So your problem is that during summer, average solar production is much higher than in winter in the first place. So to ensure that you have sufficient energy in winter, you can either overprovision heavily for summer use (lots of flat panels facing south) or you can sacrifice summer efficiency to gain winter efficiency - vertical panels do that.
It's not just about production, it's also about reducing maintenance costs (don't collect snow, less dust build up on panels) and land usage. If you can take that 77% average, but maybe stick a couple more panels on land to reach your energy goals in an overall smaller footprint with less maintenance work, then maybe it's a good solution to specific problems.
If you had a solar panel that produced half as much power as regular, but produced power at night that would be a massive win. This is a less extreme equivalent. It produces less power than a normal solar pannel, but it produces power at an important time (when regular solar panels don't produce much power).
In theory the change in electric field will induce a small current in the other wire, and their magical science lamp turns on at any non-zero electricity. Whether the wires are connected or not at the far end doesn’t matter.
They never clarified how strong the other current would be.
Usenet was a very open system, where iirc moderation sometimes happened per discussion group but otherwise everyone individually had to ignore bad actors (add to killfile). It scaled badly with more people and spammers. Arguably it started going downhill 30 years ago. Found a decade old discussion:
$100 appears in your account. That’s one part. The other part depends on why.
* you moved money from another account, the double is -100 in that account.
* you sold stuff, +100 in income.
* you borrowed some money, +100 in ‘debt’.
In a physical book each of these categories would have a left and right column, and each transaction has numbers in one left and one right column. Or in many columns but the sums of left vs right columns must be the same.
When describing a game that looks like it had a smallish team and graphics budget, ‘indie’ is a useful shorthand. It sets certain expectations.
Certainly marketing and media (as evidenced by the article) find this useful, but I think many consumers also are more interested in the game than in the creators. So it makes sense that this language shift happens.
But yes it certainly misses the theoretical point of a category like that.
And would be nice if it was replaced with a technically correct word. ‘Indie-like’?
No. If you listen to only a single artist for a month, your payment is still split the same way everyone else’s payment is, by total streamed numbers.
It sounds better if they artist got your entire monthly payment (after payment processors and Spotify’s fee), but probably a nightmare for accountants.
Unfortunately, games involving human reflexes or difficulty-to-see visual clues aren’t very fun against strangers who can run what they want on their devices. Because cheating.
I don’t think a good solution exists except to keep those games to locked down consoles only.
But maybe a more transparent appeals process could help, even if it gets expensive.
> To the developers: You signed a contract, and now you expect to not have to live up to it?
From what I can tell, it’s more like they have a short term contract they are happy with, but their business model requires them to be able to extend it. They can avoid the new fees ‘simply’ by not letting any user download their Unity games after Jan 1.
77% of the ’normal orientation’ per year, but the graph and 131% value is for a day in winter (January 15 this year). At least that’s my read.