Hopefully, it will result in finally dropping use of SSNs as "secret" identifying person's identity and instead it will become an opaque ID which is safe to share.
Agreed. This could be a blessing in disguise. However, my money is on: nothing changes— it all simply keeps getting less secure, more complex and brittle until the heat death of modernity.
As I am someone from EU, please explain me what can you do with this SSN number?
I mean is it like a unique database row id which happens to be a non-changeable-lifetime password which is stored in multiple places in plain-text and you can use it to... "unlock some doors"? Make legally binding agreements remotely... ? Or what?
Or it is PII - privately identifying information which is more of a privacy issue here?
It's used for all sorts of "prove you are who you are" situations. It's most commonly associated with applying for credit/loans, and taxes, but definitely not limited to those things. It's ridiculous that an immutable 8-digit number + name is used for authentication in the USA. It even says on the card "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES - NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" but apparently we've all lost our minds and ignore that. It can be very difficult to go through business processes if you refuse to give your SSN - some healthcare providers will just refuse to serve you.
With it, people can take out loans in your name, get into your accounts, file fake tax returns and get tax refunds in your name, and generally act as if they're you. Things are getting a little better nowadays (with additional information required) but we still don't have a secure method of identification online / over the phone.
Over here we use a PKI cert for that. A smartcard providing the root of that trust is provided by the government after verifying your identity using the typical stuff used for identity documents (any biometric data on file, birth certificate, etc.). That still doesn't mean that it's impossible to steal an identity, or acquire a made up one, but it does make it a whole lot harder.
The thing about social security is that it was supposed to be used for a fairly narrow system, and the physical cards even have text like "not to be used as identification" on them. And then we used it for that anyway
Wouldn't matter. No one is interested in enforcing it, and there is too much value in the datapoint to credit rating agencies to tear the entire edifice down. Hell, back in 2011, I was part of a group migrating away from SSN usage at the Federal level. The biggest delay? Waiting for another semantically compatible I'd to manifest. TIN (taxpayer identification number) could be synthetically combined with a couple other ID's in the dataset such that they could finally retire the SSN's we weren't supposed to be using in the first place.
Basically in the EU, you usually have an ID card (or a passport/driving license/visa card, they're recorded on all of those too) that has a combination of a citizen ID and a document ID. Both of these details are combined considered to be "you" for the purposes of anything to do with the government. The government has a registration of every citizen ID+document ID combination and knows as a result what documents are in circulation. They're technically not required in most of Europe, although you must be able to procure one at request for legal reasons (ie. getting your employment properly sorted, opening a bank account, or a law enforcement official asking for your identity). Revoking a combination is as easy as getting a new ID card/passport since the combination is what counts. ID documents also usually expire eventually, so there's also an inherent time limit to what a leaked combination can cause issues with.
They're also as I understand it, used to handle things like sending everyone voter IDs for elections in advance; this is how the government knows who to send the voting cards to.
Bafflingly, the US does NOT have a national identification method that works like this. There's no country-wide identity document that provides the same assurances. As a result, most US entities (government branches & corporations) have settled on a "closest possible"... which is the social security number. A number that's used to identify every person with attachment to the US in some form since social security is something every US citizen has to interact with. (It also includes a ton of non-citizens since as I understand it, social security is something foreign workers also have to interact with, but that's besides the point.) It's a 9 character long numeric string that identifies you as a person... and has almost no revocation mechanism, even if it ends up in a data breach.
Yet in spite of this, it's still used as a country-wide ID mechanism for a lot of different things and replacing it with a proper ID mechanism has as I understand it (not American) very poor support as it's a culture war issue.
It's often used as a way to verify identity. Historically it's been one of the more secret pieces of information about someone, so while name and birthday are not very secret, if someone wanted to steal an identity, it's generally the SSN that is hardest to figure out. As a result though, I think a lot of places treat it as "If you know the SSN, then you are who you say you are."
As an example, if you call your bank to report a lost credit card, and that you'd like it shipped to a different address than the one you registered with them, they'll ask you for the last 4 digits of your SSN.
So yeah, someone who knows (name, SSN) or especially (name, address, phone, SSN) can do a lot of harm.
1) Introduce a lot of intermittent generation into energy grid without sufficient amount of storage capacity.
2) Use marginal pricing model which effectively guarantees windfall profits for those sources.
