Michigan lawmakers approved a slate of bills Wednesday night that are set to transform the energy systems at the heart of America’s heavy industry, putting the major manufacturing state on a course to generate all its electricity from carbon-free sources within just 17 years....
The Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) students drove the SUV, which doubles as a small campervan, from Tangier in northern Morocco across dry riverbeds, steep mountain passes, and loose sand before arriving at the Sahara desert three days later....
Yes, my point is that you can’t travel 1,000km in the Netherlands. While it’s somewhat facetious, I’m still valid in stating that the country is quite small.
I took a holiday to Eindhoven once, and wanted to give a gift to a friend from Amsterdam. He sent a mate on his bicycle to meet me. That wouldn’t be practicable in many other countries, even if they had the same cycling infrastructure.
That doesn’t detract from the success of the range of this vehicle, I’m just saying that it’s funny and excessive for the Netherlands. But really, that excess is only a good thing.
It does annoy me that basically countries are giving their surpless weapons to Ukraine, only to buy new weapons for themselves. It’s still growing the weapons industry, which is keen to encourage war across the globe, as that leads to money.
Meanwhile Ukraine are receiving weapons not as donations, but bilateral aid agreements. This means that Ukraine is expected to pay them back some day. In reality, Ukraine will likely never be able to pay them back (and even if they can they will be left financially destitute either way) so all that’s going to happen is the debt will be written off. So current governments can fiddle their books and say “yes, we’ve got a deficit, but we’re going to get so much money back in the future!!” only for that debt to be written off. But hey, that’s a future government’s problem.
The same threat actor has leaked larger amounts of data from LinkedIn dated 2023. They claim this new data contains 35M lines and is 12 GB uncompressed....
Nope, at one point I created a LinkedIn account and my email address immediately started getting spam.
I use unique emails for things. Technically, the emails don’t even exist, but I have a rule that any email that doesn’t exist will be forwarded to my actual account. So the made up email I used for LinkedIn was unique and had only ever been typed into the LinkedIn service.
I’ve been doing this for a while, and generally most things don’t seem to lose your email. There have been a few that were probably compromised, they were safe for a while then one day they were lost - this is more likely a malicious actor accessing the website’s database. However LinkedIn is one of only 2 websites I’ve signed up for that have instantly resulted in spam - the other was a porn website.
LinkedIn have always been shady as fuck. When they first started out, they convinced everyone to input their email login details. LinkedIn would then access your email account and send emails to all your contacts asking them to join - all coming directly from your email address, not theirs. That was how LinkedIn built its market share. Back in the MSN Messenger days, LinkedIn emails were pretty notorious, but also everyone was pretty carefree online. They were perhaps one of the first services to demonstrate that you really should be careful what you share online, even if it is a “legitimate” service. Not everyone learned that lesson.
The compromised email thing happend some time after the MSN Messenger days, and I admit that I was one of those gullible baffoons who fell for the login thing initially (I’ve had 3 LinkedIn accounts, my first, then the second which was unique but instantly spammed, then my current). I think the porn website was more or less around the same time as well, so it is possible that LinkedIn was compromised as well as the porn site, such that anyone who signed up for either service (and maybe some others) would instantly get added to a spam list - not by the service but by the malicious infection. However, it certainly would fit their MO for LinkedIn to just sell email addresses directly.
Nowadays, I do get emails to my current LinkedIn account email that clearly should not have been shared. These tend to be more focused on the industry I work in, instead of generic spam. Recruiters almost always contact me via messages.
Don’t give LinkedIn any more information than you have to. In particular, I would encourage users to share their CV’s off platform.
and said that they would have done more if possible.
This there is the MO I was talking about.
I can’t conclusively say whether or not LinkedIn intentionally sold my email, or whether they were just infected at the time. However, I feel like the former is at least as feasible, and even if it was the latter it’s still reprehensible of them to be so lax in their security. Like I say, I’ve only experienced 2 websites that did that, and I’ve made up countless emails going on for years before then.
Damning in what way? It’s already certain that they were guilty. The rantings and ravings from 3 select pages of a journal don’t really do any credit to anything.
A court has ordered that it not be published, pending litigation. The places that have published it have done so on very dubious legal grounds.
