I, for one, would support a law that requires any new unit over a certain size must be reversible and maybe even a tier where they must have variable speed compressors. But I can already hear the Republicans lying that the feds are coming to steal your window units.

Don't be too depressed about it. The Texas grid actually isn't doing too badly in its emissions trends, in spite of their best efforts. It's so easy to interconnect resources to it that renewables don't need to stare down awful queues and huge fees to get onboard and selling power.

That's sort of the other side of the story from what this policy announcement is about -- for the rest of the grid, a combination of FERC, state regulators, utilities, and such have created a system where it is very hard to get new generation online because of infrastructure problems.

This is a gross simplification, but the way it kind of works is that in Texas, infrastructure is up to ERCOT and the utility. Generation is a lot more decoupled from its eventual transmission. It doesn't face the same terrible barriers to come online because of the deregulated market.

Since solar is a fractional cost per unit energy than gas and coal, it out-competes them any time the sun is shining -- it can sell way cheaper and so gas/coal will either have to sell hugely below cost to compete or else they'll have to curtail. Wind is still a bit more expensive on average, but when the wind is going it tends to be able to do the same since it has no marginal cost. And the same situation also means that anyone who can make economically grid storage (which is already getting possible thanks to rapidly declining battery prices) can also out-compete the literal and figurative fossil generators.

Both Texas and the US East and West grids need MASSIVE transmission upgrades to deal with an increasingly-electrified future, though.

Don't misunderstand, Texas is a total mess. A profound lack of planning and both reliability and resiliency. But there's lessons to be learned from it -- decoupling production from transmission and some degree deregulation of that production can take advantage of very powerful market forces that already favor renewables. A post-transition future isn't just better for consumers because of eliminated emissions, it should also be cheaper power.

If you work any ground meat extensively, you develop extensive myoglobin networks. This is a process almost identical to kneading bread to develop gluten. Also turns the meat bright pink.

This results in very chewy, tougher texture -- like in Swedish meatballs (or really good Chinese dumplings/bao!). It's also essential to sausage-making. It also makes them feel less juicy (because the ground beef holds onto the moisture more tightly). Not necessarily worse or better, but certainly different, and in my experience most burger-lovers find it undesirable.

Maybe you prefer it. All the power to you if you do. Cooking like you were raised on often has a special place. But there's a reason nearly all the burgers in more elevated cuisine are not formed this way -- they want them to be tender and juicy.

That said, I'd call this product a meatball, meatloaf, or sausage sandwich, not a burger.

edit: also, given the way you like to make burgers, I'd encourage you to try plant-based meat for it. I think you'll find it tastes much the same -- the exact properties of ground beef that get damaged by this extensive mixing are the exact ones that are hardest to replicate for all the plant-based meat brands, and since you clearly don't care for them you could probably really reduce your environmental impact by not buying the cow product.

I enjoy how "Climate change is making the problem worse" can basically be tacked onto any regional issue headline in a 100% honest and serious way.

Batteries have also seen huge price drops.

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/ee/d1ee01530c

Even in the past 10 years, the cost per kWh has gone from something like $270 to $180. These prices maybe aren't quite in the full freefall solar has seen, but they're declining very rapidly even absent any technological quantum leaps.

Unlike transit busses, school busses only need to be in service a couple hours a day and can basically trickle charge overnight. They require far lower range on top of the declining battery prices. While I don't know the original NYC study being referenced, it is zero surprise that the school busses are a lot lot lot cheaper.

BEV transit busses are, frankly, a stupid fucking idea. Almost as stupid as battery trains. Put up a pantograph and electrify it properly -- it costs a fraction as much over relevant lifecycles.

Most of the water-born microplastics are tire dust. Byproducts of car-dependent modern life.

And, as someone else in the thread quoted, another requirement of the law is a full ban of any policies designed to increase walkability or access to transit, which would be the way to fight back against those microplastics.

