Because it is not cost effective. Simple as that.

The problem is that we don’t have enough demand shaping to shift night time loads to day time, and we don’t have enough storage to shift production to overnight. The result is that daytime generation is regularly going into negative rates (you have to pay to put power on the grid, which melts the returns on your investment into solar.

As far as problems go, it’s a good one to have, as it will eventually result in lower prices for daytime generation.

1% tax on all registered securities, payable in shares of those securities. The SEC just confiscates 1% of every position, and conveys them to an IRS liquidator. The liquidator sells them off in small lots over time, comprising no more than 1% of total traded shares. Securities with negative values are returned.

Once completely phased in, natural persons will be exempt on their first $10 million in registered securities. Corporate-owned securities will not be exempt: the are taxed from their first share.

We tax only the problematic portion of their wealth: their wealth-generating assets. We auction those assets off to the general public.

SCOTUS response to Mexico:

Surely someone really wants to impress a 20-something actress.

This is really just a messaging problem. If you asked the students and parents if they should renovate a communal bathroom into multiple, single-user unisex bathrooms, they would likely receive enthusiastic support. If you then asked if it were reasonable to use communal hand washing facilities in a public area outside the restrooms instead of a sink in every unisex bathroom, you’d still get plenty of support.

It’s only when you start talking about “windows” that shit goes sideways. They could completely tear out the wall, and this plan would be fine: they would be single-user restrooms along a hallway, with communal sinks also in that hallway.

My town hosts public festivals all the time. They bring in a dozen portapotties and a hand washing station. Nobody seems to have a problem washing their hands in sight of the general public. That’s basically what is happening here.

Not all communal restrooms have stall partitions suitable for that plan. Nor do they need them if the area outside the stalls is a changing area. The school does need to provide changing areas. Eliminating one unnecessarily doesn’t make sense.

The Republicans do, indeed, want to get rid of these bathrooms, and revert them to boys rooms. If they controlled the board, that is exactly what they would have. The fact that they have 5 different types of restrooms tells me the Republicans aren’t the ones making the decisions; the board is accommodating the students.

The Republicans are using a law prohibiting coed changing rooms. They are claiming the area outside the stalls qualifies as a changing area, and they have precedence to support that designation. If it is a changing area, the gender inclusive restroom violates the law. They do, indeed, want it to fail, which it will do if the issue goes to court while that law is in place.

Unless they can prove that the area outside the stalls is not a changing area. Changing areas don’t have public-facing windows. It can’t be an illegal, coed changing area if it has a public-facing window.

Germany has unisex bathrooms.

That is exactly what they made here. Each stall is now considered a unisex bathroom, and the hand washing area is no longer a “changing area”.

It is a place to shit and piss. If you want to change, knock yourself out. However in the US we have tiny doors that you can easily see around.

Does this particular room use typical semi-private partitions, or have they switched to some sort of wall or full partition that offers actual privacy? The photo shows only the window; it does not provide a good view of the stalls.

Read up on it some more, from a less biased source. The Republicans want this to be a boy’s room. The law prohibits coed changing rooms. Be “inclusive” of multiple genders in a room that qualifies as a “changing room”, and you violate the law.

Changing rooms don’t have windows. Put in a window, and the area can’t be considered a changing room. Since it isn’t a changing room, the Republican argument fails, and they don’t get to get rid of the gender inclusive restroom entirely. You still have privacy while you are using the toilet. You don’t have privacy while you are washing your hands.

So in this case, you might want to figure out where your pig has been eating and stake a claim.

Republicans don’t have five types of bathrooms. Republicans have two. That alone should tell you that the Republicans aren’t actually in control here.

What is actually happening is that the Republicans are trying to get rid of the “gender inclusive” restroom, and revert it to boys only. They don’t want 5 kinds of restrooms. They want two.

After reading some more, it turns out the Republicans are claiming the area outside the stalls is a “changing area”, and the law prohibits coed changing areas. Be “inclusive” of more than one gender in a “changing area”, and you violate the law.

Changing areas don’t have public-facing windows. Areas with public-facing windows aren’t changing areas. Without the window, the Republicans get to make it a boys-only room. With the window to the sinks - not the toilets - it is not a changing area, and the Republican argument fails.