Free speech has limits - you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre - and free press has similar limits. The public interest should be first and foremost, not ratings or clicks.
I’m telling you with a straight face that it doesn’t matter whether they were left or right, they’re still full of shit.
Maybe, in an academic setting, it might have value to analyse their writings. So we can study how they devolved into madness. Such a study will come much later - but reactionary bullshit like this really isn’t beneficial.
I mean, the whole story when it broke was massively over-exaggerated. “A trans person went on a school shooting, OMG TRANS PEOPLE ARE EVIL!” was the narrative. That’s not rational, that’s just sensationalism. This leak isn’t about serving the public good, it’s about stoking more of the same sensationalism.
Gun crime in all forms is bad. Focus on the gun crime, don’t idolise the villains.
In any case, by the law, it was not supposed to be released yet. People sued to have it released, it shouldn’t be released until after those lawsuits are resolved. Furthermore, the reason it was ordered not to be released was for the benefit of the families of children who went to the school.
Also, calling it a “manifesto” is such bullshit. It’s 3 select pages of a journal full of mind vomit rants. That’s not a manifesto, which is something far more coherent and fully fleshed out.
It fundamentally is not media bias or suppression. The court has ordered that the documents not be released, pending litigation. The leak itself is illegitimate - the publication of the leak is maybe not.
The reason for it not being released is detailed in court documents. It’s not a permanent decision, just one pending the outcome of litigation that has already been filed.
Now, maybe reddit is being dodgy, but at the same time they do have a legal argument to follow that judgment. Publishing the illegitimate leak is itself dubious. That’s why it was done on Musk’s X platform, the place circling the drain due to debt from a leveraged buyout, where right wing extermists can freely experiment with what they can get away with.
I’ll say it again, even in spite of the court order, publishing the journal serves no real public interest. I challenge you to explain how publishing it right now does.
School shootings are not about left wing or right wing. It’s about people whose lives are fucked up wanting to fuck other people up before they leave this world. If you stepped out of the US right wing bubble you might see that there is plenty of opportunity for a much brighter world. Instead, you seem to be focused on saying “See! Other people do it too!” rather than addressing the core problem of people doing it in the first place.
This shooting happened 8 months ago. The shooter has been dead for 8 months. It’s been known that they were trans for 8 months, it’s been known that they were left wing for 8 months, it’s been known that they were extreme for 8 months. 8 months later, this is story is a storm in a teacup, one that has been exaggerated and does not give the full context. This isn’t a manifesto, it’s 3 pages curated out of a ranting journal.
If the shooter were right wing, it would still be just as likely that the court would restrict the release of the journal, on behalf of the children still attending the school, pending litigation.
You shouldn’t just shut up after identifying yourself either, you should explicitly state that you are exercising your 5th amendment rights and then shut up. Talking afterwards can be taken as rescinding your 5th amendment assertion.
Famously, a judge once ruled that saying “Yo, I want a lawyer, dawg” was actually not a 5th amendment assertion, and that the suspect was genuinely requesting a dog who practices law.
Yes, I would be one of them. However that still doesn’t mean what I’ve said isn’t generally best practice, even in areas where it’s not fully required per case law. At the initial interaction with police, you should identify yourself, then clearly say you cannot answer questions without first getting legal advice. Then shut up and don’t answer questions.
Although, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, other jurisdictions may have more extensive requirements for what you must say, so shutting up isn’t necessarily the best advice everywhere, all the time. There’s also subtle differences between the right to silence and rights against self-incrimination.
In the UK, which first started using right to silence in the 17th century (and then spread its law over much of the rest of the world), inferences can be made from silence. No conviction can be wholly based on silence, but it can be the wrong move. In some situations, eg fraud and terrorism, the right to silence is reduced and you may be obligated to answer. In these circumstances you cannot legally remain silent, but you are still protected against self-incrimination.
Absolutely, however the right to silence is not universal. There are circumstances in some jurisdictions where you can be compelled to say things. In such cases the things you say cannot be used in evidence against you (right against self-incrimination) but they can still lead to evidence that can be used.
Even the US has a bit of this, for example you can be compelled to give over a password. To draw an example, if you were investigated for robbery and had the password “IRobPeople”, then the password couldn’t be used in evidence against you but any evidence they find when using the password could.