The most important rule for conservatives: they do not want to turn over a better world to their children. They want their children to suffer in all the same ways they did. They believe progress is inherently bad and must be resisted. And I mean, of course they do... that's the definition of "conservative".

That's literally and unironically what they want you to do.

They want to destroy walkable cities because somehow, having financially-sustainable small towns featuring outdoor life and engaged communities is partisan. They do not want main streets to exist, only box stores from national brands on the edge of town. They do not want to have to know their neighbors because they believe all other human beings that life near them are potential hostiles, so the best way to live is permanently indoors, getting into your car to protect you from the outside even before opening the garage door to avoid ANY interactions with others.

They want everyone to be forced to only drive cars because being forced to comport with one very specific, expensive, unpleasant way of life that leads to tens of thousands of unnecessary annual deaths and unbelievable isolation and loneliness is "freedom".

Gross. You care more about preserving the delicate feelings of bigoted snowflakes than actual vulnerable people.

It's not misgendering if you use non-gendered language. Non-gendered language is not gendered. Grammatical gender is idiotic and we'd be better off without it.

I agree with what you're saying, but also the reality of Saudi Arabia being a good ally is changing rapidly in the last couple years.

They aren't standing up to Russia. They aren't moderating Israel (potential normalization with the Saudis was likely the proximate cause of the October 6th attacks -- which of course entirely achieved the goal of ending that normalization). They're pledging to "extract every molecule" of fossil fuels to keep the world hooked even while their own internal development clearly shifts towards transition.

I'm not sure the relationship is paying off for the US. Maybe that's why this topic is being stirred back up -- to get a bit more leverage against them. The Saudis seem to be VERY concerned with the kayfabe of being a functional, modern state (in spite of the fact that they're a lunatic theocratic monarchy), so this kind of dirty laundry may be of influence to them if it really is undeniable.

I don't envy the folks in the diplomacy trades who have to consider and interpret all these factors and come to a real conclusion about them.

Honestly, do this anyway. Default to they/them until someone requests otherwise. It's the best way to normalize it for people who don't present in an assumable way, without exposing yourself to the same level of potential retaliation that asking leads to.

Contrary to "common wisdom" and industry lies, LNG is not significantly better emissions than coal. When exported, especially across the Pacific to e.g., Japan, it's sometimes within just a couple of percentage points the lifetime emissions as coal.

Solar is already a vastly cheaper form of energy than fossil gas and wind is rapidly going down those learning curves (it's already comparable in many geographic areas. The issue that US energy utilities simply don't care. They only really know how to deal with "dispatchable" power generation. They don't want to change. They don't want to adapt. They'd rather spend more (ratepayer) money doing things the old way. Even though we already have the technology to deal with nearly all of the "reliability" issues that come with renewable generation.

Your voice can influence this. In many states, the energy utilities are regulated by a regulatory commission -- and those commissioners, frankly, aren't getting a steady stream of feedback. They are often elected officials. I've got one of my commissioner's cell phone number -- they can sometimes be THAT accessible -- and they're in charge of holding these monopoly utilities to task.

We don't need a global socialist revolution to seriously address climate change. Tons of progress is already happening, even under the regimes we're currently stuck with. Don't just read articles. Talk to friends and family. Take action. Make calls. Vote. Donate. It's a still a winnable battle so long as you don't let the doomsayers suck all the air out of the room, but it gets less so every day that people stand by.

Real answer? Because those tariffs will have barely any meaningful effect one way or the other. They're pure politics and no one deep in the field really cares that much. The solar tariffs are fairly annoying, but solar is by far the cheapest form of energy production even if material costs blast up a full 50% -- especially since those cost increases have no effect on the far more important cost center of trade labor. If Biden has a legacy other than supporting genocide in Gaza, it will be as the climate president.

