Panzer04

36000 tons... doesn't actually sound like that much? That's a ~30x30m cube of dirt.

But I have no reference for the cost of setting up such a storage and how it compares to battery or hydro.

It's not quite as bad as that, since you don't consume fossil fuel resources when plants aren't running, but this is mostly a benefit for oil/gas plants, not coal (since the coal is likely useless without the power plant consumer anyway)

I hate these glib comments that don't remotely reflect reality.

Go look at the goods people got in countries that didn't practice capitalism. They were worse in almost every way, more expensive if you could get them and often the things people wanted were completely unavailable because there was no market incentive informing production.

In my experience, this sort of comment is usually followed up by some personal preference of the commenter. Great. I don't want the same thing, so I guess something has to mediate the resource allocation and effort of society towards providing that want/need at a certain quality/price.. and guess how we do that?

Opus is way slower in firefox on my machine than the other two.

What are you doing that necessitates so much code?

Even if you can write a lot of code with LLMs, what is that code actually doing?

I bet it was a bulleted list before they fed it into an AI.

I don't understand why some people feel the need to turn a few hundred words if concise description into thousands via LLM.

Same burdensome provision issue? Forcing everyone outside of Utah to do something just in case they're from Utah.

Well, you can extract all the value created using your tools and inventions, because then no one would have any incentive to use them to create value.

They try to get around this by charging you more after you've invested in your tools, but even then you can only go so far (though it's astonishing how far the big guys have managed to get regardless)

I don't think I really agree.

If anything, the core job of most software is to reliably and repeatedly do the thing a user wants. Bugs outside eof that are OK, but a software that doesn't Do The Thing is useless.

LLMs increasing bug density in exchange for more features is likely a terrible tradeoff for most software people use IMO.

Nuclear is actively negative-value too, because it discourages investment when people know that government-subsidised competition is coming.

There was a brief and glorious time before September 2025 where DDR5 was actually pretty comparable.

Even really good DDR5 could be had for cheap; I remember paying like 300$ for 96GB of high-quality M-die hynix DDR5.

Easy to imagine practices where the primary owner is going to retire and looking for an out.

Maybe they find a buyer in a doctor, maybe they don't, but PE provides them an exit that keeps the practice operating in the community.

Many people don't really run businesses efficiently. There was an interesting video I saw recently where a sole doctor practice made a few changes to their workflow that allowed them to hire more doctors and handle 2x as many people - I would expect a PE firm would pursue similar changes that help increase the number of people they can service, increasing competitiveness and lowering prices in the long run.

I don't know how these tradeoffs interact with patient care, but I wouldn't inherently expect PE to be worse at this than any other operating model.

If you don't own the land and can't demonstrate a direct, severe impact to you and yours from the actions of someone else, you shouldn't have a say.

"More traffic" is not sufficient. I can actually sort of believe shade from an apartment building could count, but the impression I get is that is rarely a good-faith argument (and in any case it should only severely affect a few people in any new development, so you could easily justify just compensating them in some way rather than outright blocking a development.

For a laymen, I don't follow this.

Are you proving for some arbitrary definition of == that isn't what we commonly consider the definition? How is it logically coherent? You mean only in the sense that you say it is and you haven't provided any rules to disprove it?

Thank you for this take.

It's like giving people excessive discretion. Then if you're someone they don't like (eg. a black person if you're racist), then you deal out a maximalist punishment. If they're someone you do like, you let them off and tell them not to do it again.

Policy like this is just corruption. It allows some people to exercise more rights than others, at the expense of the commons.