

I wonder if this is the best they can come up with in response to the airbase attacks?
I wonder if this is the best they can come up with in response to the airbase attacks?
I’m sure Netanyahu will be calling the IDF anti-semitic in a few hours.
I mean the UK has 6% of its energy over the year come from solar, and 30% from wind, and installations are only accelerating, so this amount of installed solar is far from unrealistic.
Installing storage approximately doubles the LCOE of solar energy, so this is also feasible from a cost point of view as we get rid of dispatchable gas turbines.
Basically if we solve storage, we can get rid of nuclear, but not before.
I am not saying we should get rid of nuclear. I am saying we should keep some nuclear, also once we have got less gas and more storage. Does this resolve some things in this discussion for you?
Not really enough information. I will assume that by “installed solar power” you mean peak generation when the sun is shining, and that instead of peak use, you mean 40% of average use, i.e. let’s suppose that at an average moment the country consumes 100GW and, if the sun is shining, generates 40GW from solar.
Assume further the sun is up for half the year and the sky is clear for half the year, meaning the total amount of your yearly electricity you can generate with solar is 10% assuming typical weather. Then you would be able to reliably power the country with a combination of nuclear totalling 90% of average use (90GW) and enough storage that you can ride out cloudy periods.
No, COVID is very low in the US - just as in the early days when there was little testing available, you can track what the disease is doing by looking at hospital admissions data.
I did mention people who are particularly vulnerable, and if that includes you then the rest of what I said doesn’t apply to you. I find it’s more efficient to talk about the likely case and mention the exception in a single message than to first ask “are you immunocompromised” and then reply separately.
I would go a step further and have creative grants to people. It would work in a way similar to the BBC and similar broadcasters, where a body gets government money and then picks creative projects it thinks are worthwhile, with a remit that goes beyond the lowest common denominator. UBI ensures that this system doesn’t have a monopoly on creative output.
You say “maybe” like it’s some unknowable quantity, but we can see what is going on in Hungary and that it’s getting increasingly authoritarian, and we can see Russian attempts to influence western democracies through bot farms and the like. It’s not unknowable; the evidence is there.
There are companies, big companies even, that kill off underperforming projects after less than a year, and most don’t take years to agree projects.
I don’t understand what you’re asking, sorry.
I dunno about the MAGAs, but I think at this point, with COVID very low in the USA, most people are wearing masks because it sends a signal about where they stand on COVID, not for their own protection. Obviously there are some people who are particularly vulnerable, who can’t have the vaccine for example, for whom mask-wearing will remain important forever (and would likely have been beneficial before the pandemic) but I don’t believe that’s the majority.
The reason is that mask wearing in my home country went down to zero after most people were vaccinated and the virus became uncommon. But here mask-wearing was never politicised, so without an anti-mask group to oppose it never became a symbol for those who did wear them.
Glad we can agree this is not about new offences.
In the UK there is no specific crime of identity theft, with offences generally being prosecuted as fraud. Fraud requires that the person committing the fraud intend to make a gain of money or property, or to cause someone else to make a loss of money or property.
There’s no real way to frame this as being bad for children except inasmuch as people over the age of consent (which is 16 in the UK) should be free to access as much porn as they please.
Solar and nuclear work just fine together. Nuclear is expensive (and most cost effective if kept running all the time, rather than switched on and off) but it reduces the cost of solar (lower proportion of solar means you don’t need as much storage) and hedges against bad weather.
To Brits it is pornographic.
The act in question doesn’t create offences for children; it (mainly) creates offences for service providers.
I can’t quite put my finger on why he might want a corruption investigation into a politician dropped…
Never mind the American planes… these planes if nuclear-armed will be armed with American-owned bombs that will require American authorisation to arm.
The high dependency ratio is going to continue to be a problem for quite a while. The time to solve the aging population problem was decades ago when their could have been policy to create budget surpluses, so that the boomer generation paid for its own care. But that didn’t happen and we can’t go back in time to fix it. All solutions now suck because that opportunity has been lost: you can screw the boomers by leaving them to die covered in bedsores and filth, or you can screw the younger generations by making them pay for care, or some combination.
What if they’re paying their share/most of their share of taxes now, but a change pushes them into not doing so? These things ar enot all-or-nothing.
I don’t think this will affect people’s desire to have children at all (Denmark’s strong social security system has a much stronger, and positive, effect on that).
I am of child-having age and my decision is based around what my life would be like for the next 18 or so years, not would it would be like at retirement. If I were to think about that, possibly having someone around to help me out and let me retire earlier would probably be a very tiny nudge in favour of having children.
Steam already has an FPS monitor, right? I think that’s enough for 95% of everything (and it’s very unobtrusive).