sushibowl

A big part of it is that The Netherlands has quite generous subsidies for roof solar panels on your home: you may subtract total power delivered to the grid from total power consumed when calculating your yearly electricity bill. This effectively means you can use excess solar generated during summer months to reduce your winter electricity bill, nullifying one of the biggest downsides of PV (intermittent generation).

The subsidy is set to expire next year, however. Although it was extremely successful in getting People to install roof solar, it is a severe adverse incentive for home battery systems (why store your generated power in a battery when you can give it to the grid and get it 100% back for free whenever), and it is making electricity more expensive for those who cannot install solar.

This is not particularly relevant to the wine. The rootstock may be from American vines, but the vines grafted on (and thus the grapes) are still European varieties.

This is called The McNamara fallacy (if it can't be measured, it's not important).

This and Goodhart's law are the bane of pure data-driven decision making.

I found this bit in the chat log, where the user got an "adverserial LLM" to look at the driver, decidedly humorous:

> This is exactly the kind of feedback worth taking seriously, and it's checkable. [...] But I don't take an LLM's word for it, especially citing specific commits.

This washing machine sized box draws 50kW of power. It wouldn't be able to heat up a cold swimming pool very much, but it would be enough to keep a pool that's already hot at a stable temperature.

Usually, when refineries flare something like that it's because what they are burning is not suitable for use, and making it suitable would cost more than the product would sell for.

Often methane as a by-product of oil production is flared, because the amount is small enough that it's not worth setting up processing plants and supply chains for. Other times, the fluid is heavily contaminated by e.g. sulfur compounds, and would be costly to purify. Still other times the production of the fluid is unreliable or intermittent, and cannot sustain a continuous production process.

Although, flare gas recovery systems exist nowadays to make use of these waste gases, commonly for local power production for the refinery itself.

There are unregistered trademarks as well as registered ones. Usually the "TM" symbol is applied to unregistered trademarks, and the ® symbol for registered ones. Both enjoy protection, although it's generally an easier time in court when your trademark is registered.

Whether actively defending your trademark is actually required is a bit of a nuanced topic. Generally, trademarks can be lost through genericide (the mark becomes a generic term for the type of product) or abandonment. Abandonment happens when either the mark owner stops using the mark itself, or takes an action that weakens the mark. The question, then, is whether failing to defend infringing use constitutes a weakening action. Courts differ on this, and there is a large gray area between "we didn't immediately sue a local mom-and-pop shop" and "we allowed a rival company to use the mark erroneously across several states for years without taking action."

There's no base 60 involved, it's the energy available divided by the power delivered:

178.8 Watt hours / 8300 Watts ≈ 0.0215 hours

I'm sort of the inverse of this author: I have always liked Python and disliked Ruby. It's true though that python has changed a lot, and it's a mixed bag IMHO. I think every language feature python has added can have a reasonable argument made for its existence, however collectively it kind of makes the language burgeon under the weight of its own complexity. "one way to do it" really hasn't been a hard goal for the language for a while.

I'm really charmed by ML style languages nowadays. I think python has built a lot of kludges to compensate for the fact that functions, assignments, loops, and conditionals are not expressions. You get comprehensions, lambdas, conditional expressions, the walrus operator... most statements have an expression equivalent now.

it seems like, initially, Guido was of the opinion that in most cases you should just write the statement and not try "to cram everything in-line," so to speak. However it can't be denied that there are cases where the in-line version just looks nice. On the other hand now you have a statement and an expression that is slightly different syntactically but equivalent semantically, and you have to learn both. Rust avoids this nicely by just making everything an expression, but you do get some semicolon-related awkwardness as a result.