No. The modern grid has little relation to capitalism. There is some private ownership, but there are massive government barriers to entry and massive regulation of the system.
Electric grid are excellent example of natural monopoly.
"An industry is a natural monopoly if a single firm can supply the entire market at a lower long-run average cost than if multiple firms were to operate within it."
Sure there were some people involved in DOGE that had good motives, but overall they assumed that history began yesterday and that they were the only people that had thought about reducing the size of government. This was a recipe for disaster.
This is exactly who it sounds like Dvorak was. I never got to know him like that, but being a public curmudgeon, but private warm-hearted person is a pretty great compliment.
For sure. I got to know John after meeting him in our respective roles as 'journalist writing about startup' and 'young startup entrepreneur'. As we got to know one another well enough to hang out after trade show hours, he gave me pretty invaluable insights and perspective on how to think about the evolving computer industry.
The last place I listened to Leo was that security podcast I think Leo hosting with Steve Gibson. And it just seemed devoid of any useful information whatsoever. Then one day I decided if I don't learn something I can use at work during my entire drive to work, I'm just not listening again. And that was that.
What were the scandals? I still listen to TWIT and MBW, but they are so long and too preachy sometimes. If you get past that and some other things (constant AI talk), they are still good shows.
Is CJal here supposed to be JCal by chance? I feel like that was close to 15 years ago, but I'm in the same boat. I used to listen to almost every show Twit put out, which was quite a bit.
IMHO they both went a bit too far. Used to love Twit (with JCD), used to love NoAgenda (when they were still relatively politically neutral), I guess it mirrors a bit what happened to their country.
I think their butting heads eventually got on both of their nerves. John would derail the show just to get under Leo’s skin. And Leo became increasingly ridged with the show structure. The show was losing popularity and I think some guests said they didn’t like John because he was cranky and his politics, but the real issue was probably that the studio was no longer as convenient for people to get to.
At the same time they both became increasingly politically polarized. John C Davorak became a full right wing conspiracy theorist. Leo increasingly embraced the left wing ideology of the moment.
It came to a head with that story about the kid making a clock and getting in trouble. Leo was all in on one side that it was about racism and such, with John suggesting he fell for a media lie.
I think John turned out to be right in the end. They did seem to patch things up with John appearing on a episode years later I think "a christmas miracle" was the title, but that was the last time he was on as far as I know.
I write Donald sometimes. If you say Donald in the right context we know who are talking about. Or Kier or Emmanuel. There is nothing wrong with first names of public figures.
So far, the data are clear--data centers are not increasing electricity rates. Those are the facts. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/the-numb... This may change in the future, but so far, there is no statistically significant correlation.
Not only that, but states with increasing electricity consumption have lower rates. So it's possible data center will lead to lower rates.
> IER is a member of the advisory board of Project 2025, a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals from the Heritage Foundation to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power should the Republican nominee win the 2024 presidential election. The Institute's CEO and founder, Robert L. Bradley Jr., is a senior fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research and Energy & Climate Change Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London. He has written eight books, including Energy: The Master Resource; Climate Alarmism Reconsidered; and Edison to Enron.
> Overall, we rate the Institute for Energy Research as Right Biased due to its strong advocacy for fossil fuel expansion and deregulation, aligning with free-market conservative energy policies. We rate its reporting as Mixed for factual accuracy, as it does not always align with the consensus of science by selectively presenting data that favors fossil fuels while downplaying or omitting information on climate change and renewable energy viability. IER is a nonprofit organization that does not fully disclose its funding sources. However, past reports indicate financial ties to fossil fuel interests, including donations from ExxonMobil and groups associated with Charles Koch—a key funder of climate-skeptical and free-market advocacy. While the institute claims to support “energy freedom,” its funding sources suggest a strong alignment with the fossil fuel industry.
(I've forwarded your IER citation to a data science practitioner in the energy space to decompose, more to come)
Except the environment in the U.S.—better air quality than almost all of Europe. Except natural beauty in the U.S.— the U.S. has some truly beautiful places to visit and to live. The people are very friendly, especially outside of the cities. These are all good things about the U.S. that has nothing to do with the fact that the U.S. is rich (actually the U.S. being rich is one reason air quality is improving and better than Europe).
Not at all - cities are worse in Europe than in the US. European policy pushed diesel cars for a long time, and Europe burns a lot more biomass for heating than the US does. Both of those are localized - it's particulates, especially during winter, that are much worse.
BTW, you cannot compare a country ("USA") with a whole continent ("Europe"). The countries in europe aren't all in EU or EEC and are much, MUCH more different than US' states are.
"the environment in the U.S." ... and yet you have abysmal drinking water quality in some areas. A friend of mine from Florida was astonished that you can drink tap water in all of Germany. We can all see how bad USA is with it's environment if we link hydraulic fracking to tap water quality.
Many people over here think that a good amount of US americans are so dumb because of lead poisoning.
Air quality: currently https://waqi.info/de/#/c/5.69/7.058/2.8z doesn't indicate that the USA is vastly better. Yes, there are green areas ... but these are areas devoid of people. Europa has this in Scandinavia. In areas where population and industry density is high the USA isn't that good either.
"beautiful places" I grant you that, but that has every region on earth. You also have many, many more awful places to visit. The last two times I was in the USA locals warned me about "no go" areas. That doesn't exist in Germany, for example.
"people are friendly" no, they aren't. You have the highest crime rate in the developed world. People robbing or mugging me aren't friendly. That "no go" areas even exist is also not a sign of friendly. Your immigration officers are exceptional rude and unfriendly --- virtually the first experience a tourist travelling the USA has with their "friendlyness". And your ICE is even more rude: a swiss journalist from NZZ was e.g. detained for about 2 weeks. Instead of just denied entry and put into the next airplane heading to back Zürich. And the detainment was in one single room with about 30 other illegally-jailed inmates with zero privacy. Even the loo was visible for all. That's US friendlyness ...
Even not rutal... the last time I was in TX I heard on local radio that some whites put a colored man with chains on behind an oversized US car and drove him to dead. And if you are an outlier, e.g. you are from a minitory, or LGBTQ or whatever, then you have a hard time in the friendly rural-ness. Many people leave the ruralness towards towns to gain freedom.
