Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)KE
Posts
0
Comments
355
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • They perform similarly in terms of heating a cooling ability, but ground source heat pumps are much more efficient. It's still a tough sell though since the installation costs are huge.

    Modern air source pumps work down to -17 degrees Farenheit even without resistive heaters. It's something to consider, but it's not a concern for most people.

  • That comment in the article made me wonder how long this person has been using computers, and whether he has seen anything other than Windows 10 and 11. If you've only seen 10, then 11 seems like a bland, slightly shittier OS, but if you have a broader experience you probably find 11 to be a bloated, slow, ad ridden piece of crap.

  • I hear a lot that gas is cheaper for heating and I took that as the truth for a long time. A while ago I did the math though, and for my house is would have been nearly the same annual power bill if I replaced my 90% gas furnace and water heater with electric units. Although the price of gas is far more economical for heating, there's a monthly gas usage fee that's a flat rate. If you go all electric, you don't pay that, and over the course of a year, I didn't heat enough for the lower gas price to offset the flat fees. If instead of a regular electric furnace and water heater, they were heat pumps, electric would have been much cheaper than gas.

    This certainly would depend on your local prices and weather and how well your house is insulated, but if you need a new furnace, I'd do the math over a year to see if gas is still the most financially attractive option, especially if you can install an air or ground source heat pump.

  • This puts the vote on record so that people have some idea who they're electing. Because it likely won't pass, you won't learn who really supports the idea, but you'll definitely find out who opposes it. That's very valuable information, and can only truly be learned by a vote.

  • The question was which Democrats support this healthcare system, and Hillary Clinton is certainly one of them. She repeatedly took credit as a primary force in what eventually became ACA. She even claims "It was called Hillarycare before it was called Obamacare". This is very easy to find, so one wonders how long you searched. One can certainly take issue with how much credit she deserves and how much of the Clinton plan even ended up in the ACA, but one cannot possibly claim that someone trying to claim credit for ACA doesn't support it. ACA does little to separate insurance from your employer, the topic of this article, and a serious problem with the US health care system that neither Republicans nor Democrats are addressing. Are people just talking about whatever they want on this thread, or are we talking about the topic of the article?

  • It is laughable to suggest that what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have done is a reference to "the craziest fringe shit you can find on Twitter". But sure, let's get a more modern reference if one is so young to think that 7 years ago is ancient history, Joe Biden, who championed the affordable act as vice president for Barack Obama and continues to do so to this day.

  • When distribution was solely through radio waves owned by networks it made sense to license to a network. Now you can sell directly to consumers. Why do producers go through mediaries and bundle shows? I don't get it. If they want to make money from Band of Brothers, they could put it on their Web site at a reasonable price and charge consumers directly.

  • For all its talk about free markets, the GOP vehemently defends this very not-free-market system. To be fair, the Democrats defend it to the death too, but they don't pretend like they value free markets, so they're just greedy and corrupt, not greedy and corrupt hypocrites.

  • Not exactly. The kilogram was redefined in a fundamentally different way, moving from an artifact, which will change with time, to a fundamental property of nature, that as far as anyone knows, will be the same at all times. The second was already defined in such a way. Any such definition still requires some sort of measurement though to get something usable. Different ways of measuring the same type of definition can be more precise, and in this redefinition they think they've found a more precise method that works in the same fundamental manner. Both measure the oscillation rate of atoms, but the proposed element is thought to give better precision.

  • I feel like this is a big component of inflation that no one talks about. The stocks they use as collateral aren't worth what they claim, since any attempt to sell all of those stocks would immediately drastically decrease their value. The loans then act as a sort of money press, for value that doesn't really exist. That then drives up prices.

  • A seller shipped me a phone that was much worse than what I bought, and it wasn't even the same brand. I returned it. However, the seller wouldn't ship the right phone but still had the listing saying several were available. I couldn't leave a negative review, which makes no sense, and I reported it to ebay, but as of yet nothing has happened to the seller that I can tell.

    It's really disappointing. I want an Amazon alternative, but it's tough if I'm going to have to go through this crap.