The Inflation Reduction Act is the biggest suite of climate subsidies the world has ever seen. It's an industrial policy so huge that it would make Stalin sweat. Except... it's working. Clean energy industry in the US was doing OK before and is just exploding now. Legitimately hard to overstate how huge it is, and even countries you think of as having intense green energy programs are looking at the US with some envy. And the design of the bill is such that it spins up virtuous cycles. As industries and slow money move in to take advantage of the bill, they become part of the constituency to keep it alive and continue to build up more and more of the same investment. If it can just survive a few more years, it'll be almost as impossible to repeal as medicare.

And none of that seems to matter. Because no matter what they do it'll never be good enough for the loud voices on the left. If you aren't achieving global socialist revolution that means any progress you do achieve is a waste of time and no different than the actual allies of global apocalypse. There's always some stupid little "just one problem!" nitpick that people on places like the fediverse think reduces an entire policy to ashes even though it just isn't even particularly important.

Those blades are way, way, way bigger than you think they are. They are moving extremely fast even at normal speeds. That 15ish rpm converts to around 1.5 rads/s. Modern windmill blades are something like 70m long -- so we're talking speeds of 100m/s or north of 350 kph / 220 mph.

Pretty comparable speeds to the windspeeds of the tornadoes in question during routine operation. Of course, there's a lot more intensity with a tornado, but windmills are actually designed to let most of the air pass them unimpeded because it makes them work more efficiently.

Of course, their energy production will be deliberately curtailed under high winds because the generators and infrastructure hooking them up can only handle so much -- they'll brake the blades, or rely on back-emf from the motors, or some combination of those factors to prevent them from over-generating.

Of course, unlike typical wind being harvested by the windmills, the tornado's airflow is far from laminar, meaning that even with their highest intensity, they will be losing a lot of efficiency in driving those blades.

...the tornado, of course, will simply knock them down.

It's also not just voting against Trump.

Biden on climate is an A student. The inflation reduction act, according to basically every climate wonk, gives us a real chance at achieving necessary goals both under its regime and thanks to further future legislation it certainly unlocks. Things are looking less bad right now than they have for a long time in spite of all the worsening indicators. And it's written with intense virtuous cycles built-in that will make it VERY sticky policy once it builds up a couple of years worth of inertia. The fact that he got it past an overtly hostile senate that had at least 51 anti-science, anti-climate, fossil fuel shills turning up to vote is nothing short of a policy miracle.

Trump, on the other hand, has vowed to reverse everything that could still be reversed about the IRA (a frustratingly large amount, unfortunately, could still be undone by executive fiat thanks to its still-developing political base). He's vowed to double down on every kind of fossil fuel subsidy. He's vowed to restore coal power even though it's horrible for everyone involved and the most expensive kind of energy production. He's vowed to fight windmills just because he doesn't like their aesthetics -- literal quixotic shit.

I won't defend Biden on Israel for even one millisecond. His position is heinous. It's evil. And if he loses in November, it will almost certainly be the reason why and he'll deserve it. But it will probably also spell actual global war and apocalypse fueled by climate within all of our lifetimes. It may sound dramatic, but a Trump win will bring us from feast to famine and may spell the actual end of our civilization.

A less credulous interpretation of this kind of study is that it indicates an issue with our mathematical models.

Jodie Whittaker was a fabulous doctor. I really liked her whole vibe, her personality, her presentation. I wanted to love that doctor so much.

But the stories were boring and the writing was lame.

An otherwise-mediocre show with great writing can still be a huge success, but even an otherwise-flawless show with bad writing will always suck. I'll never understand why all the TV producers think they can get away with cutting all the corners on writing.

It's undeniably better practice. Better for the land, better for the animals, often even better for the farmers. But meat production will always be an ecologically intensive, extractive process. We will always be better off not doing it at all compared to even the best of the best regenerative practice.

...so no, it's not a climate-friendly solution. If you want climate-friendly meat production, we're probably talking about meal worms or some such, never beef.