3) Utilization of peaking power plants falls, but you still have to keep them because there is not enough storage capacity.
4) Peaking power plants rise generation costs to offset the lower utilization, further adding to the windfall profits.
5) You need more grid capacity to handle energy transfers from distributed generation sources.
5) ????
6) Act surprised when people loudly complain about electricity bills despite abundant "cheap" generation.
Intermittency of generation is an externality (same as CO2 emissions) and should be priced accordingly. People are willing to pay premium for supply stability, but the current pricing model does no account for that. Trying to change consumption habits (like smart grids, dynamic pricing, etc.) works poorly, especially for such vital resource as electricity.
I think there should be some kind of price penalty for intermittent sources dependent on total ratio of intermittent generation in the mix. At least until grid-scale energy storage technology will be advanced enough to store approximately week of total energy consumption.
For 5, add in that the new grid capacity is years behind schedule, and the existing grid capacity needs to come offline because it's decrepit, and you also have a policy to connect new sources immediately
It leads to a lot of telling new sources to dump their energy, and paying them to dump their energy, while simultaneously paying old gas generators (nearer the demand) to fire up. All for the want of more grid capacity.
> Trying to change consumption habits (like smart grids, dynamic pricing, etc.) works poorly, especially for such vital resource as electricity.
Why? Has the UK started trying recently? When I lived there nobody gave a hoot about fluctuating prices. It would have been hard to even know when electricity was expensive or not. Has it changed?
Meanwhile >three decades ago my grandparents in rural France had a big red lamp on the kitchen wall that would light up when energy was expensive. It was a part of their life and they had no problem with it. They chose that plan deliberately because it ended up cheaper.
If you’re saying that even with adaptive behavior , it’s all a wash because the constant cost of peakers is so high that you lose all savings when they kick in , no matter how little you use; ok, I believe you did the math.
But if the claim is “it’s impossible for humans to adapt their energy consumption depending on the current price of electricity”, I have seen first hand that is not true. For sure when I lived in Britain nobody did this at all, but that would be at best a British limitation, not a human one.
I'd suggest first measuring how much single load uses. In my case it's 1KWh and 0.4KWh. Daily load would save perhaps 4-5 GBP per month or 5% off an average bill.
The vast majority of UK consumers have a pretty simple plan where they're not demand responsive. If it's pitch black and dead calm one Winter's night they pay the exact same price as midday in the summer if it's blazing sunshine and simultaneously blowing a gale across the whole country. Their retailler has done some estimates and figured on average they can sell power for, say, 25p per kWh all day, every day. Some days they're raking it in 'cos they paid a lot less than that, other days they wish the day would end, but if their team did the sums right it comes out profitable at year end.
There are people, especially people with EVs and who can do that sort of "turn on a dime" lifestyle where you do laundry when it's cheaper not because it's Thursday who pay 0p per kWh some hours and 45p per kWh for that bleak winter's night.
For now that second group are a minority but they do exist.
The enabling technology is a bit more sophisticated than your French red lamp. "Smart" meters relay your usage constantly so you can be charged in 30 minute chunks, the same way the wholesale electricity market works. This also means you can see at a glance what's going on. So that's nice. The usual conspiracy people insist this is a future tool of control by government, just like almost everything that has ever been invented, bar codes on groceries, mobile phones, newspapers, parking tickets, everything.
This does not work at scale. Sure, there is plenty of anecdotes how you can successfully play this game as a consumer living in a rural house with electric car, power wall, and rooftop solar, but try to telling about it to someone living in a high-rise apartment or to a heavy industry business. Your preaching will fall on deaf ears.
IIRC there are several utilities in the UK which provide option to price electricity dynamically, but they are not popular because people do not want to play this game. They want reliable supply of electricity for reasonable prices. Trying to mold consumption to satisfy intermittency of generation is nothing more than shifting the externality akin to telling people "you must plant trees to offset CO2 emissions!".
The most popular UK electricity retailer is Octopus Energy which is specifically focused on variable prices and flexible consumer demand. By what metric do you mean variable rate retailers are not popular?
Intermittency is already handled by the price mechanisms, they are set quarter-hourly; if you’re not available when there is high demand you don’t get paid.
The marginal price windfalls happen specifically when you’re able to deliver at a low cost when demand is high in the same ISP.
