yeah, there's absolutely no "maybe" about it, you are definitely out of touch :). I don't know in what way exactly, but something is off. What is your per kwh rate exactly? You might be getting some kind of subsidies that you are not aware of, perhaps? I used to live in a 1200 sqft house in LA without any AC or anything consuming too much electricity, and 10 years ago before all the rate hikes I was still paying more than $100/month in west LA.
Depends how you see it. If you assume a neutral state of no incentives, adding benefits to stimulate growth and later removing this benefits once growth is achieved can be seen as "attacking this positive state" or simply "bringing back to neutral".
I moved to SoCal recently and didn't realize things like net metering even existed, so when people started to rant about these new measures I was very surprised to learn about them, and especially about people presuming these things to be "normal".
> when people started to rant about these new measures I was very surprised to learn about them, and especially about people presuming these things to be "normal".
I think at first people were (reasonably) scared that net metering might go away with no grandfathering for existing installations. People had a reasonable reliance interest in maintaining at least some of their existing benefits for the payoff period of their panels.
Once it was clear that existing installations would be grandfathered, I didn't hear much ranting anymore — just people who were bummed that a subsidy was going away (or people rushing to get in under the wire).
The problem with rooftop solar is that it is very, very, expensive compared to utility grade solar:
>…Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings and nuclear power have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If not for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 117 and 282 U.S. dollars per megawatt hour.
If we want to subsidize a renewable energy source, why should we subsidize rooftop solar when we could subsidize utility grade solar or wind? Money is fungible and not unlimited - a dollar that goes to subsidize residential rooftop solar is a dollar that would go much, much further if it was used to subsidize utility grade solar or wind.
Rooftop solar subsidies are also unusual in that much of the subsidy is often paid by less well-off households to subsidize their wealthier neighbors - sort of a reverse Robinhood scheme.
> but most Americans believe that continuing to create smarter and smarter AIs is dangerous, so who's playing god now?
Aren't you just making this up? I haven't seen any surveys on what "most Americans believe" re AI. I know a lot of people that are concerned. But I'll bet good money that "most Americans" don't give a crap
I don't put much stock into polls like this, when it comes to actually deciding whether things are dangerous, but I think you should spend five seconds doing an incredibly trivial sanity-check before accusing people of making things up.
If that's the case, we should definitely ban fossil fuel generation plants. Or at least, tax them heavily. Since they're the ones actually doing the "global harm".
Not necessarily. The energy generated may be used for purposes such as heating people’s homes, or industrial processes essential for creating medicine, operating schools and hospitals etc. Of course we need to move away from these energy sources, but there are reasons we don’t just ban them overnight.
You can see how this is very different from using the energy simply to operate an online gambling operation or to perpetrate large scale securities fraud.
> Not necessarily. The energy generated may be used for purposes such as heating people’s homes, or industrial processes essential for creating medicine, operating schools and hospitals etc.
... or securing a global, permissionless, decentralized, cryptography-based monetary system which cannot be debased or otherwise corrupted by the government-de-jour, including those who oppress their people.
> You can see how this is very different from using the energy simply to operate an online gambling operation or to perpetrate large scale securities fraud.
Indeed, I can see that. Fortunately, miners aren't in either of those businesses.
But since we're deciding who gets or doesn't get to use energy, let's also ban casinos, online gambling (like you said), heck.. anything that might waste energy or use it for things that we don't like (even though other people might like it or even need it).
Instead of, you know, letting the market decide who can or cannot use energy based on what provides the most value for their use of it.
the effect this kind of thing has on the broader market is that it makes everyone else reconsider their hiring plans. I doubt there will be as many open positions after this announcement and it won't all be from hiring
Twitter used to remove the blue checkmark if the user changes their name or their handle. and the verification was an attestation that Twitter verified that the user's name matches the identity.
not sure why they've removed that. would've helped here this case.
honestly, after seeing how badly twitter has handled all the crypto attacks any change is a good change at this point.
i know people love hating on elon but twitter has always been a terribly run company. they've been a joke for a long time. why not give the guy 3-months and then we can judge?
> why not give the guy 3-months and then we can judge?
We've got no say in the matter :) waiting and watching is the only option on this ride.
Up to this point it's been a spectacular and entertaining disaster to observe. I do feel bad for all the Twitter employees, didn't expect he'd really lay so many off, because it's an insane (and monumentally short-sighted) move. People are a hugely valuable resource, the most valuable a company can have!
I don’t condone the way he laid off his staff, but I believe a lot of these cushy FAANG roles are useless e-mail sending, PowerPoint collaging, pencil pushing.
I think those roles are put in place simply because the companies are already successful so they can afford to reap whatever little rewards the jobs provide. Based on SpaceX and Tesla, Elon doesn’t work that way.
With appropriate management, people are capable of many amazing feats, and can move mountains. Few humans behave this way by default, it's takes more than just capital and org chart hierarchies. It requires having a dedicated and inspired leader who people can relate to and rally behind, and who communicates clear shared goals and vision. It also requires competent middle management and project management to get a smooth operating machine.
The art of persuasion (and inspiration) is an effective tool when competently employed. Being a strong / good leader requires self-control and mastery.
> The Fed has been funding extremely reckless fiscal policy for two years. We literally shut the economy down and gave people checks for doing nothing. I don't think we need to reach for fancy explanations. The reason for inflation seems plainly obvious to me.
100% this. I don't understand the motivation or the logic of the people who argue against something that's so obvious
maybe not during covid, but the eu bank did follow the same kind of very generous monetary policies and super low interest rates for the decade prior, as the fed.
i believe all government played the same game ( at least us, eu and china did), which is probably enough to impact the whole world.
A few currrency which didn't play that game such as swiss franc saw their value raised tremendously, which probably means inflation is much less an issue there.
oh yeah absolutely. but we didnt get to try the whole direct-transfert that happened in the US during the covid crisis. Depending on the country, there were "technical unemployement" measures that have been applied. Basically companies reduce your working hours temporarly, and thus your salary, and your unemployment insurance fills the gap.