I'd like to see all meat producers held to high standards of regenerative ag because it offers a LOT of benefits. It's better land utilization, it's better for drought, it's better for pollution, it's a thumb in the eye of the chemical corpos, and more even than that. And when you hear the stories produced by the regenerative ag advocates for the farmers, they aren't really talking about climate much at all. This is correct. The story of regenerative ag has nothing to do with preventing climate change and anyone claiming otherwise is either deluded or greenwashing.

Yeah, I run into it a lot in my smallish, somewhat historic town -- though I am not a developer. SO many places where all the staff constantly removed about how they're always popping breakers and all that stuff. Or where they have to go around sharpie-ing faceplates where you must not plug in kitchen equipment.

Line cooks, in my experience, don't really give that much of a shit about the equipment they need to use. It works or doesn't. The comfortability of the space matters most, and as you said, electric's a huge winner for comfortability.

Chefs are sometimes VERY opinionated about the stupidest shit, and egotistical to boot. You can't really argue with the dude who tells you he KNOWS gas is better (but has never actually used electric). Fortunately, these are a dying breed. Even the NYC pizza joints are switching to electric because it's just plain better.

But if there's one universal truth above all others with the restaurant industry, it is that it is entirely allergic to ANY kind of capital investment. Rewiring a kitchen to switch from gas to electric is just a non-starter. Having to pay an extra however many thousands during initial build to get the utility to bring in 3 phase? Good fucking luck. They'd always rather MacGyver a sketchy solution than invest the money now to improve profitability and quality of life in the long-term. The flipside is, that means buying a $150 commercial induction hob is WAY cheaper than trying to add an additional gas burner -- the latter is usually a flat non-starter, the former means a guy can (lol health code) be sent to poach eggs in the break room.

Irrelevant to commercial. A reasonably big restaurant doesn't get enough amps in the panel to replace all their gas equipment with induction, especially in grid-strained California. Not unless it's new construction in an area with quality 3 phase electrical service.

It was a huge, huge, huge mistake that the places that banned new fossil gas installs made it ALL installs instead of just residential.

They made an enemy out of the national restaurant association for no reason and have faced huge setbacks in otherwise-good legislation as a result. It's all just so stupid and shortsighted. Especially since, as the other guy pointed out, commercial gas cooking is not a major contributor. Even just compared to the leaky, awful, terribly, idiotic residential fossil gas network.

We can't claim to know it left them with "bad" employees. I think there's vanishingly little evidence that recruiters actually go after the "good" employees effectively -- I'm pretty skeptical that a pro recruiter actually gets you better employees, they just make the process of getting employees way less stressful. We also have no reason to assume that a good or bad employee is correlated in any way with caring about not returning to office -- it's possible very bad employees are just as likely to quit as very good ones. How do you even tell good from bad, anyway?

What this "return to office" stuff definitely DOES do is preferentially retain the most obedient/desperate employees. Which may be part of the goal, along with low-key downsizing.

Still, the issue isn't the presence of a throttle. It's the specs of the machine.

The idea that the law should be framed around whether or not the vehicle needs to be peddled is backwards. The relevant machine specs are what the legislation should address. Which is still, primarily, top speed. All incident evidence we have suggests that below ~20mph / 30 kph, even full automobiles see precipitous dropoffs in serious injuries, so that's the place to start. We see most places really serious about bike networks going reasonably further past that (25 or 20 kph). That's all reasonable. If you further want to have requirements on acceleration or weight, it's worth investigating that.

Having the legislation require peddling is just a way to create weird loopholes in the law. It's pearl-clutching and moral panic. And worse, it creates accessibility issues and can pressure people off the bikeped infrastructure who would've used it reasonably and safely back into cars.

The law should narrowly address the actual problem, not some tertiary smell the problem has created. The idea that a bike that has pedals is magically safer than an identical bike with an identical frame, motor, and everything which has a throttle is preposterous.

I am totally convinced an ebike with a throttle is safer and easier to use for its rider than one without one at any speed. I don't think they should be required -- because that's just silly -- but I think anyone the claiming opposite, that only peddled, throttle-less vehicles are safe, has fallen off the deep end.