Maybe I should’ve added in that it was specifically referring to the US in my first comment, but I also wanted to use it as an example to show that there is some significant nuance and depth to the subject.
In any case, most of the world does understand US terminology in some manner. For example, the Philippines courts referenced “so-called Miranda rights” when establishing their law.
You can just say “I’m choosing to invoke my right to not answer questions at this time” and as a bonus, that works everywhere that has such a right, including the United States ¯_(ツ)_/¯
That’s exactly what I did in the comment you just replied to:
At the initial interaction with police, you should identify yourself, then clearly say you cannot answer questions without first getting legal advice. Then shut up and don’t answer questions.
But that doesn’t include the story about the lawyer dog, which seemed relevant to this post with a dog giving legal advice.
Lol you think I hadn’t already checked that during this discussion? I don’t need to go to hexbear to see it, lemm.ee is still federated so it shows up in my local modlog. What’s weird is that my ban on lemmy.ml doesn’t for some reason, it looks like a bug where it didn’t federate through properly - the comments shown as removed on the lemmy.ml modlog are still there on lemm.ee.
here’s one of your removed comments:
mod Removed Comment Actually Palestinians started the violence. They fought a war, they lost. That doesn’t excuse anything Israel has done, but credit where credit is due. Hamas are not freedom fighters, that isn’t their goal. Their goal is to eradicate anyone that doesn’t share their beliefs. Freedom for the people of Palestine and peace in the region, but the likes of Hamas and Netanyahu can suck a bag of each others’ virgin dicks. by [email protected]
So what exactly in that is genocide apologia? Just because I’m criticising Palestinian attacks gone past does not mean I support Israel’s response in any way. The comment literally finishes with me criticising both sides - ie, implying that all genocide is wrong.
the reason you were site banned was because you were having a meltdown over getting a comm ban for your genocide apologia (lmao)
It wasn’t a meltdown, the message I sent was very tame - sarcastically thanking him for getting me banned. Feel free to dig it up, it was posted on Chapo. You’d struggle to call it “malding” - but then, that’s what you’re all about isn’t it? Slapping a bullshit label that really doesn’t fit, then arguing against that label. It’s a form of scarecrow argument, one that is completely transparent when you actually look at it.
Yes, that was shitty of me. It was a sarcastic comment against someone else (hence the :P), who also had their comments removed because they were behaving worse. But on Uplifting News, my comment really wasn’t appropriate regardless. I deserved to have those comments removed as well as the brief temporary ban there. That was good moderation.
However that has nothing to do with hexbear or anything we’re talking about here.
Focusing specifically on the comment I had removed from hexbear (quoted above), and the message I sent which led to the site ban (you can find that on Chapo from around that time), how was I being an asshole? How was my comment “genocide apologia” and how was I “malding” in the message?
I don’t think you can actually back that up with any sound reasoning. Hence, the moderators at hexbear are shit, which makes the place a dumster fire.
I didn’t “both side” the genocide - that would be saying that both sides are justified in committing genocide. I’m saying anyone who commits genocide is wrong. Meanwhile, there are a bunch of people caught up in the middle of it all. You would apparently dehumanise one portion of these people, because you value the other portion more. That is reprehensible.
In any case, we’re not talking about my justification, we’re talking about hexbear moderators’ justification - of which there apparently is none. Thus, my point stands: hexbear is a dumpster fire; and that implies that hexbear devotees are trashy.
There is an active genocide happening, and I wish Israel would stop.
That doesn’t mean I agree with the coordinated strike by Hamas on 7 October. Frankly, I don’t think any reasonable person could see that as achieving any useful objective for the safety of Palestinian people. It was highly effective at killing Israelis, but the net result could only have been more suffering for Palestine.
There’s definitely no easy solution - if there was the problem would have been solved by now. All anyone can say is that what’s happening now is wrong. Meanwhile, there are many people profiting from the situation. Warmongers gotta monger some war.
My view is that Netanyahu wants to benefit from war, and that Hamas have been encouraged by people who want the same. 50 years isn’t all that long ago to most people, but hardly anyone in Palestine is old enough to remember the last Yom Kippur war.
