bruce511

I guess I have two thoughts that spring to mind regarding this;

A) why?

B) they can't. Because XP is not like some notepad app someone wrote. Rather it is a collection of software, a lot of it owned by not-microsoft and licensed to them. And that's before we talk about the security implications to existing systems still running XP.

Thirdly, what possible benefit could they get for doing this? I can see plenty of down-sides, including some very large potential economic and legal downsides. But I can't think of an upside.

I've commented before on this, but I don't think it ever becomes financially viable.

Assuming all the physics are completely solved tomorrow;

Private capital can easily get better returns, not to mention sooner returns, doing pretty much anything else.

Public capital requires a very long-term govt spend spanning multiple governments. China could do it, but hard to see a western govt doing it. Plus it would add a decade to the schedule and costs would spiral upwards.

All of which is a huge bet against improvements in grid-level storage.

Personally I'm curious as to the economics of this to "just cruise less".

I get that "parking" a ship this size is expensive, but is it more expensive than sailing?

My initial thought is that since fuel has become untenable its better to spend (much) more time just parked somewhere. The article mentions sailing less, but doesn't seem to quantify that, or discuss mooring costs.

Or perhaps there are other reasons (visa etc) which limit stop-overs?

Generally I agree with you. I've said my bit, you disagreed, we move on. My goal is not to change your mind it's merely to offer a different point of view.

In some cases though the reply opens the door to a wider exploration. The poster may make a valid argument or might add nuance which is meaningful. I've found some dialogs offer me a different point of view and my position doesn't necessarily change, but understanding becomes deeper.

But yes, a lot of people's positions are tribal and buried too deep in psyche to be easily changed. Our positions on most things are not based on facts, or at best cherry-picking facts that support our view of the world.

The takeaway, as mentioned in the article, is that the system worked, there was no blackout.

A collection of things happened at the same time, including the weather, a lot of generating capacity offline for various reasons, lines to Ireland unavailable and so on. And yet despite all that, local blackouts (not a national system collapse) was averted.

But yes, anti-EV proponents will likely to to make hay from this.

Yes the incident occurred in the evening as demand increased, partly because demand increases in the evening snow partly because solar production (some part of which is invisible to the grid) goes offline in the evening.

Certainly there are lessons to be learned here. Better planning, more contingencies and so on. Removing solar isn't helpful (that would just move the problem to earlier in the day.)

Incidentally east-west transmission is a key factor in solving this problem. The extra power came from France where possibly evening demand had started to drop etc. Connections to the West would bring in solar still generating excess. Those countries with good east-west coverage will be least impacted but the evening demand issue.

Was going to say a similar thing.

Raising VC money makes VC the customer. Like any business you then need to know your customer, including their needs, wants and goals.

If you are looking to build a profitable business with some other kind of customer then VC is not for you. Rather you need to tailor your business to that customer.

Most disappointment comes from seeing the VC as a partner rather than a customer. That is not their model. Rather they are a customer looking for suppliers who will deliver a very specific product to them. Most of their suppliers (95%+) will go broke trying to supply them. But some will succeed. A few suppliers will get very rich.

Since you are starting a business you get to decide who your customers are and see if you want to take the risk providing what they want.

Speed. 290km/h is pretty quick by maritime standards.

And comfort. With a 1.5m swell, you're gonna feel that in a boat. A hydrofoil will still go up and down.

Whereas a ground-effect vehicle is still flying, so a lot smoother.

>> Planes didn't replace ships. Ships travel was always for the rich

Not really :) - My parents traveled by ship between the UK and South Africa in the 70's. And they certainly weren't in the "rich" category, and it wasn't a "holiday cruise", it was "how to get from here to there".

>> Cars replaced horses.

Exactly my point. There was a huge industry around horses (stabling, grooming, farriers, vets, cleaning the streets etc) and all that went away. Yes there were new industries (mechanics, panel-beaters etc), and that's the point. Change happened, and people adapted...

Ahh, the angst of the replaced. The lament of every profession squashed since the industrial revolution.

Funny, I don't remember this wailing when every other industry was destroyed. When cars replaced horses, planes replaced ships, computers replaced typists, phones replaced travel agents.

But replace the programmers? Woe is us, the end of humanity is here. How do we save ourselves from the machines?

Backed by military force? Because that's always ended well right?

You're suggesting that Canada bomb US data centers? Or that the US bombs one in China? Or that Germany bombs one in Poland? I mean, what could possibly go wrong with that idea?

Oh that's hilarious:).

The US can't agree within themselves on pretty much anything. They actively trash global co-operation on, well, everything. Their politics is driven by money, and specifically money from AI owners (aka Musk).

And once the US has figured out what the bounds should be, you expect the other 190 countries to just fall in line? Like, um, why?

What exactly are "high penalties " you have in mind? Trade? Military action? Kidnapping leaders? The US has done all those in the last 12 months and achieved precisely nothing.

If this is the "best path" you can come up with, then, well, you may as well lobby for fairies and unicorns.

What will happen to humans? Well, nothing. We'll carry on just fine as before.

The world has changed many times already. The industrial revolution changes humanity away from agriculture (95% of people then, 2% today). The transport revolution (first ships, then planes) improves trade and makes countries interdependent.

Medicine has transformed life expectancy in less than 100 years. The human population has exploded since ww2. The dystopia imagined in the 50s was "4 billion people".

The arrival of the computer transformed offices within a couple decades. Secretary, Filing Clerk, Typist et al are all jobs considered good when my mom grew up. All gone forever.

Phones move the needle as well. Travel Agents become a tiny niche (to name just 1 profession.)

I get that when it's your job being threatened it feels existential. But many, many jobs have become obsolete in my lifetime, and in the lifetime before mine.

So to answer your question, humanity will do just fine. This is just another step on a long road, and it won't be the last.

Your real question of course is "what will happen to you?" And that depends on where you are.

If you are in the US its likely your standard of living will drop. The US is currently in late-stage-empire, and some correction is inevitable. But drop doesn't mean crater. You'll all be just fine.

The rest of the world will likely improve. Some places (like Europe) are post-empire and have reached a (mostly) stable equilibrium. Asia has seen enormous improvements, and will likely continue to do so.

South America and Africa have so much opportunity for growth and will like progress into powerhouses.

I'm not worried. We'll be just fine, and likely better than before.

No, 20% is not sufficient to power the home. I'm still attached to the grid and use grid power even solar is too low.

>> 1MW of solar produces 1MW in years 1 through 20.

I agree with your post, but the above statement is not technically accurate.

Panels do drop in production over time; A very rough rule-of-thumb is around 1% loss per year.

So after 20 years production is at like 80%. (Ymmv)

Of course this isn't really a big deal. The panels themselves are cheap and can be replaced very easily. Equally there is a market for 2nd hand panels as they still produce, and are ideal for places that are not space constrained.

Depends on the cloud. Where I live I routinely get 50% generation on a "cloudy" day.

On a rainy day that drops closer to 20%.

As an aside - cloudy days avoid a problem I have with shade. In winter, at 3:30pm, the sun goes behind a tree and my production plummets to near zero. If there's cloud cover the sunlight is far more dispersed and there's no "shade".