It doesn't add any cost to include a throttle on the ebike.

Regulate speeds, not mechanisms. Moving people to micromobility is a benefit regardless of the form of that micromobility. Speed is the safety concern, not any of this loophole-inducing nonsense.

Notable that the common european honeybee is an invasive species that tends to preferentially pollinate invasive flora, at least in North America. The likes of bumblebees and carpenter bees are the ones that really matter for conserving and supporting native ecosystems even if they get less love in public media. They're the bees that actually need saving.

It's worth looking up what you can do to support native pollinators -- including native bees -- in your area. Some of the stuff is surprisingly easy -- planting native wildflowers, for example, or setting up an insect hotel.

This very article has already been updated to say the story is not true.

There's lots of industrial uses for CO2 -- this style of DAC plant can be viewed as a green producer. That said, it's really easy to outpace industrial demands and we can expect any facility like this will need to be sequestering most of their "production". It's hard to overstate how much excess CO2 there is in the atmosphere compared to the sum total of all industrial carbon dioxide needs. Since CO2 is thermodynamicly very stable, splitting it up to get pure carbon would be quite inefficient.

It's part of the business model of every single DAC project pretty much without exception. Any way you can make back a bit of money selling that CO2 rather than sequestering it is an opportunity to offset costs. And no matter what you think of market economics, they're very effective at reducing costs.

One of the most interesting uses is with projects like e.g. CarbonCure, where they dope cement production with CO2 which has known effects to strengthen (or at least not weaken) concrete. They don't produce their own CO2 for their plants and so need to align themselves with renewable CO2 production facilities (which they do Heirloom Carbon).

Big issue is they it's hard to compete with fossil-based CO2 production. So the next step once tech like this is proven is to start regulating/banning fossil-based CO2 production.

The worst part is, one of the "downsides" of renewables like wind and solar is curtailment. A "problem" that needs to be fixed is that they sometimes produce excess energy that you end up having to simply discard if demand isn't there. This is often invoked disingenuously by the allies of apocalypse as some major problem with the tech -- that building enough renewables to basically cover regular power requirements would entail having hugely excess production that gets curtailed, which is somehow wasteful.

DAC and green hydrogen are ways to eat up excess supply and reap benefit from it and should be categorized in similar veins to other forms of energy storage. They are both undeniably necessary technologies to achieve overall goals. Can either solve the problem on their own? God no. But who's saying they can?

They are not worse for the environment than ICE vehicles. This is total FUD nonsense that is significantly fueled by right wing and auto astroturf campaigns. Their lifecycle emissions are vastly lower. It's so mundanely bad a talking point that even low-level sources like factcheck.org publish informers on it. Don't spread misinformation.

EVs aren't good for the environment. They're less bad. Auto-dominant culture remains a non-starter for longterm sustainability, both fiscal and environmental, for most communities around the world.

There are some situations where BEVs are maybe worse overall than ICE counterparts. Rail and busses, for example, where the BEV just makes no sense (put up a pantograph or third rail for a huge LCCA discount and massively lower emissions). Cargo trucking may also fall in this camp; trucks simply cannot be that heavy on modern asphalt design. But for regular passenger vehicles there is no question.

I, for one, could not be made to care one iota about what Jack Dorsey has to say. He's a weird little fuck, and only getting weirder.

Time long past to be a lot more honest about these tech billionaires -- pretty much every one of was just immensely, immensely lucky, and until they can talk honestly about how nearly everything to do with their success compared to any other mid-level software developer was just blind luck, we should assume everything coming out of their mouths is pure grandiose delusion.

MTG didn't entirely lose in this whole debacle, either. She now gets to point to Johnson and say "See, he's with the Democrats". That'll be super useful to her in campaigns and all that kind of shit.

I doubt that was her intention -- she doesn't strike me as a person having intentions beyond the most superficial ones -- but she's definitely enough of an opportunist to make hay with it now that it's worked out this way.