Imagine if Hamas had only targeted military installations in their attack, allowing almost everyone at the festival to flee and not raiding villages. Their incursion was incredibly effective - they could still have used drones to take out cell phone towers and prove that Netanyahu’s early warning system was deeply flawed, and sniped the skeleton crew in the guard towers, then they could have focused their efforts on infrastructure damage to the military base or other legitimate targets. Hell, they probably even could have still taken a few hostages to use for actual negotiations - and in this scenario negotiations would be far more realistic to happen.
Exercising restraint would have presented a far better underdog for the world to get behind. It would have clearly shown that Israel’s defence was weak. Instead, they allowed themselves to be riled up by their financial backers and went on a killing spree, putting the focus squarely on them, not Israel. Most people don’t even know how they did it, just what they did when they got in, because what they did was so shocking. This played right into the hands of people who just wanted an excuse to expend some ordnance and kill them all.
There is a simple solution, but it would either require Israel to stop being an ethnostate or stop existing
It’s simple to say that, but the practical application of doing that is anything but simple.
The history is far more complicated than that. Israel wasn’t really born out of a desire to ethnically cleanse Palestine, it was born out of a desire for a Zionist homeland and for independence from the British. Immediately afterwards, literally the following day, the Arab nations attacked.
Furthermore, Palestine was never really a country over the last 500 years, not until 1988. It was a region in the Ottoman empire, then it was under British control, then it was proposed to be split such that a nation of Israel and a nation of Palestine could be established - however Palestinians rejected this multiple times. Even in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence they didn’t really define their territory, saying “The State of Palestine is the state of Palestinians wherever they may be” but referencing the UN Partition Plan.
By all accounts, when Israel was established in 1948 they wanted their own territory in the region as partitioned by Britain/the UN, they didn’t want control over the entire region. It was only after successive fighting between Israel and Palestine that Israel developed the attitude they display today.
Whether or not Zionists, Israel, the British or the UN were right in pushing for the formation of an Israeli state is another matter, but the Israel we have now is a direct result of the wars that were fought, wars that Israel won each time. This is markedly different from colonialism, where one nation rules over another but then later grants independence and goes back to ruling its own territory - Israel do not have any other territory to go back to. Palestine taking an “all or nothing” position, as they have over the last 70 years, just isn’t a workable solution as it puts Israel in the same boat.
The first casualties after the adoption of Resolution 181(II) were passengers on a Jewish bus near Kfar Sirkin on 30 November, after an eight-man gang from Jaffa ambushed the bus killing five and wounding others.
But you can always go back a little further with this stuff, it’s been going back and forth seemingly forever:
This was stated to be a retaliation for the Shubaki family assassination, the killing of five Palestinian Arabs by Lehi near Herzliya, ten days’ prior to the incident.
In any case, a more accurate assessment of the civil war before the birth of Israel is that it was a bloody tit for tat:
From January onward, operations became increasingly militarized. In all the mixed zones where both communities lived, particularly Jerusalem and Haifa, increasingly violent attacks, riots, reprisals and counter-reprisals followed each other. Isolated shootings evolved into all-out battles. Attacks against traffic, for instance, turned into ambushes as one bloody attack led to another.
The UN proposed 2 separate nations, this satisfied the Palestinian Jews, but not the Palestinian Arabs. Palestinian Arabs fought a civil war against the Jewish Palestinians, they lost. Israel was formed. Arab nations got together and fought a war against Israel, and they lost again. Then again in the War of Attrition. And again in the 1st Yom Kippur War. Once more in the Lebanon War. It doesn’t look like Palestinians have the upper hand in this Yom Kippur War, either.
Why should the party who keeps starting wars and keeps losing them get complete control of the region?
A one-state solution might be the ideal outcome, but there’s no way of that happening with either side taking over. It would have to be the dissolution of both state governments alongside the cooperative formation of a new government. With the back and forth conflict that’s always been happening, there’s just no way this can happen right now. The two sides need to separate themselves, stop fighting, then maybe some time a long way in the future they can come together.
Production and consumption are two different things. We need more green hydrogen production (currently at 0.1% of all hydrogen production), and we need to heavily tax black and brown hydrogen to balance the environmental cost against the low price of dirty production.
