qball

>but I still have the same amount of money and no way to get it out other than selling the house.

Then you sell the house and move somewhere cheaper, as is normal in any place that doesn't let you externalize "I can't afford the cost of living no more".

Hope you didn't ban housing developments to keep prices high, or fail to ensure economic diversity in different areas instead of outsourcing everything, or you'd be in some real trouble.

Section 1 is literally just "ignore everything below this section".

If they're not absolute, they're not rights. It's a feel-good document that protects jack shit.

Well, not really.

Methane is basically just hydrogen gas, but with one carbon for every 4 hydrogens. This means you can do stuff like liquefy it at higher temperatures and lower pressures, and it doesn't diffuse out of materials or otherwise destroy the materials (or seals) it's stored by.

>with the only advantage being that you can store more energy per unit volume at large scales.

In a vacuum, maybe; in real life, absolutely not. Hydrogen that is stabilized by a sufficient number of associated carbon atoms can be stored in plastic containers at standard temperature and pressure; naturally, we use the fuel that has just enough carbons that, while nominally a liquid, but would really rather be a vapor.

Because that stabilizer is part of that reaction, the best one from a CO2 perspective is the one that has as little of that stabilizer as possible. Which is what methane is.

>outside of war

What was this murder, if not a one-woman civil war?

>Do you want your neighbors to be able to kill you?

My neighbors are always inherently capable of starting that one-man civil war with me, even when locked inside institutions specifically meant to prevent that.

Indeed, the law in the country we're talking about is very explicit about being able to own the tools to wage that civil war as a direct consequence of this fact.

Hiding from that reality has never worked for any other group; why do you think it's going to work for you?

Smaller node size means less voltage.

Power is heat, and the amount dissipated is the square of the voltage- a processor that is reliable at less voltage means you can get a lot more frequency in the same heat envelope.

Yet reliability decreases as frequency goes up, and that can only be stabilized by adding more voltage- so the faster you run the processor, the more voltage you ultimately have to give it, so the power/heat produced grows exponentially until you can't get rid of the heat fast enough (at which point your only option is to actively cool the chip).

This is overclocking 101.

Note that classic overclocking was viable because of arbitrage- buying a processor, pushing it to the point it got too hot, and stress-testing it at that temperature to ensure reliable operation. Processor manufacturers all do that formal verification at the factory now as they'd be uncompetitive otherwise, especially in laptops.

>Except it makes no sense because it asserts the primacy of reality over the private politics of the companies training the models

That is exactly what normal human beings want our computers to do, and it's why the vast majority of AI safety initiatives are [correctly] seen as such a self-serving joke (because of the purposeful conflation of X-risk with "our political opponent could use this tool to destroy our politics") and ignored.

It didn't have to be this way- they could conceivably have gone for an objective, classically liberal, even-handed approach (rather than the progressive approach they settled on). But they didn't, and the social trust required to cry wolf is now spent... even though maybe it shouldn't have been.

The high performing economies that didn't make it illegal to build are high performing because of that.

This is why the highest standard of living on the planet, with the highest GDP over the largest population... is in Texas.

The fact the people there aren't pathologically conservative/authoritarian in the "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" sense is the precise reason why that is.

Perhaps, but remember that people have taken cues from their most-used battery-powered device. In this case, their phone (or laptop).

A degraded battery in these devices leads to things like random power-offs or dropping to 1% randomly (the display does not correct itself as it assumes it's safer to round down), particularly when it's cold. When it shuts itself down, it clearly displays that it has power remaining, but the device communicates that it thinks it knows better than you.

It is this bad software (and bad hardware) in these computing devices that ultimately what has led to EVs- new and especially used- being a tough sell far before the first one was ever released. The technology has proven fundamentally untrustworthy in low-stakes applications; why should it now be trusted in high-stakes applications?

(The answer so far has been "give them an utterly ridiculous horsepower figure", which did work, but it turns out normal cars can do that pretty easily too, and they're cheaper.)

Which is why "just build your own infrastructure" is never a good faith argument.

Your child is more at risk of being abducted by the State than some random stranger.

That's why they don't go outside. You can teach them to run from the panel vans; teaching them to run from the police (who were called by some Karen) is much more difficult.

Sounds like you had a pretty lame childhood to me, and in the 30 years since it's only become worse.

Much like panda bears in captivity, it is unusually difficult to give a human being a life that resembles what it evolved for, which mostly involves convincing other humans to back off the safetyism a little.

What dignity can be found in the life of the modern child?

>while cotton underpants will vary in fiber content

So can old shirts, those are bigger and harder to bury straight up and down, and have no identifying marks (underwear does have the rubber, which acts as a skeleton and frame of reference for what you're actually looking at; cotton squares don't).

Sure, the data might be slightly noisier, but right now they have no data. And that's even worse.

Because cotton underwear is arguably the right answer:

"Buy this item made out of this material, bury two of them in the ground" requires no further cutting or measuring, and most people would have to go to the store to buy a cut of cotton fabric anyway.

This particular clothing item also contains a more resistant skeleton of fibers against which to compare when the test material is heavily decomposed. This is how the "10 point decomposition scale" functions, and a single cotton square would not facilitate that.

Finally, it's novel, which entices potential participants to complete the survey.

>the broader country

Not really, though. Despite what even a good chunk of Canadians (or yourself) might think, the country doesn't end at Toronto.

If the government wasn't worried about the effects, they wouldn't be in any hurry to approve the infrastructure projects; they've been in the works for a very long time, stalled out. Urban Easterners claim to believe the planet will explode if they're built, and the governments they elect act accordingly, but it's really just a power thing.

Additionally, I'd advise you to not think you know better than the people that actually live here.

>The Carney administration is on much firmer political ground

I don't think so. Time really isn't on Carney's side either.

Carney's new tariffs fall on those who, in aggregate, did not vote for him. The average Carney voter has been very vocal about wanting to pursue this tactic- that's why they elected him. (That average voter is an Eastern retiree whose holdings are generally in real estate, so they don't care about any other economic sector beyond that which keeps their property values high, especially compared to the feel-good Elbows Up stuff.)

But Carney's currently having trouble just keeping the country together at this point. That's why he's approving projects he really doesn't want to approve out West, like those oil pipelines, because the West has credibly signaled that that they might just ban Carney and his Eastern voting block from making law and collecting tax from them if development of their part of the country is hindered any further. But if it's not hindered, they'll grow in political power, which is also an inherent threat to Ottawa's power (just not immediately).

And yet here Carney is- for the second time now- imposing more economic roadblocks that drive up consumer prices and put more people out of work for no reason other than his voting block wanting it that way. "Just retaliate" might be the least bad option for Carney to pander to that voting block, but every concession to them drives the country closer to separation, and that has time pressure too.