I wonder if China has a constellation of similar satellites with the primary function to track the US CVBGs and provide aiming info for their "carrier killer" systems.
There are several factors which contribute to the "rosy" official picture:
- A lot of people participate in the gig economy instead of getting registered as unemployed.
- AI has eroded a lot of employment opportunities for graduates, i.e. people relatively active on social networks.
- Official data can be horribly inaccurate (phone surveys in 2025, seriously?) with grossly outdated models (remember the recent huge revisions?). Political pressure does not help here either.
- The unemployment stats do not account for significant downgrades in salary and working conditions. They will show the same picture for a person with a cushy office job and the same person working 2 jobs in retail from paycheck-to-paycheck.
Because unless you sit on top of a volcano, amount of renewable geothermal energy is minuscule. In most places on Earth it's somewhere around 40 mW/m2 (i.e. accounting for conversion losses you need to capture heat from ~500 m2 to renewably power one LED light bulb!). In other words, in most places geothermal plant acts more like a limited battery powered by hot rock, so unless drilling is extremely cheap, it does not make economic sense compared to other energy sources.
> In most places on Earth it's somewhere around 40 mW/m2 (i.e. accounting for conversion losses you need to capture heat from ~500 m2 to renewably power one LED light bulb!)
Ground-source heat pumps extract about 1000 times more power from ground loops, where does the difference come from?
A number of sources. Often the air above - ground source relies on the ground being the average temperature of the year round air once you get deep. They also tend to run in heating mode half the year, and cooling mode the other half.
Ground-source heat pumps are irrelevant to geothermal energy sources, and it's unfortunate that the article mentioned them. Ground-source heat pumps are just storing heat from the air during the summer and retrieving it during the winter.
Hmm, that doesn't sound right. Many homes don't use these heat pumps for cooling in the summer because getting convectors and plumbing installed is just as expensive as getting a separate AC, and then you have some redundancy in the system too.
I'm sure that battery effect is a factor but it must be a relatively minor one.
It's not minor at all. For a ground-source heat pump to work at all, you need to sink the pipes deep enough that the soil temperature is pretty stable year-round, which means the heat it can exchange with the aboveground air is minor or insignificant. So the vast majority of heat flux into or out of that soil is due to the heat exchange fluid circulating in the pipes.
After a few years of pumping heat out of the ground below the frost line during the winter, they'll freeze the ground solid and stop working (and possibly destroy the foundation of the house in the process, since often the pipes are installed in trenches around the house).
The only exception is if they're one of these few borderline systems that drill so deep they really are bringing up fresh energy from the depths, like some of the systems mentioned in the article.
Insulation, adobe construction, and vigorous exercise can all "heat houses in winter" in the same way as ground-source heat pumps, but none of them can be meaningfully compared with hydroelectric or nuclear power except in a specific situation. How much insulation is enough to charge your cellphone or run a load of laundry? The question is nonsense.
Ground-source heat pumps (with a few exceptions and borderline cases like those mentioned in the article) are not sources of heat, so you can only "get heat from" them in the short term; as with a battery or an interest-free checking account, though you may be able to temporarily run a debit balance, in the long run you can only get out what you put in.
This is a fundamental difference from energy sources.
Energy storage is an important complement to energy sources, especially renewables, and can substitute for energy sources to a limited extent, but confusing them is a fatal error.
Ground source heat pumps as used for heating buildings source their energy from the sun and work very well. They are outcompeted by air source heat pumps despite better efficiency because digging is expensive.
As I understand it, no, they do not source their energy from the sun. You have to bury the pipes below the frost line. In temperate climates, the frost line is the place where the earth is so well insulated from the surface by the thickness of earth above it that heat conduction is insufficient to freeze it throughout the entire winter. The sun only heats that surface by radiation.
> Unlike air-source heat pumps that struggle to extract heat from frigid air, ground source heat pumps tap into a remarkably stable heat source: the earth itself. Below the frost line, ground temperatures remain relatively constant year-round, typically between 50-60°F (10-15°C). This consistency makes ground source heat pumps highly efficient even during the coldest months.
If you were building a ground-source heat pump to heat your house in the summer, you could get away with burying the pipes at a much shallower depth and in effect converting the earth into a low-temperature passive solar collector. But generally people want to heat their houses in the winter instead.
