The commenter clearly seemed to think the world was going to be supremely unfair to the CEO (turns out 'exec' is ambiguous, as the man, his wife, the mistress, and the mistress' husband are all executives one place or another). You said the exec deserves to lose because of his actions, which seems to be inconsistent. The commenter's stance is based on his blatant assumption that the wife was not earning money and the mistress was just some gold digger, and that even if the wife wasn't earning money, that if the split happens it's unfair for her to get a cut of the CEOs wealth that he earned.

The assertions of misogyny are because he filled in the gaps he didn't know with assumptions consistent with negative stereotypes of women in these situations. He jumped right to the fiction of the struggling man paying huge alimony to some indolent ex-wife living a life of luxury. That the mistress was only in it for gold
digging.

You seem to have just been hit with the headlines and manufactured a scenario where he is a rich guy married to a stay at home wife, with a gold digging mistress.

My spouse was interested enough to bother to dig in and the reality is that the CEO, the wife, the mistress, and the mistress' husband are all four rich with income, so alimony is likely not even a factor. Similarly, the assets being split is unlikely to be lopsided.

From what I've seen in actual life, that all seems to be a rich person trope, and an exaggeration. Those I've known with modest lifestyles that get divorced seem not to have encountered a whole lot of financial duress due to that (maybe child support, but not the wife). I was at a business lunch where three people started bemoaning this as if it were true, that their former spouses are just draining them of all their cash. However, one of them had just been talking about his brand new BMW M5 that his 'lame' former wife would never let him buy and another chimed in with the same experience, albeit with a more humble Kia Stinger. Broadly they all seemed to be doing quite well and the wife would have otherwise been stuck high and dry largely at their "man of their house" mindset that didn't have her earn an income, which is fine, but expect them to be able to use some of your income even after the relationship falls apart.

Maybe it's less about the 'AI' and more about the 'slop'. Just like mobile games are flooded with slop, even before AI.

Just because Bitanica gets it right, doesn't mean the broader world understands it.

His complaint is that too many people think of it as a 'degree to get coding' and it's more than that. You seem to agree with that, though maybe room to quibble over the nuance of what more it is or how it should be described.

Yes, it does need an exclusion zone, it is laid out in their page:
https://thekitepower.com/the-f...

They also note that the flight zone can be used for multiple purposes, subject to limitations.

While Agrivoltaics is a thing, trying to discuss how much power output per area becomes tricky. They are splitting the sun between the crops and panels and so that ability to get 10kw in 40m2 becomes who knows how much more land depending on which approach is selected. It's just a statement that sparse panels might mike good shade for livestock, or that being at a *super* suboptimal angle allows enough light for the plants, while tanking the efficiency of the panels so you are spending way more per kw than deploying them optimally.

Of course, while they mention agriculture, their main scenario seems to be a medium term rental for a project site, which they tout as quick as a big diesel generator but without the emissions. So they are thinking about not needing a project to deploy the solar before doing the actual project when compared to solar, and then having to take down the solar. I'm not sure, practically speaking, the "green" ness is enough to move people away from the status quo of big diesel for such projects,particluraly since they do need the flight zone left clear of structures and the "potential" flight zone seems like a big risk for any construction you might do, even if you could spare the "flight zone" from active work.

Agreed, the move to call them "reasoning" models annoys me.

They basically just go "generate even *more* text and only provide the last bit. Basically to write a story about what "thinking" about the question would look like, which does seem to produce marginally better final output at the expense of an order of magnitude more tokens expended.

But then you look at the "reasoning" chain and you'll see mistakes that, if it were really a reasoning chain, would propagate to next step of the "reasoning" process, but frequently they are anomalies and the next text is generated as if the previous text said the correct thing.

Seems to be that they established that expending more tokens and disposing of most of it causes better results, and that the content to be ignored cosmetically resembles a reasoning chain when it's all correct and consistent, but the errors don't propagate in a way that would be consistent with that truth.

There is an astounding level of ignorance in your posts.

But let's start with this: hydrogen is dispensed and kept as a gas, not a liquid. That means that pressure is important. The dispenser must ensure that there is sufficient pressure in the car's tanks in order to fill it.

Have you heard of Boyle's law?

Fueling stations need their own compressors:
https://www.neuman-esser.com/e...

Fueling nozzles get stuck to cars:
https://www.facebook.com/group...

Your facepalm applies to yourself and your aggressive commitment to remain ignorant, since all of my points could be easily searched for and confirmed.

I think the point was that with solar, that area can have bulidings or "I don't care about what's underneath", but it can't be deployed and have the land also be used for farming. In the kite scenario, the land can do double duty for some things, like agriculture, so long as you land and secure the airfoil during times when you want people in the flight zone.

So you give up 20m2 to get 100kw of wind power with a large 'no people should usually be here' area, but plants, sure. To do the same with solar, you'd need about 745 m2 of non-farm land available, though that can include roof tops, though angle may be suboptimal.

Looks like they claim 30kw for current product, and 100kw for an iteration coming soon, rather than 10kw. Also for 10kw, we are talking about 40 square meters of area, and the base station for these is about 20 square meters, and yes this is still comparing just the base station of one to total footprint of the other, and if we compared total deployed area, then solar *easily* wins in every factor except for all I know cost.

However while the total area may be pretty large, the area doesn't have to be as cleared or denied sunlight. So you might get to ignore the overall volume for some applications. So it might be fair to compare the ground station footprint to solar footprint.

For example you have a farm where the land is valuable for crops, but you could abide an airfoil around when the fields aren't being worked, or are being worked by pure automation. When you need the flight area worked, you can probably easily land the airfoil for that duration, and then return it to operation when that is done.

Conversely, useless in urban or suburban scenarios but solar is trivial to deploy there.

So if you have a bunch of effectively wasteland, I think this is unlikely to make any sense. But if you have a nuanced land area where people don't need to be, but you do want the land for other purposes, I could see this kite scenario playing out.

Fun fact: no one cares about your "I don't know" posts.

I suggest you compare the weight of a hydrogen fuel cell EV to that of a battery EV.

Hydrogen vehicles need batteries to capture energy during regenerative braking and the tanks, fuel cells are quite heavy.

Mirai: 4,189 to 4,299 lbs
Model 3: 3,552 to 4,072 lbs

Maybe the "fueling" part, but not the part where the fuel dispenser gets stuck to the car. Or the part where you are waiting for the fuel station to re-pressurize the hydrogen gas so that it can be dispensed into your car.

Your numbers are wrong. Typical Superchargers will put out 250kW and now some will reach 350kW, with plans for 500kW.

They may also have batteries on site to buffer the peak demands.

Have you seen what it takes to install a Hydrogen fuel station?

I used to drive past a Hydrogen fuel station when it was being installed in an existing gas station. It took 6 months.

Note that the Hydrogen must be compressed after dispensing, in order to keep the gas at the appropriate pressure. That's assuming the nozzle doesn't get stuck to the car, or the system hasn't failed (typically happens every 15 days or less).

The dispenser can't be used by one car immediately after another because the system may need to re-pressurize the gas.