Well, in the sense that it's possible to be eating zero calories in the time between meals. You still need the meals. If you're just looking at brief snapshots, it doesn't tell you much.
It was a widely considered impossible to have more than single digit percentage of renewables even for instantaneous figures. That "limit" has been raised again and again as the world gets more experience with it.
It's great that we've made so much progress that people can say "it's just 90% renewable for 30 mins" but that's a result of decades of hard work.
You are conflating ideas here and it's getting muddled up. Literally nobody ever said that we couldn't handle 100% renewables for brief periods. The single digit percentage you're referring to is not about the renewables, it's about when the renewables aren't there. Its about maintaining grid stability when you don't have dispatchable sources to do it with. Essentially what we've built is a system where the renewables provide a tertiary function- providing power when they want to, but not in a reliable way, so we still have the same carbon based dispatchable resources.
This is not a serious system. We've done a bit of work on th cheap, easy part. Installing some solar panels is easy and costs almost nothing. The storage and transmission of power is 90% of the actual work!
It is literally written into regulations in many places that renewables aren't allowed to go above certain percentages even for short periods e.g in Ireland they are raising the cap by 5% every so often with an aim to get to 95% by 2035, it's currently 75% and was 50% when they brought in that particular rule.
In Australia they keep reducing the number of synchronous generators that are required to be connected as they gain more experience.
Renewables started as fringe tech and are now a trillion dollar industry. But they faced skepticsims at every stage along the way.
Not saying these are bad, but I haven't seen any place where these seem to make much difference.
I think the concept that you have a process for peer-review of architectural decisions open to anybody is important -- whether it's in writing, whatever you call it, where it goes I'm not sure those things matter.
After a certain number of years I begin to wonder if architect type roles love ADRs so much because their impact is hard to measure/validate, so they overcompensate or attempt to put a more verbose process on others to try to produce documents for optics reasons.
Well I think a good way to differentiate things that are guilty-pleasures like a twinky and gambling is to take a survey of people and see what % say "I wish I had never ever gambled in the first place" vs "I wish I never had been allowed to buy twinkies"
It'd actually be quite easy to set certain sane limits on gambling like you can't gamble more than 1% of your annual income per year, but I bet gambling platforms would fight that like the plague because those are their whales, the true addicts.
I know 100s of people who've been to vegas and had a good time gambling, not one of them would say "I wish I'd never gambled in the first place". I personally know zero people who gambled so much they regret it. I'm not denying those people exist, but I suspect if you ask everyone, a very small percent have had a strong negative experience
Yes it's a very small % of the population, but it's actually a significant percent of the earnings of these platforms.
Just for illustration -- when I worked at Zynga they'd sell in-game purchases for over $10k USD for virtual items because there were people who just couldn't help themselves, and those "whales" were actually the bulk of the profit of the company.
That's why these platforms should have mandatory sane limits that can only be exempted with special circumstances.
> Well I think a good way to differentiate things that are guilty-pleasures like a twinky and gambling is to take a survey of people and see what % say "I wish I had never ever gambled in the first place" vs "I wish I never had been allowed to buy twinkies"
I don't think this is a fair comparison, because it is much easier to tie losing all your money to gambling than it is to tie your health issues to twinkies. For one, it isn't just twinkies, it is a bunch of different foods, and the consequences are temporally separated from the action; you don't eat a twinkie and immediately notice you are bigger and less healthy. Your heart attack will come years down the line, and there was no one action you took that you can regret, so the feeling is not the same. Gambling is very easy to feel the pain, you lose a bet and you lose the money, immediately.
> interfering in a foreign election should be understood to be grounds for war
Requires a rigorous definition of interference.
The allegations here—trying to catch politicians on tape being sleazy and then releasing them with sketchy editing-doesn’t seem to rise to the level of calling for a kinetic response.
What I do think is that nations should 1) interfere back, and 2) make their citizens more resilient to foreign propaganda. And I specifically don't mean building a firewall. In fact do the opposite: if a firewalled nation is leaking out propaganda, ensure firewall-breaking tools leak in.
Actually, no. The decentralization of power means that it takes a lot more effort to subvert each country individually, rather than propping up a few candidates for the entire region like they do in the US.
The EU is perfectly capable of collaborating even when it can't reach full consensus or when it wants to include peripheral states without them becoming full members. See for example the Schengen area, Eurozone, European Economic Area, and more recently (and specifically to circumvent member state vetos) when the enhanced cooperation procedures were invoked to lend money to Ukraine.
That’s true but that fragmentation is also what limits the propagation of fractures. You can see it like sandboxing.
A deal with foreign intelligence is a dead with the devil that comes with a lifetime of subservience. And subservience to foreign powers is a greater evil than yo usual internal corruption. At least the locally corrupt in a democracy have some interest in things going somewhat well in their country. The foreign actors only care about theirs.
There some evidence that nicotine may be inadvertantly used as a self-medication for schizophrenia and/or adhd
Cocaine is a party drug afaik, I'll give you that one.
Hallucinogens have the ability change people's perspectives on the world, often for the positive. Now the current psychiatry lens is you can only have "medicine" if you have a "disorder" but that doesn't really seem to make sense. Why can't you take medicine to move something from average to above-average? So I agree it's not prescribed for treating many disorders, but that doesn't mean it isn't therapeutic.
> American media has really been shockingly pro weed/cannabis for the past 20 or so years
Really? I think the opposite is true.
Given 1/6 adults admit to using it, I think it's totally underrepresented in media -- in theory 1/6 characters would be using it.
It's only very recently that I see characters who just casually say something like "I take a gummy for a long flight" or whatever, rather than be a stereotypical comedic stoner character.
I feel like really it's alcohol that's glamorized in the media, and before that it was smoking.
Seriously though, by the time I was 15 several of my classmates were drunk most weekends and smoked cigarettes regularly, but even decades later I have still never seen or heard of anyone I know smoking weed. That's why it sticks out so much to me.
If 1/6 is true it would be interesting to see how it has changed over the past say 20 years or so.
I think cigarettes and alcohol were established vices when media became a thing so media can be semi-excused from those. It would be interesting to know if the same is true for weed. Has it just gotten so common that media has to show it to be realistic, or did it get more common after media started to show it?
Cigarette smoking is an interesting counterexample, it has been extremely de-glamorized since the heydays and sales of cigarettes have halved since 2000.
I can see the logic of talking to the people who believe they will live forever, once you start wondering "what if people could actually live forever?"
It includes much more than that. Women for one. "We have become feminized". He extensively quotes Nazi lawyer Carl Schmitt ("the satanic unification of the world" ), René Girard ("We must stop scapegoating and go to church more") and the bible at every turn. See his interview with Jordan Peterson.
He is also financing the build out of nuclear power plants for AI with only 1/5 of the shielding, because he dismantled the regulation instances for this ("regulation hinders progress and we are stagnating").
>> both parties here are idiots with high opinions of themselves who actually believe in a pile nonsense, but which of the two has really caused more harm for humanity?
That's not really a reasonable argument, because Thiel hasn't had the power of the Vatican (especially the power the vatican used to have), but what he's done with his power so far is much more concerning to me that what the vatican has done in the last 4 years, yes.
I think we both agree that the catholic church has received an unwarranted elevation and presumption of beneficence in media, but the distinction I'm drawing is that a billionaire who's toiling in American politics and claiming Greta Thunburg could be the antichrist is actively concerning.
I think it's a reasonable argument that we should be more concerned with the organization that has the better part of a two thousand year track record of murdering people, but in either case I did just accuse both of them of being antichrists. Anyway, Greta is my queen.
reply