The dems backing Johnson was a cynical move. It was a nasty piece of business. But that deal was to get aid to Ukraine, and that's a deal I'll take. And hey point, it may be the end of Johnson's career, getting all those democratic "votes of confidence". Unfortunately, his replacement would doubtless be an even more creepy little gremlin.

At least for North America, it's really more a story about the housing crisis and fake-rural suburban sprawl than anything.

Sure, you'll get those doe-eyed types -- usually wealthy folks -- that talk about wanting to quietly live out in the countryside with no one and nothing anywhere near to them. But most people don't want to move somewhere so inconvenient, at least not if they have to actually face the disadvantages of it (like unpaved roads, no municipal sewer/water, unreliable internet/electric, long trips to highway big box stores for even the most basic necessities, etc).

When push comes to shove, most want to live in an actual town. Maybe not a huge metropolis, but a place where you have knowable neighbors, convenient shops, basic city services, restaurants and bars, and all those things. A place where you don't have to fight through a 30 minute highway commute just to get a loaf of bread.

But they can't. We have vanishingly few functional towns. Instead, we mostly have massive cities with tons of amenities but which you can't afford to live in, vast sprawling "suburbs" and "exurbs" of said cities that are completely parasitically dependent on their host city to function and aren't places in their own right, "small towns" which are just weird little growths off of an interstate offramp with no meaningful local industry of their own.

When your choice is an unaffordable metropolis, a "small town" which is nothing but national chains huddled around a place a major road crosses a highway, or the inconvenient but affordable "exurbs"/countryside, the comparison gets bad. It's all just a byproduct of our incredibly bad housing policy -- policies that favor national builders spawning whole subdevelopments out of thin air over local infill, policies that make it nearly impossible to build modest density/mixed used places, policies that care more about the financial products the housing underwrites than actually homes. Policies that rob people of choice and instead push them to all live a weird, unnatural way that violates thousands, tens of thousands of years of human development.

These advantages you see in office commutes... aren't advantages of office commutes. They're advantages of good urban living. And the idea that you wouldn't live in a city if not for a job forcing you has such intense American energy I bet it drives a lifted Ford F150 covered in bad eagle decals.

~60% efficiency, I believe? Not far off from pumped hydro in terms of overall efficiency.

The extraordinary cheapness of solar energy has actually made some real green hydrogen commercially viable in the US, especially in conjunction with IRA subsidies. It's hard to overstate how huge the inflation reduction act has been at promoting transition and renewable technology. The hopeful new tech developments in the field of green hydrogen would be "peaker" electrolyzers -- current economics make it pretty hard to have a viable electrolysis plant without having it operate at very high utilization rates. Truthfully, the issue is more one of financing than technology, though tech developments could change that picture. Far better to run electrolyzers than curtail a renewable generation source and I have no doubt this will be a major transition industry.

The bigger issue is that there are no remotely viable hydrogen aircraft. Theoretically, maybe one day, but maintaining liquid hydrogen tanks is impractical even for automobiles. It makes even less sense in the goddamn sky. Revolutionary new tech would need to happen before this was a viable option for airlines. So this kind of plant is probably smarter to be producing e.g., ammonia, especially since some major shipping companies have already signed contracts to build ammonia-fuel cargo ships so the demand will definitely exist.

Unfortunately, there's no carbon-free alternative to flying in the near future. Which is why the best approach is to minimize flying. The EU way is the right way; pick busy flight corridors and focus on them for high speed rail.

Now look at the top 3 US flight corridors. Last I looked, it was LA-Las Vegas, Hawai'i-Ohahu, and Atlanta-Orlando. Brightline is currently deploying high speed rail service for that first route. Flawed as hell service, but service nevertheless. The second is probably always going to be stuck to flight (but also, less tourism to the islands would benefit them tremendously either way). The third has huge potential to be built out into a rail corridor (Brightline Florida already has plans to expand to Jacksonville and an Atlanta-Savannah Amtrak route is already in development -- would not be hard to close that gap).