With hydrogen consumption, we already have a significant demand for scientific and other uses that have no alternative. This currently relies on black and brown hydrogen, but will eventually need to be fulfilled by green hydrogen. If we throw anything and everything that could use hydrogen on top of that, then we’ll be using fossil fuels for even longer while we build enough renewable generation capacity for it all to be provided by green hydrogen.
Also, the vast majority use scenarios proposed for hydrogen could be fulfilled directly by electricity at a much greater overall efficiency. Maybe hydrogen would be cheaper right now, while it’s all produced by petrochemicals, but when you factor in the cost of green hydrogen the long term projections simply do not work.
Do you think Maersk is designing ammonia powered ships for nothing?
I think Maersk is designing ammonia powered ships because they’re not far removed from conventional ICE’s, which they’re already proficient in. They’re less concerned with what is the best solution overall, but which is the most profitable to them right now.
We do have another option: electric vehicles. Looking at cars, a hydrogen fuel cell car uses 3.2x as much energy and costs over 5.4x as much per mile driven vs electric. The cost difference is huge, one that no one can ignore. If people can’t stand the charge times, then we’ll start swapping out batteries - this has already been proven successful in some Asian countries with scooters.
Aircraft is another matter, as current batteries are too heavy, but even then hydrogen is worse than conventional combustible fuels. Pending significant advances in battery technology, we’ll probably use biofuels. It would be more efficient to convert hydrogen and CO2 to e-fuels than to use hydrogen directly - airlines prioritise efficiency.
We can easily build renewable technology (I’ve spent the last 7 years building windfarms) but the issue is speed. We need to get off fossil fuels now, or failing that as quickly as possible.
It’s not that we need 3x our current capacity, it’s that we need 3x our current capacity just foressentialhydrogen, on top of all the rest of the capacity that renewables have yet to meet. Bear in mind, when a country claims to have “100% of their demand met by their renewable generation” there’s a lot of statisical fiddling involved, where they ignore that they still generate a significant amount through fossil fuels and that they are net exporters to other countries. We have a long way to go to meet even our current electrical demand with renewables, let alone any extra.
Energy storage with hydrogen is not easy. It’s hard, and even if it’s perfect it is still woefully inefficient. Batteries are the best long term bet there, however it’s still a very new sector in the energy market, so it has a ways to go. Elevated water storage is another good one, but the installation costs are pretty high (though not as high as nuclear).
Overall, our current goal should be to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The best way to do that is to go hard on current renewable technology, over all else. This includes sidelining nuclear, as it takes a long time to build nuclear and we’ll use more fossil fuels waiting for it than we would subsidising renewables when they’re not available. Nuclear also takes finite funding away from renewables, where it would be more effective.
Similarly, hydrogren detracts from these efforts, as it pushes the bar that renewables have to meet even higher. A large growth in hydrogen consumption, beyond that which genuinely requires hydrogen, will only prolong our reliance on fossil fuels.
The claims of most commercial industries should not be trusted. I prefer academic sources, or at least those that are more energy agnostic.
Battery swapping will explode the logistical and resource requirements of BEVs. It makes the problem even worse.
I’m sure people said the same about gas stations.
Airplanes will probably use some combo of e-fuels or LH₂[^1] setup.
[^1]: Dammit, for a moment there I thought you’d done some funky new markdown code to write “LH₂”. But I bet you didn’t know about the citation function that lemmy has - which apparently even works out of order (check the comment source).
I disagree with the latter part of that. I’m sure LH₂ will be tried, and it might temporarily prove effective under current conditions (with cheap, untaxed black and brown hydrogen) but as soon as you start trying to fulfill that with green hydrogen it just won’t be efficient enough.
Who knows though. Hydrogen right now is mainly a byproduct, so maybe there is some scope for that excess cheap hydrogen to be used in the short to medium term.
Renewable energy is leading to vast curtailment and excess production.
That is exactly what we should be aiming for. It might be slightly less commercially palatable for renewable generation businesses to be running at curtailment, but what we need right now is to build a large excess of renewable generation. The wind is always blowing somewhere, and (during the day, when most power is used) the sun still shines through the clouds.