While it's true that a geothermal plant is a limited battery powered by hot rock, that doesn't mean it doesn't make economic sense compared to other energy sources.
Russia uses plenty of artillery shells daily even today. Its own production easily outpaces NATO countries and they buy a lot from NK in addition to that.
Though they try to increase amount of "smart" munitions like Krasnopol, since they can be more cost effective than "dumb" shelling when you have guidance from drones.
>both Ukraine and Russia know they are easy to jam
Tell that to fiber drones. They are used in such large amounts that entire fields get covered in fiber. Even radio controlled drones quickly evolve with wing-based drones acting as re-translators and carriers.
And in the near future (year or two) we will see mass adoption of drones which are able to fly autonomously with on-board computer vision. Initially it will be just guidance during final stages after the target is locked, but later we will see drone swarms launched into the enemy's direction which autonomously search and destroy everything what moves.
>They've only been useful on very soft targets.
Sure. And this is why on both sides shiny tanks and MRAPs from parades and military exercises now look like Mad Max vehicles.
>The Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb program was about taking dirt cheap iron bombs and slapping commodity electronics on it for cheap precision
Meanwhile Russia found a huge success with its UPMK-modified FABs.
The situation may change significantly if an effective and cheap (kinetic or laser) anti-drone defense is developed and mass-deployed, but for now the sword is much stronger than the shield.
Assembly of civilian merchant ships is a notoriously low-margin industry (as opposed to manufacturing of engines/propellers/control systems). You could heavily subsidize it (by protectionism measures and/or by juicing up your Navy) like the US does in the name of strategic importance, but be prepared to pay heavily for it. If you want to preserve shipbuilding capabilities for military reasons, then chasing after the Asian shipbuilding countries may not be the most efficient way of achieving this, i.e. it may be better to just invest into building of military ships and manufacturing of higher-margin components without bothering with the low-margin assembly stuff.
I think the whole sentence is a bad take. The described behavior can be perfectly rational (and thus commonly considered not "stupid") in the case when cost function of the acting person has a negative weight assigned to the counterpart group/person. In other words, when someone considers the other an "enemy", it makes sense to hurt the other even such act results in some direct losses.
Now, we can argue that playing negative-sum games is "stupid". And in most contexts of the modern human society such heuristic would be correct, but I would be really careful with a sweeping generalization, otherwise instead of a proper understanding of the underlying behavioral motivations you are likely to devolve into primitive explanations of someone being "stupid" or even "evil".
Hurting the enemy is intentional and thus has an implicit "gain" built into it, even if it's just psychological. The physical losses can be deemed acceptable because of it, if the satisfaction derived from hurting the enemy balances them out. The OP is describing stupidity where the result is a true loss or zero gain, because the intent wasn't to hurt in the first place.
I suspect there's a strong correlation between people who are motivated by harming others, especially organised hatred of specific groups, and people who self-harm through poor modelling of consequences.
Harming others correlates with personality disorders. Personality disorders - especially Cluster B - correlate with poor impulse control, an emotional rather than a rational orientation, addictions, unreliability and dishonesty, and general inconsistency.
Disordered people with high IQ and EQ tend to get away with disordered relationships for longer. But it's rare to live one of these lives with zero consequences. So these types are at least as likely to go through catastrophic collapse as to get away with their chaos and dysfunction.
If it's an everything bubble, than it may not be a bubble, but a currency depreciation instead (not just $, but of all fiat currencies). Market participants openly expect a new round of bigger than ever money printing on the first serious signs of the R word (and BBB is just a precursor here).
Though, personally, I consider the AI trade to be currently deep in the overripe bubble territory.
When you fix everything around gold this becomes obvious. We’ve had silent hyper inflation of the reserve currency since covid. Wages are stagnant, the price of everything has gone up, assets and gold are still the same “value”
Trillion dollar companies, 100 billion+ club becoming crowded. All points in one direction. And it’s not a bubble that will pop, the citizens of the world will revolt.
Add to that cost of electricity routinely rising in EU. The practice shows that with the current technology intermittent renewable generation above a certain threshold in the total generation mix results in a sharply higher cost of electricity for consumers when accounted for all additional expenses (storage, more robust grids, "smart" grid controls, etc.). And we got this with massive EU subsidies on top of dirt cheap solar panels subsidized by the Chinese government.
reply