But we're already going to be building those batteries anyway: Electric cars.
What we need is a proper international standard for cars to be able to interact with the grid, to be able to charge and discharge based on grid conditions and pricing.
Its stupid to have everyone coming home from work at 6pm and plugging in their cars to charge right at the existing afternoon demand peak, when solar is waning. Just getting those cars to delay charging until around midnight (allowing user override) would shift a huge amount of peak demand.
Same concept if you don't use your car during the day - it should be able to discharge right into the morning and afternoon peaks, at your control. The user should be credited for this onto their car account.
It might even make sense to have dedicated high-voltage circuitry in houses and apartment blocks, to be used for EVs, solar, etc.
And we should really figure that out immediately since EV production is ramping up right now. We can't just rely on single automakers (Tesla) to work out these societal problems.
If we're going to try and ramp up battery production and technology, then in for a penny in for a pound. We should really decentralize the power grid enough to take the weight of these types of spikes, putting in batteries to the home (like the Tesla wall, but with more competition) and solar/wind/gravity generation to supplement grid power generation. It's a jobs program that's been needed and called for for the last few years anyway, and now seems the time... not that the governmental gridlock would ever let anything like that happen, or even a spending project for small equity home/apartments retrofitting would happen. Not to mention the raw materials needed for the batteries.
Most of us here in CA already start charging at midnight, because of time of use power incentives. However, after using an app that showed the carbon burden of my charging, I learned that charging at midnight means I’m using relatively dirty power sources - there’s no solar at night, and the wind typically dies down.
The greenest time to charge here in Northern CA is between 11AM and 1PM, when solar production is maximum.
"In a form of what is now considered illegal front running and self-dealing, a bucket shop holding a large position on a stock, and knowing a client's vulnerable margin, might sell the stock on the real stock exchange, causing the price on the ticker tape to momentarily move down enough to exhaust the client's margins. Through its opportunistic actions, the bucket shop thereby gains 100% of the client's investment.
The term bucket shop came to apply to other types of scams, some of which are still practiced. They were typically small store front operations that catered to the small investor, where speculators could bet on price fluctuations during market hours. However, no actual shares were bought or sold: all trading was between the bucket shop and its clients. The bucket shop made its profit from commissions, and also profited when share prices went against the client.
Bucket shops were made illegal after they were cited as a major contributor to the two stock market crashes in the early 1900s."
We still have widespread chip and computer shortages, and in some regions of the world electricity shortages, because of the amount of silicon and energy being wasted on mining.
EU internal borders are open, the external ones are not. It’s a bit like the USA in that regard, biggest difference is our versions of California and Louisiana have their own national languages.
That's basically a society without mass immigration - manual labour becomes more expensive, so educated people spend their time automating tasks and inventing and operating robots.
That is one of the many reasons I oppose mass immigration; a constant influx of new people makes it far, far more difficult for a single locality to figure out how best to reduce its own demand and come to a reasonably stable local identity, with an attached reasonable level of demand for goods and services.
> Do you also oppose people having more than 2 children?
Yeah, if you want to keep the aggregate demand of your society consistent, it makes sense to have fewer than 2 children. (I don't necessarily support government prevention people having more than two children, but a really self-aware group of humans wouldn't spawn uncontrollably.)
> At what point does "immigration" become "mass immigration"
The fact that you're asking me that question implies that my definition is drastically different than your definition. So- I think we can agree that if the entire population of Omaha, Nebraska (475,000) moved over the span of one month to Tahiti (280,000), that could be called "mass immigration", with disastrous consequences for the local culture, politics, ecosystem, etc. So, if you'd call that "mass immigration", which I think you'd be foolish not to, what about that makes it "mass immigration"? Whatever your definition is, it'll be different from mine.
> Whatever your definition is, it'll be different from mine.
It's not very helpful for you to say you oppose something if you are using a different definition of that thing than everyone else.
Of course I agree with you that doubling the population density of a complex society in a month would lead to negative effects, and you can use that as the threshold for classifying a situation as "mass immigration" if you want, but there's still a tautology there, as you're effectively saying you're against "too much immigration", which is true of just about everyone's position on immigration.
(I suppose some people might think that "too much immigration" cannot occur in practice, because any country that is desirable to immigrate to would have the resources to adapt quickly enough to people arriving at the rates that current transportation systems make possible).
To give a tighter upper bound, though, rather than considering the population of Omaha, let's look at the population of the whole of the US. In 2019 (so before the pandemic) the population growth rate was 0.60% per year, whereas in the past 70 years, the highest rate was 1.76% (in 1956).[0] So empirically I think we can say that the population growth rate could be almost triple what it is today without that growth rate itself being the cause of "disastrous consequences for the local culture, politics, ecosystem, etc.".
However, it is still possible that all of those aspects are negatively affected by the current population density, and that the "ideal" growth rate is negative. What all that means for immigration policy is a further step removed from the data available, but I hope that the above is helpful for thinking about these questions.
I can’t speak to the parent comment’s intent, but it’s becoming harder and harder to look like an innocent crypto whale. While some can prove that they originated their balance, what if the wallets used in certain transactions are (or must be) confiscatable, say at exploited tumblers?
This works great, until some nation state adversary wants to shut down the entire US infrastructure. Or even better some script kiddy decides that it would be fun to feel powerful
And they won't care about if companies pay ransome or not.
Treat the cause of the sickness, not the symptoms.
I think you'd just get a new category of bad guy--the one who charges you $500 to help you circumvent whatever legal restrictions are preventing you from paying your $10000 ransom.
Or I guess two new categories, because the victims are all criminals now too.
> Or I guess two new categories, because the victims are all criminals now too.
The victims won't become criminals because you'll never find a senior executive willing to go to prison to pay a ransomware ransom. And no, "pay someone to pay it" or "have a random low-level nobody pay someone to pay it" is not going to work. Judges/juries aren't that stupid and senior leadership typically know judges/juries aren't that stupid.
Criminalizing paying ransoms would work, and this particular "they'd just pay someone to pay the ransom" argument against criminalizing paying ransoms is beyond specious. Criminalizing paying has worked with other, much more serious types of ransoms. Why wouldn't it work here?
The parent comment is not about fiat->crypto, but the other way around. A similar effect to stronger kyc on someone suddenly inexplicably trying to pay for a yacht with crypto.
Why improve overall cyber security which is at completely garbage levels at most companies when you can blame crypto instead?
It just seems like the bill on security has come due and I recommend paying it. Otherwise you leave the economy open for much more serious attacks than asking a few million in crypto.
I have internal statistics that 80% of Switch game instances are in handheld mode.
Docked-only features like DLSS are unnecessary.
Even with DLSS, the CPU heavily limits performance anyway.
Indies are making so much money on Switch that there is a guaranteed pipeline of titles, plus Nintendo 1st-party, to keep the system relevant for about another 3 years, until hopefully we see a Switch 2 with much more powerful CPU and GPU (with basic raytracing), still 720p handheld, with maybe a standalone dock with a DLSS chip for 4k docked.