Extrapolating from the latest UK National Grid’s Future Energy Scenarios report[^2], we need to focus on building an excess of renewable generation as quickly as possible to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Once we have the excess, we can pad out our generation portfolio with nuclear. Then, when the nuclear is ready to start generating, there is every likelihood that demand will have grown to the point that our excess renewable generation will have become the current requirement.
The report[^2] does include significant use of hydrogen, but that is focused on heating and high energy applications. Transportation is a ridiculously large sector that does not benefit from the inefficiencies of hydrogen.
Large scale storage of hydrogen is done with natural occurring salt caverns. These cost far less than just about anything else ever conceived.
That’s a new thing to me, I’ll have to read up on that. I’d appreciate any sources you could offer.
My blind guess is that it is similar to elevated water storage in feasibility, though. In particular, investors might not be interested in developing the technology.
Again, if the goal is to phase fossil fuels, you would go hard in favor of green hydrogen, alongside many other ideas. You would not oppose any green energy ideas.
I’m all for green hydrogen production. The issue I take is with the reckless expansion of hydrogen consumption. More specifically, I feel that many people who work with hydrogen are too keen to expand the consumption market, because doing so benefits their industry commercially.
Edit: Damn, just saw you’re on kbin, which doesn’t have the citation function. If you click the 3 dots and select “copy url to fediverse” you can see what I see, or alternatively click here.
Edit2: I just realised that we’re commenting on an article about hydrogen heating, and that coincides with my main source saying that hydrogen heating should be developed. Maybe I should give the article and its heating technology more leeway. Nonetheless, I remain firm that hydrogen in transportation is not really a viable solution, all things considered.
How far way is that city land? When a house has a natural gas explosion, it takes out the house. When you have a hydrogen explosion it potentially could take out the block.
All mains connected solar has an inverter. Hell, most wind is part or fully converted, to smooth out the raw waveform, and thus is inverter driven.
Where I’m from your “interlock switch” would be called “island mode”. It can be a thing, but distribution network operators have a legal obligation to maintain supply (or else they face harsh financial penalties) and as such they are reluctant to allow even the possibility of unintentional backfeed to their network, especially when they need to work quickly to keep supplies up. Safely regulating every single household is just too burdensome, not without extensive modification that no one wants to pay for.
A lot of those “agnostic” sources are secretly working for the BEV companies.
The kind of agnostic sources I was referring to are like the one I provided - system operators, who don’t really care what provides the generation or what uses it, but instead try to optimise the network.
Yes, there is misinformation out there. Just like your claim that FCEV’s are more efficient - they’re more efficient at the end stage of converting a fuel into motion, but the overall process including hydrogen production and getting the fuel cell ready to use is far, far less efficient. It’s more efficient to pull oil out the ground, process it and then run a car on it than it is to run an FCEV. Spinning up renewable generation to charge a battery requires more energy than using current oil infrastructure, but is definitely more efficient than FCEV, even when accounting for the production and lifecycle of a current battery. Oil only wins on efficiency right now because the infrastructure is already there, and because the fuel was made over millions of years prior.
Yes, it would be cheaper to adapt current gas stations to hydrogen. My point was referring to the time before gas stations were built - back then, it would have been cheaper to stick with horses than to move to widespread adoption of the new technology. Models for adapting current gas stations to hydrogen also typically ignore the cost of green hydrogen, and instead assume it will continue to be as cheap as it is now while it is produced by fossil fuel processes.
Hydrogen is cheap right now because it is a byproduct of dirty fuel production. If we stop using dirty fuel, we will stop having cheap hydrogen, and then all the people who invested in hydrogen because it was cheap will be left holding the bag. This is why I referred to it as “snake oil” in my initial comment.
I realised you were on kbin, hence my edits :o) I did also contradict myself, but clarified my objection to hydrogen consumption. The edits probably didn’t make it through to kbin that quickly, but they seem to be there now.
Excess green energy will likely flood the system. We will have an overabundance of all types of green energy, including hydrogen, in the long-run.
That’s wild speculation, there. We need to focus on the big problem right now, not the long-run. Right now, we need to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible - trying to ease the transition with similar technologies (particularly ones focused on a byproduct of and reliant on current technology) will only slow things down by furthering demand for the existing infrastructure.
