HelloThere @ hellothere @sh.itjust.works

Reddit refugee

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

330

Joined

2 yr. ago

If you're cold, go for a run. It'll help reduce stress on the NHS

Not if you fall, or get hit by a car...

Renewables are only economically viable because the cost of power is paid on the last generator, which is natural gas.

This is not true, renewables are economically viable at much lower prices than fossil fuels because their next unit cost is effectively 0.

It is true the price paid to generate is the market rate, and that is set by the last generator. That does make renewables immensely profitable, which in turn acts as an incentive to build more.

But we are talking about electricity generation here, not heating which is what you were doing on about, and the vast majority of heating in the UK is non-electric and transitioning to renewable sources is extremely expensive.

That said, using less gas in electric generation would reduce supply shocks in the gas heating network.

Edit: next unit cost, not just unit cost.

They literally send less data to the camera sensor.

So maybe let's not limit ourselves to using hardware which cannot easily differentiate when there is other hardware, or combinations of hardware, which can do a better job at it?

Humans can't really get better eyes, but we can use more appropriate hardware in machines to accomplish the task.

Which is why councils just slapping a 20mph sign on a road isn't enough.

Unsurprisingly, roads are designed and built with certain speeds in mind, and - excluding national speed limit country roads - this broadly means that the wider the road the faster you're able to go safely.

If you want an old 30mph road to be 20, and people to actually stick to it, you need to make people less comfortable driving at 30 on that road. Which means making it considerably narrower.

It's the same reason that 70 can feel incredibly slow on a motorway, but 40 can feel incredibly fast elsewhere.

They don't, obviously, but what they do is charge when the spot price for electricity is low, and then discharge when it's higher.

While not exclusively the case, this drop in price most typically occurs when you have a higher amount of electricity being generated than being consumed, which is usually because of high amounts of renewables because the unit cost of renewables is essentially 0. For example, the middle of the day at peak solar, or windy nights. Fossil fuel generators are burning a commodity with a substantially higher unit cost, so they will mostly turn off (where possible) during these times.

This is why batteries are often counted under renewable, because they shift an abundance of renewable power in to times when there is less or none.

Personally I don't think we should really be considering the extensive use of rare earth metals as renewable, but that's a separate point.

Boneitus.

Well don't I look foolish!

There are a lot of competing factors here, and also a consideration for what we consider beautiful.

Without getting too wanky about it, I'd guess that what most people consider beautiful is your "traditional" village with two storey detached houses and mature gardens. A little parade of local shops, a pub, green, a pre-reformation church, etc. Not many of those exist, and those that do are either insanely expensive, out in the middle of nowhere, or both.

Then you've got density. Because the UK is so incredibly centered around the south east - due to policy failures over literal centuries, not just decades - you've got to build up. The problem with "skyscrapers" is that they are not the 'street in the sky' they were promoted as when council tower blocks were all the rage in the 60s. For one, there is a complete absence of public shared space. Corridors lit with bulbs are not streets in the summer twilight. That shared space is really what that village above is all about, yes you have your nice house, but the rest - the community you're also part of - only comes about by being essentially forced to interact with each other.

If you've never lived in an apartment building it's really difficult to describe just how isolated you are. You never even see your neighbours, because you don't get that happenstance of looking out the window watching the birds and notice the person across the road getting home, the same way you do in other forms of housing. The only chance you get is if both of you just so happen to be going down the same narrow corridor at the same time. There is no community because there is no familiarity. Because there is no community, everyone is faceless, so "anti social behaviour" doesn't matter cos instead of it being Fred who you are disturbing at 2am, it's "that prick next door who always complains".

Balancing density and maintaining communities is a hard problem; as you say, it takes much more than just trying to cram every m^2 of land with directly sellable property.

There is a balance between individualism and community. We've seemed to develop a view of individualism which is about everyone being an island and not needing anyone else, rather than about the freedom to be true to yourself, and tolerant of others, whilst recognising we are all humans, and ultimately require each other to not just survive, but thrive.

The best example I can think of this was when I was speaking to a friend the other week. They are buying a house and one of their conditions was a big enough garden so their kids can play football. Not a full size pitch, obviously, but a good 40-50 meters.

When I was a kid, we did that on the community playing field a 10 minute walk the house, on a full-size pitch, with sticks in the ground (the council later installed goals). The estate they were looking at, a 10 minute walk meant you were still in the estate. It's a new build, has a tiny soft play area, and nothing else. It's going to be a warzone in 10-15 years when all the kids have grown up and have absolutely nothing to do.

Edit: this got away from me slightly...

Which is bad management because it stops you being in control of who leaves and who stays.

In fact, you're more likely to lose the people you actually want to keep when playing that game because they are the ones with the more employable skills, hence why they can leave in the first place.

The people who stay are those that are stuck, and can't get jobs somewhere else.

Edit : speeling and gramarr.

Unherd never cease to amaze me; constantly complaining about the outcomes of the political ideology they support.

Of course the country will never build beautiful spaces for society to enjoy, when society doesn't exist.

Now, I'm not as smart as the refined folk at the FT, but I think the word they are looking for is "merge", not "reverse split".

How the supposed Conservative party lets this happen is mad, what is it they are even trying to conserve?

Well, beyond wealth that is. Long gone is the tradition of stewardship.

Edit: rogue apostrophe.

Or Hook.

I grew up in Basingstoke

You poor bastard.

An imaginary pint says their FOI handling is outsourced to C*pita.

I do WiFi geofencing with MacroDroid.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.arlosoft.macrodroid

A) Liberalism is not left wing

B) Socialism, at its core, is about seizing control of the means of production, as it is they which create wealth.

Plastics are the absolute worst.

My rule is ask twice, but the second time being a very simple "are you sure? It's OK, I'm happy to contribute / half / cover" (delete as appropriate).

In the UK at least there is still a level of "pride", for want of a better term, with either not accepting charity, or being seen to treat people you care about. There is also an expectation that you should be humble and gracious when receiving a gift so you also should reject it at the first instance. If the offer is only made once then all that is really happening is both sides are playing their parts and nothing else.

The second time is to acknowledge that it was a genuine offer, and not just part of the dance.

If the other person still insists, regardless of what it was, then you accept it. And maybe keep a mental note because next time it would be nice for you to return the favour if they treated you.

The short answer is that the name for "old world" countries in a language isn't translated, it is simply what "we" call "them", not what "they" call themselves.

Using Greece as an example for English, English has a lot of French influence, which in turn had a lot of Latin influence. It is believed the early Latin (ie modern day Italian) peoples first met Graecians, a tribe likely from Boeotia in modern day Greece, and used the name to refer to all people from the same place. By the time of the Romans, this was the name and was then spread throughout the empire, including back to Greece itself.

A more modern or current example would be how people often called The Netherlands, Holland. Same idea, just several millenia apart.

What a fortunate happenstance for the new owners! Maybe they should play the lottery this week too.