100%. Vendor drop BSP releases with no upstream plans are so annoying. Getting proper usage of IPs on the SoC is hard, if not impossible, when not using the "blessed" kernel by the vendor. Even when using what's blessed it can be a pain. depending on what kind of integration you are doing.
I was on a run last night and noticed the glow. How many times has that battery plant caught fire? Seems like grid scale battery technology is not ready for the lime light. AB 2514 forced utilities to build out this dumpster fire. It's ironic that California's climate solution is burning while the state blames climate change for the LA fire.
I don’t think you’re keeping in mind what these batteries are replacing.
Coal power plants and gasoline cars release harmful smoke as part of their regular operation.
ICE cars are several times more likely to catch fire than an EV, and contribute much more fuel to a parking garage fire (usually an EV battery caught in a fire will not itself ignite)
And the incidents related to the fossil fuel industry are orders of magnitude worse than incidents like this. Have you forgotten about deep water horizon?
There are also thousands upon thousands of old oil and gas wells in the US that haven’t been properly decommissioned, slowly corroding and leaking nasty stuff in the environment. The cost of properly plugging all of them has been estimated to be in the trillions of dollars.
Is there some name for the kind of fallacy people make where they’re so concerned about the dangers of whatever the new thing is, while completely glossing over the glaring issues of the old thing that’s being replaced because they’re so used to it?
I find it particularly baffling when it comes to EVs vs gasoline cars. People should know how dangerous gasoline is… right? It’s like, super basic knowledge for anyone born the last two centuries..
> People should know how dangerous gasoline is… right?
From Wikipedia:
"Lithium metal is corrosive and requires special handling to avoid skin contact. Breathing lithium dust or lithium compounds (which are often alkaline) initially irritate the nose and throat, while higher exposure can cause a buildup of fluid in the lungs, leading to pulmonary edema. The metal itself is a handling hazard because contact with moisture produces the caustic lithium hydroxide. Lithium is safely stored in non-reactive compounds such as naphtha"
Iowa has more renewables than CA but has cheaper electricity prices than the national average. There are a few examples like this that prove that the inference you're attempting to make is symptomatic of stupidity.
Does Iowa have the same heavy handed government regulations to strictly build out renewables and take non renewable power plants offline?
I agree with you, Texas has the most renewables, and power is relatively cheap. The problem is the strict regulations prevent utilities from make better economical decisions.
This is a very complex problem. Its not just social media, but porn and other content that is not intended for young eyes.
One issue I have is with the age verification system. This will either be totally ineffective or overly effective and invasive. I feel legislation is drifting towards the latter with the requirement of ID.
One idea I had is a managed dns blacklist of inappropriate content. The government can have a requirement that a website register their site in this list to operate, otherwise they are subject to litigation for their content. At the same time have isps and network gear support this list in a 1 click type fashion. I have multiple dns blacklists I use at home. I know this may be a little more technical for the parents and guardians, but that is the world we are living in.
Limitations being:
Section 230 - user posts explicit content and the site isn't in the blacklist.
Network scope - This blacklist will have to be added to all networks accessed by children. What about public wifi? coffee shops?
IDK, I love being able to be anonymous online, but I do see the negative effects of social media, porn, and explicit content on our youth. I don't really trust the government to solve this effectively.
In a few states, you'll imminently see any information about LGBTQ+ people, include mental health resources, on that blacklist. (This has already been the case for decades in various school districts.)
And I'm not even trying to exaggerate. Ohio is working to eliminate any transgender medical treatment from the state. They've already succeed in making it nearly impossible for minors and now they are working on preventing adults from receiving hormone treatments.
What qualifies for the blacklist? It's a moral question. What happens when the blacklist maintainer's morals differ from your own? Sure, in the U.S. it seems fairly uniform that most people do not want children having access to porn. But what about women having access to information about abortion? Or information about suicide? The use of drugs on psychological conditions? Vaccination efficacy?
Really sucks when someone that controls the blacklist decides you're on the moral fringes of society.
Agreed, some are easy to classify like nude content, but what about a website about war history, that content is simultaneously factual and explicit. This is why I say its up to the website owner to register for the blacklist. That in itself has an incentive to reduce the surface of liability of the website.
Social media is a hard problem. What is exactly the issue? Is it creating a larger social hierarchy than children can cope with? Is it meeting and interacting with strangers? Is it reinforcing dopaminergic pathways from superficial digital content and approvals?
I think that online anonymity is overrated (and yes, I'm aware of my username). Social media platforms ought to require traceability and age verification.
I don’t understand how more state control is preferable. I live in California and the state government is not very in tune to the needs of my locality and seems very corrupt.
Some cities do not want housing/population growth. Why is that not okay?
> Some cities do not want housing/population growth. Why is that not okay?
Because substantially all cities do not want housing growth. They're all operating under the same set of incentives.
In order to have a vote in local elections, you have to be a resident. In localities with predominantly owner-occupied properties, this implies that you're a property owner. So you vote for policies that increase local housing costs, because you've got yours and you want its price to go up rather than down.
Suppose there are people in San Francisco who would like to move to San Jose or Los Angeles or San Diego, and vice versa. Everyone in San Francisco wants their property in San Francisco to get more expensive and the properties they might buy anywhere else to get less expensive, and likewise for every other city. But since only the people already in San Francisco can vote in San Francisco, the interests of all the people who want to move there are not being represented, and likewise the interests of all the people in San Francisco who want to move to San Jose but don't get a vote in San Jose.
If you move this to the state level, all of the people in San Jose and Los Angeles and San Diego can vote to lower housing costs in San Francisco and vice versa, and since the people outside of a given city outnumber the people in it, the balance could shift in favor of housing affordability instead of the untenable status quo.
