Well, why do you not have any friends? At least Zuckerberg is trying to make you feel good about yourself.

You obviously missed the context entirely.

The study the article is talking about, is a possible solution to cover California’s solar energy glut problem during the day, because the state doesn’t have enough batteries. It is a case study. In trying to do that, it may create other problems, such as infrastructure to get people to charge their cars during the day while they work. This means employers must pay or get somebody to pay for chargers at the work place, adding onto more costs onto the employee and/or employer. Nighttime charging may be cheaper and more convenient, but remember, the study wants you to capture all the wonder solar power during the day, not use potential green house gases from natural gas at night. The more complexity, the more problems you have.

The Hill tries to make backup energy as something that brings volatility and rolling blackouts, which makes no sense. Implying they believe that wind and solar should go without backup, and consistent generation at night, which is basically extra capacity. If you are going to need to roll out back up generation in the future, might as well do it now, instead of later. This does a couple of things for the Texas GOP goal of increasing reliability, it increases the responsibility on solar and wind producers to address their own volatility, instead of dumping the volatility on ancillary services, which get less revenue, because of their off-time, accommodating wind and solar. By forcing solar, and wind producers to buy capacity from what would most think as only backup generation, the Legislature wants to force wind, and solar to participate in 24 hour production. A mandate like this makes room for reliable energy rollout, basically more support for natural gas, and presumably batteries, instead of just crowding out the preferred energy types.

I don’t think the author of this article understands what he wrote about, or purposely omitting key things about grid balancing. The problem with rooftop solar incentives is they encourage solar production during the day when the sun is out, but do nothing when the sun settles. California has to switch to other types of energy such as batteries, natural gas plants, etc. for the evening. The grid is already saturated with energy during the day, even into negative prices. Utilities are paying into these rooftops, perhaps at retail prices, for something that does not address the energy gaps through the 24-hour timeline of power generation. In simple terms, California’s rooftop solar does not balance out the system over a timescale, with diminishing returns. At least, the article was stamped as an opinion piece, increasing the likelihood of it being a biased article that delves into conspiracy theories that California, and its regulated utility companies just want to screw people. There you go.

Mexico has nothing else better to do.

What does that have to do with this article?

That’s your problem, not mine, and what is the fairy tale behind human rights? I didn’t know that AI could be consciously racist.

You need to pay up for your speed racing.

deleted by creator

Marriage wasn’t a sacred union. Christianity made marriage sacred. By making the sex partners exclusive to each other according to the teachings of Apostle Paul. Marriage was used as a political tool to bind with other clans or tribes. Marriages were arranged based on political and economical expediency, not based on love. Christianity by way of controlling who can marry dismantled the clan system by denying arranged marriages. As a result, it created the nuclear family that is seen today. The clan-based system was controlled by a powerful patriarch that could decide the fate of life and death of all those under his household, or property. Even today, the elders of the family control marriages according to what they believe is best in some parts of the world. Christianity gave young people the freedom to marry who they want. Nobody is forcing them to marry.

I fail to see how Yahoo will make Chrome better. I guess in the name of competition.

Solar and wind have lower direct cost. When the wind does not blow, you get no electricity. When the sun does not shine, you get no energy. Nuclear power has the best capacity factor. It is the most reliable energy source. The indirect costs of solar and wind are their intermittency. Their intermittent issues cost money. For a company that promises to deliver electricity, and the wind does not blow? That cost money. If you have an abundance of electricity produced, and nowhere to send it, you lose money. In the case of California, they desperately jettison energy across to Arizona, while Californians pay for the expensive portion of solar energy. California has expensive electricity rates, on average double that of Texas, and has a greater percentage of energy produced from renewable sources than Texas, despite Texas consuming the most energy. That is an example of an indirect cost. To want more distribution paths for wind and solar, you need to build costly transmission lines that need to be replaced every 40 years. You need batteries to store oversupply for times of low supply, just to smooth out the price level across time. If you don’t have batteries for them, you need natural gas plants as back up. Nuclear energy has stability and reliability. With solar and wind, you get what you pay for, which is cheap, unpredictable, and unreliable energy.

Very poor description.

The I know who live in China, love China. These are Anglo expats.

In general, electricity prices are significantly lower in France compared to Germany. France’s electricity prices are about 40% lower than Germany’s. This difference is due to a combination of factors, including France’s reliance on nuclear power and different electricity generation mixes and tax policies.

France is a global leader in nuclear energy, generating around 65–70% of its electricity from nuclear sources. This makes it the world’s largest net exporter of electricity, earning over €3 billion annually.

I dealt with enough drunks to know this is all nonsense. Nothing good comes out of a drunk.

All those things are cultural. Humans are social creatures that mimic other humans to form a kinship. Whether you drink tea because that is what British people do, that is cultural. You put a human baby with a chimpanzee, they will mimic the chimpanzee. Feral children raised by dogs mimic the dogs they grew up with. Christianity does not indefinitely say we have free will. It is a debate, not a consensus. Calvinism sides with predestination as an example. The Qur’an is very heavy on predestination - a holy book to Muslims which is steeped in Judeo-Christian tradition.

Good and evil, or good versus evil is dualism that Judeo-Christian tradition inherited from the Persians when Jews were ruled by the Persians. Again, it is a cultural concept that is not universal, but contingent on what is taught generationally, and taken for granted as being a truth. The fact you take dualism seriously, shows that you are influenced by cultural assumptions made up, and passed up to the present day by distinct cultures. In reality, there is no good versus evil, or good or evil in a universal, absolute sense.

Free will does not exist in a biological sense. If you get hit in the head in a car accident, and you get brain damage, you can be a changed person. That is not free will. Sexual activity is an example of the lack of free will. That is why we have teen pregnancies when such pregnancies, according to a certain consensus, doom the people who are pregnant. That is why we have abortion.

Christian theologians for centuries debated whether we have free will, or predestination. They asked profound questions which are answered by science. Asceticism or discipline helps us try to deviate from our animalistic tendencies, but, so far, death is the ultimate predestination.