are some theoretical ideas to generate electricity more directly from the reaction or the plasma than using a giant steam engine, but that's a long way from being demonstrated) with a magical device that releases the heat and radiation output and at whatever level you choose at the turn of a dial and it was completely free, I'm not sure the massive steam generator that makes up the rest of the plant would manage to beat renewables in the long run.

As far as the scenario you mentioned about some specific parts that were hard to find that one time, what are you trying to say there? Is it that fusion reactors would all have standard interchangeable parts that would be easy to source?

No, because it didn't happen. She did speak about about an initiative she was involved in as first lady at one. Are you trying to say that's the same thing?

This means what? What is the advantage of 9 meetings per year vs. 2 to 3? Presidents can speak to cabinet secretaries directly or get written reports from them whenever they want. They don't actually need to speak to all of them at once. I've seen high level managers that call large interdepartment meetings constantly and managers that do it rarely. Usually, people are left wondering what the point was afterwards (for the ones who call them often, it's to give a pep talk about some "revolutionary" concept they had just read in some pop psychology book or more likely listened to). Trump seems to have his meetings just so that he can pontificate about things at length to a captive audience who are basically forced to praise him like something out of an authoritarian regime.

The cameras do go on sale quite frequently so some people go absolutely bonkers with installing several of them. I would assume there's probably a lot of overlap in the Venn Diagram of people who share their videos on social media and people who cover every square inch of their property in cameras.

Generally, you don't want your camera configured recording every time your neighbors leave/come home, because the extraneous motion alert notifications are a nuisance. The software lets you adjust the areas of the field-of-view that you want monitored for activity, and there's also various sorts of wedge mounts for the doorbell cameras to angle it so it's not pointing up into the street.

Ring certainly wouldn't make implementing something like that easy out of the box, since their system is closed and proprietary. I'd figure if someone really to be a creep and do AI recognition to log everything their neighbors are doing, they'd probably have to roll their own camera setup. It's a bit like the situation with AirTags, too. They technically could be used for stalking someone, but they're also the worst way possible to go about doing it (since they will literally cause an alert to pop up on person's phone that they're being tracked, and the tag is linked to the stalker's Apple account).

You continue to be without insight. Nothing new.

Exactly. Which is why a lot of his stories are about how the three laws fail.

Also note that any actual implementation of the three laws requires AGI and we do not even know whether that is possible. We certainly have no approaches that could realistically lead to it, despite what some people hallucinate. It is not a question of throwing more computing power or data at the problem. We are missing some key ingredient.

Probably need to add
22. Turning the US into a Kakistocracy.

Trump lost a lawsuit in the UK against some off-shore wind visible from one of his golf parks. Since then he (and the MAGAs) hate off-shore wind. No rational reasons, just mindless hate by total losers. The less dumb ones try to find "arguments", but it is all lies.

The reason you do off-shore wind is that it is not intermittent. It can have very rare and entirely predictable non-wind situations, but in practice these are comparable to other forms of power generation. On-shore wind is different, unless it is high-wind. If you go high enough, on-shore wind becomes reliable as well. There are some experiments running in Europe for that.

DT is exceptionally stupid. He has savant syndrome and can do two things well: Turn people about as stupid as he is into loyal cult followers and escape being held responsible for his crimes. And that is basically it. And I would like to point out that the second is probably due to him being born rich.