What you’re describing sounds like a normal public toilet set up in my country

From the school restrooms I’ve seen depicted in various British TV shows, there isn’t much physical difference. The only practical difference is that males, females, and various other genders might be washing hands in the same room at the same time. Now with a window to remind everyone that the sink area is a public space, and isn’t to be used as a changing area.

Possible.

It’s also possible that the stalls do provide an adequate degree of privacy, coming very close to the floor, and sufficiently high enough to prevent people from seeing inside. They certainly don’t look like the stalls my school used.

Frankly, if their intention is to shame and intimidated, I’m rather surprised they are going to this much effort, when they could just not do anything at all.

Do we know that the other, gender-neutral restrooms are similarly communal? Is it possible that they are single-user facilities with sinks, and need only appropriate signage to make them inclusive?

Ok, I’ll explain that a little better: the place where you take a shit is a private space. The place where you wash your hands is a public space.

In a normal restroom, it is permissible to be partially undressed outside of the stalls, but within the hand washing area of the restroom, as that can be considered a changing area, like a locker room.

With the addition of the window, there is no longer a place that can be considered a “changing area” outside the stalls. If they built proper walls and used proper doors for the “stalls”, they just made some private restrooms next to some public sinks.

That seems to be what they are going for here. Instead of using the space as one shared restroom with a hand washing station and 4 stalls, they are converting it into 4 private restrooms, with a shared hand washing station in a “public area” outside the restrooms.

So long as they build actual walls and use actual doors on the stalls “private restrooms”, this isn’t a completely terrible idea.

I’m betting there is some sort of legal prohibition against creating a mixed-gender restroom, and the way they are getting around it is by declaring only the toilet stalls to be restrooms. With the window into the area of the sinks, that area is a public space, and can’t legally be considered part of the restroom.

So long as the toilets are in actual rooms with floor to ceiling walls and actual doors (not the bullshit stalls we typically use in the US), and those rooms don’t have windows, this isn’t as terrible an idea as it initially seems.

Can’t give a general answer, but we can look to history. Consider the Castrati: removing the testicles before puberty prevented a boy’s voice from changing, giving them a high singing voice in adulthood.

A few Nazis and KKK apologists convinced a shit-ton of marketers, influencers, Karens, and other predatory users to leave.

On balance, Nazis and Klukkers didn’t make it any worse than it was.

I agree with everything except the “got even worse” part. It was always a steaming turd.

The reality is that Xitter isn’t actually any shittier than Twitter was. It’s not any better, of course. But it’s certainly not any worse.

It takes hours to days to start, stop, or change nuclear and coal generation rates. You can’t just turn it on and off as needed. If you need coal or nuclear to meet overnight demand, you have to leave it running during the day as well. If you need 2MW of power overnight and 5MW during the day, you can only add 3MW of solar generation before you are putting too much power on the grid. If your solar puts out 5MW, you have to find out something to do with the extra 2MW that your nuclear plant needs to output continuously.

If you size your solar plants to produce 3MW in the middle of winter, then in summer they are putting out about 9MW. What can you do with the 6MW excess?

There is no single solution to manage every issue, but the single most important is “demand shaping”. We need to reduce demands that can only be met with baseload generation. We need to move that demand to peak solar production times. We need to increase daytime demand to incentivize greater investment into solar.

Storage has to be a very distant second. Every 1 MW we time shift from night to day takes 2MW of load off the grid: 1MW to charge a storage plant, 1MW to discharge.

We need east/west transmission lines, shifting power from where the sun is up to where the sun is down. North America stretches over 4 hours of rotation. Californian solar plants are just waking up as East Coast plants peak.

We may need transmission lines over the poles, funneling power from where it can be generated to where it is needed.

We may need north/south intercontinental links across the equator, giving summer producers access to winter demand.

Number 2 is not inherently true. We can incentivize time-of-use, and push it to time-of-generation. Not with all loads, of course, but with a lot of them, and a lot of very heavy loads.

Our old nuclear/coal model pushes a lot of these loads overnight to reduce daytime demand and “level the curve”. Steel mills and aluminum smelters often operate overnight and shutdown during the day, because that is what nuclear and coal needed.

With solar and wind becoming predominant, we need to reverse those overnight, “off peak” incentives, and push consumption to daytime hours.

The concept is known as “demand shaping”. It is an underutilized method of matching production and consumption, but it is essential if solar and wind are to become our primary source of power.