There is a difference between providing the capability, and requiring that capability.

Under this law, something as simple as sharing a Google Drive could make you an “app store” under this law.

These laws are specifically designed to be broadly interpreted. We have no idea just how widely the nets will be cast, either tomorrow, or 10 years from now. It is prudent to assume the absolute worst case.

I’m actually wondering how payouts for poly market works I’d assume it would be proportional to how much you bet versus everyone else. Probably whole range.

https://docs.polymarket.com/concepts/positions-tokens

When someone starts an event, there are initially no shares to be had. You can pay $1 and buy both a “yes” share and a “no” share from Polymarket. This is called “splitting”. You’re splitting your money into shares on both sides of the event.

Presumably, you want something more than breaking even. So, you keep the side of the bet that you want, and you offer to sell the other side of that bet.

You could offer your “no” shares for $0.25 each. Someone can give you $25 for them. Now you have 100 “yes” shares that will be worth $100 or $0 in the future, and $25 cash. You could offer your “yes” shares for $0.80 each. Someone else might buy them from you at that price, giving you $80. You are now out of the market, with a total of $105 back. This is “trading”.

After a hard day of trading back and forth, you find yourself with good positions on both sides of the bet. You have 200 “yes” shares that you paid $80 for, and 100 “no” shares that you also paid $40 for. You can take 100 yes shares and 100 no shares, join them together, and sell them back to Polymarket for $100. This is called “merging”.

Finally, you can wait until the event occurs. Let’s say the outcome was “yes”. Your 100 “yes” shares are now worth $1 each, and can now be traded at that price. This is called “redeeming”.

If you don’t want it to happen, you bet “yes”. You bet “yes” as hard as you can, so that the only way the insiders can make any money is by betting against the “yes” consensus, and refusing to blow up the world.

It’s a bribe/protection racket with extra steps.

Amanda said while the government had promised the ban would make it easier for parents, “the reality of trying to enforce them has left me feeling that the burden has been pushed back on to families”.

I fully agree that some of the burden of age verification has been returned to the families, and I can only hope that the rest of the burden is soon returned to them as well.

The rest of the response I want to give here would violate 3, 4, 5, 7, and probably 1.

Backing out of a parking space, you must yield to traffic within the lane of traffic However, you are on the wrong end of the vehicle to properly observe traffic within the lane. With restricted vision and attention focused on the maneuver, you are also burdened with deconflicting traffic that has the right-of-way over you.

Backing in, you begin the maneuver from a lane in which you are already established. You have the right-of-way over that lane until you have completely departed that lane. While you are distracted and focused on the backing maneuver, conflicting traffic is legally obligated to avoid you.

“Backing in” exploits “right-of-way” to improve safety for both you and your fellow travelers.

That’s an occultist.

An opthalmologist is an appointed official who investigates complaints by taxpayers against government departments.

Comment refers to the girl’s eyeglass prescription, not a ranking of her attractiveness.

Based on the distortion visible in her glasses, her prescription is approximately -1.00 to -1.50 diopters. Severely nearsighted prescriptions would cause the wearer to appear to have much smaller eyes; farsighted prescription would cause the eyes to appear larger.

The masses don’t spontaneously self-organize for the purpose of giving one person all their power. That requires external coordination by the entity receiving that power.

Without that entity driving them, the masses don’t yield their power. That entity is ultimately responsible for what it has convinced the masses to do.

Without the powerful people in question, the apathy of the masses wouldn’t be a problem.

I agree with everything except “misunderstand”. We’re completely on the same page.

They think that this is what “work” is, so their expectation is that this is what “workers” experience. They see no need or value in retirement. They don’t realize that they were already living as a retiree before they started campaigning.

There is a giant hole in the middle where we don’t really have a good option yet, and yeah, it will take something shutting down factories for a few months, but I really don’t see that as remotely realistic until shit gets dire.

That hole is not nearly as big as it seems. Conventional baseload generators (Nuclear and coal) have a similar problem matching the daily demand curve. They can’t ramp up and down very quickly to match the curve. Their production has to be matched to the trough, the lowest daily demand, and can’t be raised much above that. Baseload generation is the most efficient conventional generation, so they want to push as much load to it as possible.

Grid operators have compensated for this limitation by incentivizing off-peak consumption. They are already using demand-shaping methods to fill the overnight “trough”. By raising the trough, the baseload rises, and baseload generation produces a much larger percentage of total power production.

One major problem with these incentives is that they drive consumption overnight, where it can’t possibly be met by anything except storage and baseload generation. These “perverse” incentives need to be rolled back a little faster. The cause of our summer overages is not excess solar capacity. Those overages are because of excess overnight demand, requiring excessive baseload generation. Allowing the trough to lower, we reduce 24/7 baseload production, which makes room for additional solar and wind.

The problem with “just use the excess power for something” is that it doesn’t happen all the time. It’s not three seasons, it’s more like <1000 hours a year.

You are making that claim based on our current generation mix and capacity. Our renewable capacity is not currently capable of fully meeting our needs in the middle of winter. We need more renewable capacity - much, much more.

You need to consider a scenario where we actually do have enough solar and wind to meet our needs during winter.

A solar panel, operating on a summer day with 16 hours of high-angle sunlight produces about three times as much power as it does on a winter day with 8 hours of low-angle sunlight. (I’m sure you know this; I only mention it to make sure we’re on the same page.)

We are barely producing excess renewable power in the summer, which means we are producing about 1/3 the renewable power we need in the middle of winter. So instead of our current excess during about 1000 hours a year, I need you to consider a scenario where we have about three times the amount of solar and wind power that we currently have. That’s what it will take to fully meet our needs, year round. That’s the amount of excess power we need to be able to absorb in the other three seasons so we have enough renewable generation capacity available in winter.

The only way to bridge that gap is with batteries,

No, actually, that is not the “only” way. You are talking about “supply shaping” measures: moving energy from time-of-production to time-of-demand. And yes, we certainly do need some supply shaping measures to meet overnight demand. We do need to match the daily variation between supply curve and demand curve to make renewables work. But, the only way supply shaping can feasibly work with seasonal variation is with the inclusion of non-renewable generators. We simply cannot store enough renewable power from summer for use in winter, nor can we transport anything close to that amount of power across the equator. Batteries (and other grid scale storage methods) are not the answer to the seasonal variation problem. Supply shaping is not the answer.

There is, in fact, another shaping method available, and it is actually far more efficient: “Demand shaping”. With demand shaping, you don’t bother trying to store any more power than you absolutely need to. Instead, you just use it, directly, at the time it is produced. You do something useful with that power when you have it, and you shut down that consumption when you don’t have the available power to drive it.

One major benefit of such an industry is that if it is not currently profitable to operate on our excess production, the solution is to increase that excess production: Install more panels and turbines. Sell your power to the grid when it is more profitable to do so. When it isn’t, keep your power, and use it to produce fuels, or anything else you can sell.

The real structural solution would be to completely overhaul the electricity market … but I don’t see that happening.

That’s exactly what I am talking about. I’m talking about what we need to do to make it happen.

Demand shaping: We go to aluminum smelters and steel mills and we tell them if they want to operate year round, their power costs are going to triple. They need to cut their power requirements for the shortest 60 days of the year to keep their current rates. They schedule an annual maintenance period to coincide with this winter shutdown.

We stop telling them they can only work overnight (when nuclear needs them) and they need to transition to daytime operation (when solar needs them)

I saw that documentary.

They are pretty pointless unless we find some way of sucking down excess power when it is available. Fischer-Tropsch synfuel production, for example, can convert CO2 or biomass into carbon-neutral fuel for the transportation industry. Desalination, hydrogen production, and a wide variety of other power-hungry industries can be brought online for three-season operation. This keeps solar and wind generators profitable in the summer, which justifies expanding solar and wind projects. The three-season nature of these industries withdraws their demand in winter, allowing solar and wind generation to meet a larger percentage of total demand.

Where will you be using this upload?

If you’re doing it to make it accessible on your own devices from anywhere, try Syncthing on the various devices instead. If the devices are on the same LAN from time to time, your modem won’t be a bottleneck.

If you still have the sources from which you originally acquired the books, you could use a VPS to re-acquire them, and then push them to the google drive directly from the VPS. They never pass through your modem; your modem can’t be the bottleneck.

IF they are not being forced out by the company and/or the culture.

That’s the problem I’m trying to address: the workaholic culture among our representative bodies.

It’s not a matter of their capability of doing the job. The problem is that their job is to represent my interests. Their actions here clearly demonstrate that they do not share my interests.

If they want to work, they should work. But they should be working in a job that values their workaholic lifestyle, not in a job where they are compelled to represent values they do not personally share.

When I retire, I’m going to do what I want. I plan to volunteer a lot. I plan to continue laboring at tasks that I want to perform, for the people I want to perform them for. But the important part is that I plan to answer to nobody but myself. I will no longer adopt the interests of others as my own.

That is not selfish: I will not be putting myself in a situation where other people are dependent on me doing my job. I will not be a lawyer, expected to put my client’s interests ahead of my own. I will not be a laborer, expected to bust my ass continuously between clock punches. I will not be a politician, expected to work tirelessly for the benefit of my constituents. I will make myself happy by giving what I want and what I can, without needing to worry whether it is enough. Such worry is “work”, and I will no longer be a worker.

Simply by running after retirement age, these candidates demonstrate their sheer contempt for retirement. They demonstrate they value work for the sake of work.

I want to see retired people enjoying themselves, and showing others how to enjoy themselves, not promoting their sick, workaholic lifestyles.

There ya go: tie it to real world factors.

I had “social security retirement age” as my criteria. I want to retire some day. I want a candidate who represents my interests.

I do not want a candidate with the same work/life balance expectations as my dickhead boss.

It is true: I am highly dismissive of some kind of arbitrary cutoff based on age or term limits.

It isn’t their age that is the problem. The problem is the ideals they must hold to remain in office at that age: I want to retire some day.

I want a candidate who shares that value.

A candidate who keeps running for office long past retirement age is a candidate with a wildly unhealthy work/life balance. They demonstrate with their actions that they do not share our values.

We might not need a formal, legal requirement to prohibit a retirement-age candidate from taking office, but we should ask the electorate to consider their own expectations for retirement when choosing a candidate.

Workaholic candidates do not belong in office.

Let the old candidates argue that the retirement age needs to rise, while the young candidates argue that it needs to be lowered. Watch what happens when AARP voters start supporting candidates who actually want to retire, instead of these goddamn workaholic fossils.