Propane's a different thing. It's just trading in bottles. Those bottles will keep being available for a long time and are, frankly, not a major emissions source. Still one we should get rid of, but it's not a low-hanging fruit. Propane is also still one of the more climate-friendly refrigerants, so it's definitely sticking around.

As far as people in situations like that relying on fossil gas distribution infrastructure... one way or another they're going to be left holding the bag.

Electrified appliances are almost universally better for consumers both in quality and economics. Electrification and gas-free new construction will keep happening. Keep accelerating.

The infrastructure of gas is already built. It costs a lot to maintain it even as poorly as they do. As fewer ratepayers are using the system, the remaining ratepayers have to pay a larger and larger share of that cost -- making the gas even more expensive and an even worse choice for consumers. Inevitably, the poorest folks who cannot afford to replace their appliances but also cannot afford to keep using gas will be left behind. That's the reality of the privatized system we have.

I feel bad for all the people who are going to get fucked, especially since for many it was bogus that they were saddled with fossil gas in the first place (e.g., bribes to builders/subdevelopment managers).

Even without accidental site leaks, the infrastructure itself leaks terribly. Residential fossil gas systems are constantly venting tiny amounts of methane from throughout the system, with occasional major issues that can go days or weeks without notice until a sniffer van or something like it catches it. This happened at my house just recently -- my gas was fully capped off the week I moved in, but a guy showed up now several years later from the utility and said he was there for a detected leak and he had to remove the meter and re-cap everything. The whole time trying to convince me that gas stoves are better than my undeniably-superior induction one.

For all I know it was venting at a decent clip this whole time. Nothing I could really do about it. It's not like I was checking the meter what with my no service, and as far as the guy could tell the leak was from before the meter anyway.

And it'll get worse as the systems are used less. A smaller subscriber base means these companies will inevitably cut repair and maintenance budgets, leading to more leaks. More methane. The only safe and sensible thing to to have public takeovers on them and then immediately start working to decommission.

Google loves to have entirely ai-driven moderation which makes decisions that are impossible to appeal. They are certain that one AI team lead is more valuable than 20 customer service agents. Meanwhile, YouTube shorts is still a pipeline to Nazidom and death by electrical fire.

Might be the worst customer service in the tech industry, though that's a highly competitive title.

They also don't offer replacement parts (even major parts like the charging case) for their headphones. So I guess they're intended to be a disposable product. Evil shit.

If you've ever had an entirely positive interaction with Google customer service... you'd probably be the first.

Guy Fire-y

Extreme energy use for pretty low deltas on temperature. Best possible efficiency is 100%, far less than the 2.5+ cop a heat pump unit will get you. If it's at all manageable, get the heat pump.

Frankly, their inefficiency means the emissions they cause are still pretty bad unless you know your energy source is more renewable than most.

But they don't need venting, which is nice. They do take a big fat electrical connection though - the one I installed was two 2 pole 40a breakers - hopefully you have at least 200A service. Mostly they work as intended.

The guy's talking about concentration clamps for migrants as part of his final solution.

Be scared. Vote.

There's zero merit to corn ethanol fuels.

Literally makes more sense to fill the fields with solar panels and just do electrolysis to make hydrogen/ammonia. It nearly makes more sense to do the same with DAC plants to "make up" for regular old jet fuel.

If we actually care about aviation emissions, there's a solution: less aviation. Best way to do it: intercity high-speed rail. Bonus points, it will make for a more comfortable, pleasant, affordable world in the process. Let's start with LA to Vegas... oh wait. So since trains in Hawai'i probably don't make the most sense, the next target is Atlanta-Orlando... and go figure, there's currently an Amtrak route being built to Savannah and Brightlight already has plans to connect to Jacksonville, so finishing that route wouldn't be terribly hard either...

We try sooooo hard to come up with these techno-wizard solutions that we lose track of how simple and straightforward the actual problems are.