That’s not at all what MIT is talking about here. This goes into detail around the challenges tied in rolling out grid scale solar in a way that aligns with supply and demand curves, and how to make sure we’re able to capture overproduction so that we can use it when not enough is being produced. It’s a complex shift to work out in our over 100+ year grid production structure, and has been an ongoing discussion across the energy sector. But you know…memes and shit.
Highly recommend folks check out the podcast Behind the Bastard’s episodes “How The Liberal Media Helped Fascism Win” for more information on this topic.
It’s unfortunately how you win these days. Campaigns in the past tried to take the high road when Trump went low. That doesn’t work. So this is what we get.
But he seemed like such a fine young gentleman. I am shocked.
The ACA is good when you actually reach out to a patient care “assister” for support. You can get rates WAY lower than advertised if you work with someone who can help navigate it. I think the program is actually tremendous, but it’s been made intentionally cumbersome and difficult to use by the folks trying to kill it. I’ve used it twice while out of work back in 2016 and again over the pandemic and had completely free plans that covered my “tier 3” prescriptions and specialist (rheumatology) appointments.
deleted by creator
English is fucking weird. Take for example: Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
This is a perfectly fine sentence,. I am not sure I am fine with it.
Interesting, I’ve heard the opposite in terms of betting odds v. traditional polling. Good to know it changed though as Trump was like +5 as recently as like 2 days ago. Thanks for posting.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president
Feels a wee bit early for the “I told you so” stuff. She’s currently losing in the betting odds.
Edit: it’s good to be wrong
Unfortunately not.
deleted by creator
As usual, barely any mention of it in the news. Standard procedure for Republicans, just like Nixon and Reagan.
That’s essentially what happened here. She wasn’t at risk any longer and the murder was premeditated. The prosecutor did their job here as they are supposed to, and it was sentenced as it should have been according to the law.
That being said, this is really why we have pardons, and I hope one is granted in this case.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yes, Yes, No, Yes, Yes, Yes, No
It’s fair that you’d perceive it this way, but that’s not exactly what I mean. The missing word is “regulated”. Again, I’ll break it down more tomorrow (I am going to bed) but my ideal structure is one that publicly govern, supports, and maintains all of the “means of production” (e.g. highways, police, fire, healthcare, retirement funds, labor law, etc.) so that an actual free market economy can operate, but also do so without monopolistic consolidation. Another way I have referred to it when I was trying to make this case as part of my thesis 20 years ago in college is a “Guided free market economy”.
I think we’re on the same page with the “frictions”, and I think you’re fair in saying there are likely solutions to those frictions and the concerns I’ve posed. Honestly, that’s what I focus on with regard to most forms of government. It is a very hard problem to solve, no matter what system you employ. I think the discussion is around which are more/less vulnerable to these forms of “decay”.
Let me put some more thought into this overnight and happy to keep this conversation going in a more thoughtful reply. Consider this a placeholder for now, but I sincerely appreciate you taking the time and having a civil conversation. Sometimes I forget I’m not on Reddit and not everyone is A) A bot or B) Already angry.
I don’t think it’s all that easy to break down communism truly in a comment, but at it’s core I would envision a system where all property and means of production are publicly held and workers are paid for their labor either equally across the system, or devised equally by job or job type. Obviously, it’s not as simple as that but I’m trying to not turn this into a full blown political theory conversation at midnight on a Wednesday.
For what it’s worth, I don’t hate communism conceptually. I understand and respect its intended purpose. I believe it’s prone to failure, not unlike most systems, over time. I think my biggest concern boils down to how these systems are governed. I may be wrong with respect to this, and you may have something to share that I haven’t considered before or may be thinking about the wrong way.
My concern in governance is communist systems typically fall to two ends of a broader spectrum. Either the system is entirely disparate and localized in authority and governance, or it is overly centralized. Both are prone to corruption and challenges in effective decision making to varying degrees. I think either end of this becomes problematic quickly when local governing structures are incapable of making decisions that are critical to wider areas (bottom up), or when an overly centralized system is only able to govern at the macro level (top down) and unable to see the minutiae of what is happening locally, or what impacts macro policy decisions may have down the chain.
Clearly not. The point is that grid scale deployment is not easy. It’s an important discussion to do it right. The criticism is genuinely stupid and just spotlights people who clearly don’t understand how any of this stuff works or what the article is even talking about. You can’t just slap solar panels everywhere and call it a day.
Grid scale redundancies are important. Managing load is important. Energy storage is important. Scaling up renewables and scaling down conventional generation is important. Ensuring those who cannot afford their own BTM generation can access affordable electricity is important. That’s entirely what this conversation is about.