That's when they resort to the bribery which they call rent control. Instead of building more housing, they give existing tenants (who can vote in the jurisdiction) lower rents than prospective tenants (who can't). Which moves enough tenants to the other side of the ballot to keep the construction restrictions in place, and further reduces the incentive for new construction, raising long-term rents even more.
Prohibiting rent control at the state level would be a great move because economists broadly agree that it's a terrible idea and then you get all the previously paid off tenants whose rent would increase clamoring for other measures to get housing costs down and increase the incentive for new construction. (Many other states sensibly already prohibit it at the state level.)
In California rent control is established by a referendum so it requires either another referendum to repeal or a some large majority in the legislature (which is unlikely to pass since the legislators understand that it's likely to be their last legislation). You cannot take away free/cheap stuff from people in a democracy, nobody is going to vote for that.
Rent control is a huge pain the ass because it's simultaneously supported by fatcats who know exactly what it does (i.e. raise overall housing costs) and naive idealists who think they're sticking it to the fatcats.
We don't allow a Hokou style of internal migration controls in the US, and we shouldn't allow places to block population growth. Both of these systems lead to massive inequality, lack of opportunity, and bad outcomes.
If you want to wall off your city, it should come with consequences such that you are not allowed to pay for services at a wage less than that which would suppprt somebody living in your city. Typical homes values are at $2.5M? That requires income of $500K to purchase, so no more nurses or cashiers or anybody else's enabling your life that does not get paid at that level.
Your taking of property is a continuous denial of other people living in a place. You paid a fix price, sure, but when the value increases, you are now taking far more away from the rest of society.
Land is not made by human hands. You should have the right to the fruits of your labor, but land is our common birthright, and just by being born first your should not be absolved from paying for what you are taking from everyone else.
Cities councils not wanting housing is why we’re in a mess in the first place. Why would it make sense to do more of the same and expect a different outcome. That’s the definition of something.
Outcomes change as the needs of the municipality change. Members get voted in and out. Do you think there is a misalignment between the city council and the constituents? Or is this what the residents want?
> Some cities do not want housing/population growth. Why is that not okay?
Because it’s being enforced on everyone not just those who like things the way they are. The bar is always higher when you want to force people to do something.
> Some cities do not want housing/population growth. Why is that not okay?
Because "Fuck you, I've got mine" is no way to organize society. Local control enabled a race to the bottom of trying to fob the poors off on someone else.
I think most municipalities see growth as a general good. The issue starts when the cost of growth starts to outweigh the benefits. Roads/water/utilities/waste management are all municipal services that need to be able to handle the growth.
You're right of course, but our capitalist societies are organized around making profit, and pulling the ladder from under them is profitable for those who managed to climb the ladder first.
This won't change until properties stop being good investment vehicles, and that won't change since land is finite and demand for housing in desirable areas is always growing, therefore increasing the opportunity for profit and wealth accumulation.
If your city is also not getting state roads, state universities, state law enforcement, and state fire protection then great. Any city that refuses to get on board with state housing policy should be cutoff from all of the above.
Aren't those things all already handled by the city in most cities? (Except state universities, which aren't in many cities anyway.) That's why fire and police departments are named after the city they operate in, and mayors talk about fixing potholes.
The hostility of not wanting new people around you or any population growth seems to warrant the much more minor reciprocal hostility of forcing that population to island themselves.
I don't think people who insist their city should not grow are hostile. I think they are just ignorant and deluded. They are either not aware of, or choosing to ignore, the fact that their cities are economically dependent on neighboring cities to house their workforces, and to absorb their own natural increases.
I feel like class status trends with age in the US. The younger folks have had less time to acquire assets. The older folk who worked hard and invested wisely are benefiting from said decisions. I think the income and wealth inequality is a type of motivation, I can see what I can attain with an opportunistic and hard working mindset. This kind of economic mobility is the beauty of the US system.
yes, there are also disruptions that the culture does not have time to adapt too or doesn't notice
older people live longer, a lot longer for the wealthier and healthier. their assets are not distributed to the state or offspring until that child is almost at retirement age too
young people are not marrying outside of their class anymore-ish as there are big enough populations in the higher earning classes for the first time in history. This has disrupted upwards mobility for women that had an expectation or a fallback expectation of this being an option. this is exacerbating inequality extremely quickly and is a bit of a sleeper because the perceptions of appeal have not changed
Booms and busts in crypto affect the market price, not reliability. Historically, blockchains with significant adoption and robust engineering like Bitcoin and Ethereum have had 100% uptime since near inception. Filecoin is newer (think the network went live in 2019), but since this relies on IPFS, you can also just back up your files in any other way (hard drive, cloud, etc) and the IPFS protocol will pull a file from any of several pinned data sources on the network.
I think the better question is, Which entity can better allocate the capital? The government or the billionaire? Given the historic track record of government spending I would argue the we are much better with the capital staying in the private sector. As a bonus, if capital is grossly misallocated in the private sector, the company may go out of business, and those resources are freed up the the highest bidder. When the government grossly misallocates resources, the burden falls on the tax payer and rarely gets fixed in any reasonable time horizon.
Now do private investments: everything else. Every single object and service I use or interact with every day. From the clothes on my back and food on my plate to the house sheltering me, furnace heating me, car carrying me and the computer helping me earn a living.
I agree with the sentiment, but it's a little too optimistic to presume tax payer foots the bill only for public sector endeavors. The huge financial industry bailouts weren't even that long ago! Private over public, but there should be no "too big to fail" and no cartels.
