They are known to be bankrolled by James “Fergie” Chalmbers, American millionair heir, “communist” who by his own words “chants death to America every day” and is a supporter of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and has been on Russia state sponsored visits to the regions annexed by Russia writing glowing praises of them.

It seems likely that at least Palestein action are useful idiots for the Russian state. Which isnt to say that banning them as a terrorsit group isnt massive overreach and completely undemocratic.

Curate your own feed, if you dont want reposts from HN then dont subscribe to a comm that does that.

If you are just talking transitor density I believe it still is, but even if not, my point was that it had exponential growth spanning over many decades.

That said, exponentials don’t exist in the real world, we’re just seeing the middle of a sigmoid curve, which will soon yield diminishing returns.

Yes, but the tricky thing is we have no idea when the seemingly exponential growth will flip over into the plateuing phase. We could be there already or it could be another 30 years.

For comparison Moores law is almost certainly a sigmoid too, but weve been seeing exponential growth for 50 years now.

From historical data, you can calculate the maximum lull where neither are providing enough.

The difficulty there is that there are a lot of places where you frequently get multiple weeks of both solar and wind at <10% capacity (google for dunkelflaute) that would need an implausible amount of storage to cover.

The OP article is already talking about 5x overbuilding solar with 17h of storage to get to 97% in the most favourable conditions possible. I dont see how you can get to an acceptably stable grif in most places without dispatchable power.

97% is great (though that is just for vegas) but it is still a long way from enough. Its a truism of availability that each 9 of uptime is more difficult to get to than the last, i.e. 99.9% is significantly more difficult/expensive than 99%

Then get it from the sources that already exist.

The problem here is that you cant simultaneously say “Solar is so much better than everything else we should just build it” and “we’ll just use other sources to cover the gaps”. Either you calculate the costs needed to get solar up to very high availability or you advocate for mixed generation.

None of which is to say that solar shouldnt be deployed at scale, it should. We should be aware of its limitations howver and not fall prey to hype.

97% sounds impressive, but thats equivalent to almost an hour of blackout every day. Developed societies demand +99.99% availability from their grids.

Cool, 13 years seems better than I’d expect for paying it off that far north. I’d be interested to hear how it does over winter.

I suppose the other variable is equipment failure and degredation rates, do the installers give you any guaruntees about those?

Yes, thats the exactly place to go hard left, full on no compromises. In the Democratic primaries.

Not in the presidential election when you know one of exactly two people will win and your choice is which one of them you favour over the other.

Just for reference, roughly where are you with this setup? What looks good for say Arizona is going to look very different for the Netherlands (for example)

One chat request to an LLM produces about as much CO2 as burning one droplet of gasoline (if it was from coal fired power, less if it comes from cleaner sources). It makes far less CO2 to talk to a chatbot for hours upon hours than a ten minute drive to see a therapist once a week.

Compared to

It’s easy when you’re an obscure band to bellow “kill your local MP” or bray “up Hamas, up Hezbollah”.

Yeah, pretty much. Very few people would argue against stopping killing Gazan civilians (even if they are not willing to back the measures that would result in that, like applying real presure to Israel), that makes it a fairly apolictial thing to say. Advocating killing MPs or supporting Iranian proxies is certainly a lot more contencious.

Thanks for showing what a lovely person you are so clearly. Off to the blocklist you go.

I’d like that too! But that is completely separate to this bill. All this bill does is allow people who are in severe pain and about to die in less than half a year to get assistance in ending their lives if they dont have the capacity to do it themselves.

Thats it.

If your argument is that the world isnt already perfectly equitable and so we shouldnt make anything better until it is perfectly equitable then I completely disagree. I think that is a recipe for never improving peoples lives and just a way to get angry at the system without doing anything to improve it.

Huh? This my only account I dont even know who you are paranoidly accusing me of being a sock puppet for.

For the record I disagree with you (and that wasnt clear from your previous post), but thats a resonable concern to have.

comparing someone to hitler is not.

As to the substance of your concerns, do you think that doesnt happen now? There are plenty of deaths of dispair in the world currently. This bill does absolutely nothing either way for someone who becomes paralysed, loses their job and puts a gun to their own head. What it does do is allow people who are going to die immenently have the peace of mind that if it becomes unbearble to them they will be able to end their life even if they cant physically manage it any more.

I just dont see how providing assistance to die for those who require it has any bearing on people who end their lives due to financial hardship, would you want to go back to making suicide a crime?

I honestly cant tell what argument you are trying to make. Yes the world can be a shit place with people suffering and dying for the profit of others, but what does that have to do with legislation being put in place for people - in intolerble pain, with less than six months to live and have been judged by independent review and to be of sound mind and uncoerced - being assisted if they choose to wnd their life?

As to you being the “despised voice” not unless the other comment was from your sock puppet. They were comparing Starmer to Hitler by calling him Sturmer, despite him not having anything to do with this bill. I do in fact see lying about genocide as despicable.

And yet, the overwhelming majority of people in the UK, including disabled people, want this change in the law. So much so that literally every single constituency in the UK has a majority in favour of it, most with 2/3s majorities or more.

The people arguing against it are pretty much all religious groups, often with funding from the USA, who are being coy about their motives. They often dont anounce that the same groups protesting this are the same groups who advocate against abortion for example.

And yet still you still get people like the tanky replying on this page trying to make out that this is kier starmer (who did nothing to promote this bill other than vote in its favour) personally organising a genocide of disabled people for the profit of American pharma companies.

I doubt anyone expected it to work completely, but it is interesting to see to what extent it worked and how it failed (halucinations and sycophancy)

Except it isnt, because the judge dismissed that part of the suit, saying that people have complete right to digitise and train on works they have a legitimate copy of. So those damages are for making the unauthorised copy, per book.

And it is not STEALING as you put it, it is making an unauthorised copy, no one loses anything from a copy being made, if I STEAL your phone you no longer have that phone. I do find it sad how many people have drunk the capitalist IP maximalist stance and have somehow convinced themselves that advocating for Disney and the publishing cartel being allowed to dictate how people use works they have is somehow sticking up for the little guy