Because the thing that knocks out the power is freezing rain / snow mixes. When that's happening I conclusively prefer being inside.

And replacing my current setup with a similarly function primarily-electric setup would be expensive even ignoring my preference for being partially off-grid. Right now I don't have 220V to my kitchen at all. Decent induction stoves aren't cheap, especially with space constraints. My cookware is all appropriate for an open flame (e.g. cast iron, enameled cast iron) and while it may work with an induction setup it wouldn't be optimal there.

I live in a rural area. Electricity goes out for like a week pretty consistently every year.

I've got a propane generator, but running a stove off of it rather than just using the propane to run the stove seems silly. If power goes out for too long, I'll turn the generator off, be without electricity, but still be able to cook.

The health risks of propane seem pretty marginal to me. If I were going to try to change my energy sources for health reasons my wood heat setup would be much higher priority.

When you design an OS to pretend there's no such thing as a file, it ends up being bad at handling files.

Firefox died long ago.

It was an engine fight, and Mozilla decided not to participate.

The zeal for equality is the marketing line. Believe it or not, the bean counters did the math and figured out it was cheaper, at least in the short term

That'd be less bad if this particular educational structure wasn't getting mandated as a "legal right to equal education", with any alternate structure being fought at every step by an array of institutional forces.

Things cost stuff.

Except Bio-Dome, that's free. Basic economics says that price approaches marginal cost of production.

The Kia Niro is pretty close, although if you're really serious about making it dumb you'll need to pull the cellular modem. It doesn't depend on any internet services, but it does connect to the internet to get nearby charger data.

I can't find such a study, and it seems extremely unlikely to me that any such study was performed recently. The original law was passed in 2007, and then the regulations were in political limbo for more than a decade.

My base hypotheses here, subject to easy refutation by any real evidence, are that:

• The DOE has looked at no study from after 2007 to justify their current policies.
• This regulation is going into effect now simply because it was on the list of stuff Trump did that the Biden admin reversed.
• The effect on consumer electricity costs and carbon emissions are negligible, since LED bulbs are a decade cheaper and better and almost everyone voluntarily buys them.

Once you're doing resistive heating any resistive element is just as efficient as any other. Incandescent light bulbs have three advantages: They are cheap, easy to work with, and it's really obvious when one is turned on.

As for your link, it's talking about arguments about which books should be made available at school and local libraries. In no sense is that even related to the federal government banning books.

the impact on actual electricity usage is going to be massive.

Is it?

How many people are still installing new incandescent bulbs in 2023?

Is there an actual study showing the expected costs and benefits of this rule, or is it purely political posturing?

Does anybody use incandescent light bulbs as radiators?

Yes. I've done it personally a couple times.

Because it's the only alternative use I can think of.

The thing about alternative uses is that they're still real even if you can't think of them.

Broad bans are a bad policy tool in general. Even if you believe in the progressive ideal of expert regulators making broad societal policies, a simple thought experiment shows the problem: What would it take to do the study to accurately determine all the negative effects of a ban? Not guessing, not wishful thinking, but really collecting and analyzing the information.

I wish people were as mad when books get banned, but sadly it's not the case

When was the last time the US federal government banned a book?

And heat is not ready a concern. You can touch most LED bulbs with your bare hands with no risk of severe burn.

This very clearly indicates that you haven't seriously considered this issue at all, and are just supporting your political faction with no reflection on what the unintended consequences might be.

A common application of incandescent bulbs is to produce heat, for a variety of use cases. The typical example is an improvised chicken incubator.

Consider very carefully why there's an exception for traffic signals.

Because imagining that someone might have a legitimate reason to want a product or service that a regulator might not have thought of is currently a "Republican" trait in the US.

Sure, and non-profit digital radio stations will never need to pay for music streams.

No, we've been watching how this sort of nonsense plays out for decades. If what you want to do is not contemplated by the regulatory deal, then it'll end up illegal.

What exempts small sites?

Why do you think that loophole won't be closed in the future?

Or you know. Lemmy!!

Until Canada tries to enforce this law against Lemmy instances.

"The Matrix" was released closer in time to the French Revolution than to today.

The lessons of the 20th century have mostly been forgotten. Re-learning them is going to be very expensive - not just in money, but in lives.

That discussion tactic results in groupthink to a level that even coherent positions on the broad issues get obscured by conformance to factional stereotypes.

It's really bad to support specific policies just because they sound like a kind of policy that you broadly support. I personally broadly support pro-density policies. But many specific policies that are proposed either have fatal flaws or are useless as long as a century worth of accumulated NIMBY policies exist that super-redundantly ban the sort of density increase that would actually be useful.

And to be clear, only allowing density increases without cars would be exactly the sort of nonsense restriction that would be a fatal flaw, at least in the US.

Many people have already done the math many, many times, and it always works out to be a lot cheaper to have dense urban areas.

I just moved from a dense urban area to a rural area. Taking everything into account - yes, really - things are unambiguously cheaper here. That's a common result in the US. If you want to blame a single thing, I'd go with lack of housing supply in cities due to exclusionary zoning, but I hit some other weird figures like municipal water+sewer being more expensive than a well and septic system (again, yes, taking everything into account including construction costs).

It's worth actually doing the comparisons to see whether car-centric living is a net positive or negative in practice in particular situations. Urban density should be a pure benefit, with economies of scale making everything cheaper. Unfortunately, cities in practice have some downsides that reduce that benefit. One major one is that centralizing services means that it's more useful to try to get a cut of the cash flowing through the institution, and so some of the gains get siphoned off. As a trivial example, exactly zero percent of car commute expenses go to a bus driver's union.

Is there some reason that wall won't work fine?

You are also in another world of hurt if you think anarchy works at all. History it doesn’t. Neither does libertarianism and libertarians are just anarchists that don’t want to admit they are anarchist.

I'm suddenly really interested in what warped view of history you've developed. What social institutions and broad philosophical norms would you say have worked historically?

What other established constitutional rights would you support large institutions not respecting as long as they aren't directly run by the state?

We're literally talking about Meta here. The claim that their actions are those of an independent private company are about as credible as if Lockheed Martin were forcibly quartering soldiers (err... private military contractors) in people's homes and claiming that wasn't a violation of the 3rd amendment.

The other side of that is worth considering too. Being 46 with a 23 year old would be great.

Imagine for a moment that you were running a web design business and an intolerant church group requested that you build a God Hates Gays website for them. Should Mississippi be able to have a a law that compels you to build that website or be liable for discriminating against a protected group, or should that law be unconstitutional under a compelled speech argument?

Before the recent API purge, you could access public data from sites like Reddit and Twitter pretty easily too. I mean it's still easy now, just not free. The same thing used to be true for Facebook, but their API purge was several years ago and their data model made less data straightforwardly public.

Personally I'd rather have my public posts be straightforwardly public than the illusion of privacy provided by sites like Facebook. Maybe a lot of people can get away with treating messages to a private Facebook group as private a lot of the time, but it's simply a wrong mental model that will lead to wrong decisions. A message can either be private or be broadcast to an open-ended set of people - not both.

Yes, posts you make to public forums are public.

The other M1 is better.

I tried nano, but none of the standard key combination would let me save or quit.

Obviously. What sort of moron wouldn't be prepared to defend themselves from angry bees or whatever Pooh was afraid of.

User accounts are a reasonable isolation mechanism for reasonably trustworthy server software.

What carrier? Do voice calls work?

Currently a Pixel with an anonymous custom ROM, although I've got a PinePhone on my desk I need to test more.

Cell phones are incompatible with privacy. Any phone necessarily constantly sends your location to your cell provider just in order to work. But even if that's true, there's no reason to also let someone else be the remote administrator for a sensor node with a camera and microphone that you carry everywhere. Running a mobile OS with a universal backdoor is bad times.

A couple of adjustable wrenches. I lose tools constantly, but I don't think I need new ones every month.

Nuclear waste remains a problem largely for political reasons. The engineers know how to deal with it: You can burn it to make more power. Fully burned nuclear fuel stays dangerously radioactive for a couple hundred years. It's no harder to deal with than any other moderately obnoxious industrial waste.

One of the ways the anti-nuclear movement really screwed us was by freezing most nuclear technology development in the 1980's. The so called Gen IV Reactor designs are mostly design ideas that had been proposed by 1990 and some still haven't even had a demonstration plant built even though most of them largely avoid both the major safety and waste issues that are the major complaints against nuclear.

How is making Facebook pay for user-posted news links a good idea?

Should every instance this post shows up on pay the WSG for this link? Should there be piracy charges for the use of the archive service?

Which investment generates more energy? How about weighted by usefulness in various ways?

How much hotter? What concrete harms will result? How much can that be reduced by different levels of reduction in fossil fuel use? What are the harms from that reduction? How do those harms compare? What are the second order effects and their consequences for all of the above?

Now, let's step back and accept that nobody actually has reliable answers to most of those questions. Further, nobody actually gets to make global policy choices. Even worse, the people who do make national policy choices don't seem to make those choices based on collecting the best data and then rationally trying to serve the public interest.

Nether the "humanity will die" and "climate change isn't real" claims are honest attempts to accurately predict the future. They are strategic attempts to influence public perception in a way that is hoped to lead to specific kinds of policy choice that benefit coalitions of special interests at the expense of most of humanity. Most people would be significantly better off if neither of those buckets of policies were implemented.