phaemon

Yes, it's entirely possible to generate your own electricity, use discarded electronics and not order anything new for a year. I've lived near those conditions so I know it's not particularly difficult if you're smart and healthy.

On the other hand, I have no idea how I could possibly do that if I was blind. Perhaps it can't be done.

I suspect your assumptions are wrong because you don't know many journalists. I have that misfortune. They will have taken the juiciest part of whatever they were told and made a story from it. Facts are entirely secondary.

> people in positions of authority, even when nominally "credentialed" in science, are often completely incompetent

That's genuinely a baffling lesson to take from that incident. I mean, your father was the credentialed one, with an engineering degree, and the teacher was the unqualified one who was just a science teacher. Surely the lesson should be the exact opposite?

My apologies for upsetting you. Please see upthread for my apology to yourself and Dan.

Fair enough Dan. I do have a tendency to walk the line but I like to think I'm reasonable enough to know when to backpedal. Apologies to yourself and Jagger. I'll try and be nicer.

The article was written by a journalist. The dictionary was written by the Professors. If they say that their definition is better I'm going with that above both a journalist and a second year student unless you provide something a little more compelling evidence-wise.

I'm not sure what you consider bold about the assertions so it's difficult to expand. I am certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed, and I'm religious, so that provides at least circumstantial evidence for my initial statement.

Do you think I should consider that atheists could be dumb too? Most of the ones I've spoken to seem fairly convinced that they're reasonably smart.

I'd not heard of that but it seems fairly accurate. It seems related to pg's idea of middle-brow dismissal.

Why wouldn't it be? Old dictionaries are riddled with errors and mistranslations.

βλαύτη is just a slipper. Not a slipper worn by fops. Not a slipper worn by lesbians. Not a slipper worn by aliens. Just a slipper.

Why do you keep insisting that the Professors are wrong and that this "worn by fops" translation should be retained? Are you an expert in Ancient Greek translation and you're sure they have it wrong?

They didn't censor it, they fixed it. There is no evidence that this slipper was "worn by fops" other than the faulty Victorian dictionary that they were fixing.

I like graph theory. You draw some shapes, you draw some lines. It's like the kind of things you can do with your crayons.

I reckon kids could be introduced to it earlier in friendlier language.

> What do you mean?

Apologies, don't mean to pick on you but wanted an example for a future comment.

This maintains context worse than GPT-3

The first part is an introduction and the rest of the content is from Bennington so that makes sense.

I'd generally agree with the advice but would add an advice number zero: don't work in the financial sector. Unless you're a psychopathic serial killer who wants to kill all your co-workers, in which case you definitely should and if I'm ever on your jury I'll find you innocent so you can remove more of these pricks from the world.

I lived in London for a few years so I may be a bit biased.

What great questions have you asked?

To contemplate words for a moment, the phrase is "pique my interest".

"Pique" is an odd word. "Pique my interest" is a positive thing but "a fit of pique" or just feeling piqued are negative.

Out of curiosity I looked this up. SMP was introduced in NetBSD 5.0 which was released 12 years ago. I think you're a bit out of date. :)

So management are unable to code but somehow intelligent enough to identify the developers who can best create their product?

(I'm actually not sure if this argues for or against the point. I guess it depends on your management!)

You missed the point: it's always been politics, you just didn't realize when it was your little group getting the free pass.

Well, to your first point, because I value depth over novelty. The second time should be better.

To your second point, to quote Prince, "There is joy in repetition".

Well the main reason they print money is so that there will be money. That's where money comes from. It's printed. Hence the pictures on it.

No matter what use ECC RAM; you may have 99 bits but the problem is one.

There are a small (but rather vocal) number of people in Western societies who believe that the amazing benefits and privileges they enjoy are in fact something they're entitled to due to their natural wonderfulness. They are therefore horrified to discover, when they grow older (if not up) that these things have to be paid for.

Some are so traumatised by this realisation that they reject the concept entirely and decide that their pampered lives are the natural state of the world. This obviously means that anyone insisting on payment is an extortionist.

Hence the above response.

Actually it doesn't. The difference between perihelion and aphelion is around 6 million km, and it takes approximately 6 months to cover.

That means Earth is moving away or towards the sun at 1 million km per month. That's 33,000 km per day. So 1300 km/h or so? Basically unless you're really fast, climbing the stairs is overwhelmed by other effects.

Haven't taken the Earth's rotation into account but it should be less of an effect.

Germans don't tend to use sarcasm, so that phrase doesn't exist.

Just a note that the phrase is "pore over", not "pour over".

Huh, you're right, I must have been looking at the wrong line. Thanks!

My point on comparing CPUs remains, and is even more pronounced against a 2002 CPU!

I'm afraid you're remembering incorrectly. The Pentium 100Mhz was released in 1994. The last Pentium released in 1999 was the PIII 800Mhz. There wasn't a 3GHz release until 2010.

And that's just clock speed. Compare any 2010 chip to something like a Ryzen 5800x and see how the benchmarks scores look.

Then "good for you", as I already said.

> The 90% value was dishonest

No, the 90% value is more honest since exports reduce CO2 emissions just as much as domestic usage, but you prefer to cherry-pick the lowest number you can. I accepted your figures because even with them the point remains that Scotland has replaced its fossil fuel elec with renewable. A point you keep trying to evade.

> what the heck are you supposed to do??????

Where exactly are you talking about now? I keep hearing that there are all these countries or states that have no ability to deploy renewables due to their geography, but I've never seen one actually specified. Where is it?

> you invest in natural gas and coal, like Germany is doing

Germany is investing in renewables and has increased its share from them each year.

It is a nitpick. The fact is that even counting your way, it's around 10% from fossil fuels. That's been achieved without expanding nuclear capability. It is renewable that has replaced fossil fuels here. Yes, Scotland also exports renewable energy. That's a good thing.

> can wind and solar do it? And the answer is no. Nuclear can do it.

Can wind and solar and hydro and geothermal do it? The answer is Yes. There's no need for more horrifically expensive nuclear.

> We can't scale hydro to that level globally.

No-one's asking you to. If you're all renewable already, good for you. If you're not, get your own house in order before criticizing others. But stop claiming that what's already being done can't be done.

> No you didn't.

Yes, we did. Your nitpicking over the "right" way to count electricity generation and consumption doesn't matter: the graph you linked still shows around 12 percent fossil fuel generation for 2019, it's less now, and it's been replaced with renewables. Quibble over the figures if you like, but the trend is clear.

> And let's not understate the geography of Scotland

Yes, all countries have different strengths and weaknesses for renewable. And?

> Also, Scotland is a tiny region with a population akin to a city

Roughly the same population as the average US state. Anyway, what do you care about the "global scale"? The US is not a renewable energy role model to anyone.

> >70% renewable in pretty much every case is a result of hydro power or...

Hydro is renewable, so I don't get your complaint here

> in the recent election (in Maine)...because why import hydro when you can power your state on good intentions.

According to wikipedia, Maine gets 75% electricity from renewables, which is among the highest of any US state, so they seem an odd example to pick.

What's more, with a population of just 1.34 million, Maine is clearly a complete irrelevance on a global scale, right?