Thank you for the link, however pv-mag is a source I am very skeptical of. They’re very focused on the growth of their industry, and generally give a marketeer’s approach to things rather than an objective technical view. Hell, the first source link in that article is supposed to be about the Jülich Institute for Energy and Climate Research, but instead links to another one of their own articles that has little if anything to due with the institute or the topic of your article. pv-mag spew a lot of hyperbole, in my experience.
The source paper isn’t so bad, though, and has been widely cited. I remain skeptical about the commercial viability of it (in particular, they seem to give no consideration to the risk of explosion when filling a cavern with hydrogen), but it still sounds like a cool technology.
Lol you caught me out, I skimmed over most of the article. I’ve also realised later down the thread that one of my main sources actually includes hydrogen for heating as a viable use case.
I still stand by my claim that most hydrogen consumption proposals are snake oil, which would be better served by using electricity directly (particularly in transport), but perhaps this could be good.
Grid forming typically refers to inverters connected to a large electricity network. What you’re talking about is islanding, ie running a system separate to the grid when it would normally be grid following. The principles are similar, in that both involve using internal voltage measurements to control the generation output (rather than externally chasing the grid voltage), but the practical nature is different - grid forming systems have to deal with large fluctuations from the network, well beyond what you would see in a domestic system. The terminologies overlap a lot, but grid forming specifically refers to large scale systems and more complicated networks.
Link? If it wasn’t the US Supreme Court, then the ruling is significantly limited. And even if it was, that only applies to the US. Beyond that, we’d be getting into the nitty gritty of copyright law in specific jurisdictions - so far we’ve been talking about overall principles of copyright and intellectual property.
Twitter’s current terms seem very clear on the matter:
You retain ownership and rights to any of your Content you post or share, and you provide us with a broad, royalty-free license to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.
You own the content, Twitter has a licence. They also provide no definition for “Content”, so it can easily be argued that the username is content, as it is provided by the user.
Twitter can update their policy as much as they like, but it would ultimately be decided in the courts. Until then nothing is certain, but David doesn’t always lose to Goliath, and courts don’t like it when a big player is clearly taking advantage of the little guy. $50,000 value would definitely be considered.
More likely though there probably will be no legal battle. Twitter is circling the drain, by the time anything is heard in court they’ll be gone. However that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to do things like this with no objections.
[News] Steam Deck OLED review: Includes specs on new screen and other improvements (www.polygon.com)
This is the best coverage of the new Deck that I’ve seen yet....
"If you've got a boss, join a union. If you're a student, start an underground paper. If you're an anarchist, throw a brick. If you're a soldier or a cop, follow your conscience, not your orders." (www.loudersound.com)
Tom Morello’s brilliant speech at Rock Hall induction for Rage Against the Machine...
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s 100% Clean Energy Bills Pass (www.huffpost.com)
Michigan lawmakers approved a slate of bills Wednesday night that are set to transform the energy systems at the heart of America’s heavy industry, putting the major manufacturing state on a course to generate all its electricity from carbon-free sources within just 17 years....
Dutch solar EV completes 1,000km test drive through the desert (thenextweb.com)
The Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) students drove the SUV, which doubles as a small campervan, from Tangier in northern Morocco across dry riverbeds, steep mountain passes, and loose sand before arriving at the Sahara desert three days later....
Back of the fridge supplies (lemmy.world)
DOJ announces arrests in ‘high-end brothel network’ used by elected officials, military officers and others (www.cnn.com)
Facebook Finally Puts a Price on Privacy: It’s $10 a Month (www.wired.com)
LinkedIn user data leaked: Database shows emails, profile data, phones, full names, and more confidential info. (lemmy.world)
The same threat actor has leaked larger amounts of data from LinkedIn dated 2023. They claim this new data contains 35M lines and is 12 GB uncompressed....
What is this story Reddit is censoring? (www.reddit.com)
See the link for details. What story are these people talking about?
Rule The Police (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
the girl you like (snake.substantialplumbing.repair)
Star Trek pip guide (lemmy.world)
I need Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
Solar energy storage breakthrough could make European households self-sufficient (sifted.eu)
Elon Musk’s X Has Started Selling Off Old Twitter Handles For Upwards Of $50,000 (www.msn.com)