Lightning is a great example of noise causing amplitude changes and not frequency changes. That’s why during a thunderstorm am radio plays each strike between the station and you. The is usually not any indication of lightning strikes on FM.
I’m going on 7 years with my iMac Pro now and it’s still more than enough for my uses. (Audio recording/production) I am hoping to get 3 more years out of it if possible. We’ll see if Apple lets that happen.
I’m not Left Wing. I’m certainly not right wing. However the latest trend for the Kamala campaign has in my case decided to follow the technical details of stop but not the intended scenario. I got a text message from the campaign fundraiser and clicked stop. Next day same time. Same first 6 digits different last 4. I hate politics. I’m not going to vote based off of a text.
I had an original iPhone and did not get such statements. As I recall while Cingular was indeed not ready to handle unlimited data for customers, it wasn’t really a problem for the first iPhone since it wasn’t 3g. Once the 3g dropped , it was a problem since people were actually able to consume a large amount of data.
I was directly hit by Beryl, and just got power back today. For us, the issue was trees taking out the power lines. We live on acreage with a lot of pecan trees, and lost 4 of them in the storm. 2 of them toppled over on the power line. I personally don't think that Centerpoint has done a bad job here, Houston is a large land mass and there is no way that you can get everyone back online with as much wind damage as we sustained much quicker than what happened. This storm was so much different than Harvey, which was a flood event. We did have some flooding but nowhere near that level with Beryl. Really, its just one of those situations that just sucks, and there isnt a whole lot you can really do about it.
Ie. If power lines at one end of the street get felled by a tree, power just comes from the other end of the street instead.
High voltage distribution lines can be done the same - every transformer getting fed from at least 2 places.
Obviously with many lines down, such a system might leave everyone with power, but total power deliverable is still lower. For that, you need smart metering that integrates with consumers distribution boards such that at times of stress on the power network, less important loads are turned off by default (ie. Pool heaters), whilst lighting and fridges stay on.
Nowhere in the US does that for consumers yet I don't think.
> Ie. If power lines at one end of the street get felled by a tree, power just comes from the other end of the street instead.
That would imply a live wire under a tree. Not a good idea.
> Nowhere in the US does that for consumers yet I don't think.
Tons of places do that, in exchange for a lower rate you install a box that lets the utility shut off your AC when demand is very high. It's available in almost all states last time I checked.
Why don’t they keep up with the trees? Other places with trees they will use chainsaws from helicopters and regular mowing to maintain the transmission lines. In neighborhoods they cut very generous Vs in trees that are close to wires.
The only potential danger of said technology is that it may be confused as something trusted, but as shown above, trust is a fundamentally flawed concept. Which means that if danger actually arises, it was self-inflicted.
While I get the sentiment, things have a way of working out. Maybe he is actually the best person to do it...no one knows who the best person for an undefined situation will be.
Does it matter if the person is the best or if people think they are? Even our government is led by people that think the person is the best for the role even if they really are not. Why would anyone care about this particular company when that's their view on the gov't?
I would submit that if we care about outcomes then it matters if someone is the best suited for the role.
There will always be subjectivity, and “the best” is going to be at least partly defined in terms of who is available. