All we can say from the given scenario is that the student has not demonstrated mastery of the subject material.

It could be that the teacher fucked up, and tested improperly. I’ve seen tests that didn’t reflect the subject matter; the teacher failed.

It could be that Mom or Dad were the ones completing the student’s assignments for them all year. The student never actually learned anything; the student failed.

If every student had the same experience, I’d be happy to point fingers at the teacher. But when virtually all her students pass, and this one “workaholic” kid can’t, that’s not on the teacher. That’s on the kid.

(Apparent) hard work is not evidence of mastery.

The UK uses single phase to the house. This is provided via one 240v hot and a neutral. Their final distribution transformer bonds one side of the output coil to ground and use it as a neutral, which makes the other side of the coil 240v relative to that ground.

The US uses split phase to the house. This is 240v provided via two opposing 120v hots and a common neutral. Their final distribution transformer is almost identical to the UK version: end to end, they have a 240v output. The difference is that instead of bonding one end of the output coil to ground and using it as a neutral for the other end, they instead bond the center of the output coil to ground and use that as a common neutral for both ends.

Not just solar - most grid-scale generators have this problem. “Black start” is the search term you want to look for, and Practical Engineering has a good video on the subject.

Basically, only a relative few grid generators are actually capable of black starts. The rest need the grid to be already functioning before they can tie in and start producing.

Ohio does something like that. We have separate contracts with a heavily regulated grid operator for distributing power, and our choice of generation companies for providing power.

The grid operator does our metering and billing, but forwards our generation charge to the provider we select.

Are you saying that electrical power should only be provided by government entities?

Should you be allowed to plug in a solar panel and provide power back to the grid?

Are you a government entity?

The “natural monopoly” of electrical power is only on the distribution, not the generation of that power. It is reasonable for various generators to compete against each other to meet grid demand.

You should be able to push power back onto the grid. You should not be limited only to taking it off the grid. If you can put more on than you remove, you should be compensated for your generation at the market rate.

Assignments are not evidence of learning. Assignments are pressure for students to learn. They are motivation to spend time acquiring knowledge and practicing skills expected to be acquired from the class.

For students who master this knowledge and skill without that pressure, assignments are distractions from further study. They force the student to expend time and energy on previously-mastered material, rather than allowing them to focus on unmastered subjects or additional classes.

If I were building a grading rubric, I would say that the test score at the end of each unit is the minimum score recorded for any assignment in that unit. My tests would be killers: I would target 80% raw scores, but final test scores would be on a curve, with the median score being recorded as an “A”.

Score a 100% raw score on a unit test, and every assignment for that unit is raised to 100%. The student has demonstrated complete mastery of the subject matter; any grade less than 100% does not reflect their true capability.

Score an 80% raw score on the unit test, and every assignment for that unit is at least an 80%. A 95% assignment stays a 95%, but a 45% assignment is counted as 80%. Missing assignments are counted as 80%, not 0%.

I would go further: the raw score on the final exam replaces every lower grade in the grade book. You ace that indomitable horror of a final exam, you ace the class, regardless of how much effort you put in.

The purpose of a class is to instill a specific set of knowledge and skills.

The purpose of an assignment is to provide the student with sufficient pressure to study the expected knowledge, and practice the expected skills. The assignment is the pressure to learn; it is not evidence of learning.

To the student who has achieved mastery of that knowledge and skillset prior to completing the class, an assignment has no valid purpose. For such a student, the assignment is busywork, and serves only to distract the student from further study.

If your grading style does not allow for a student to demonstrate mastery and refuse busywork assignments, your grading is a problem.

A student with test scores equal or better than the class average does not deserve to fail your class for having refused assignments.

A student who ritualistically completes all of their homework assignments with excellent marks, but is entirely unable to pass a test on the subject matter, is a student who has failed your class.

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” and potentially liable for penalties.

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.

The payouts are established by the participants.

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. One will payout, the other will not. If you keep both sides, you’ll just break even.

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 also 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)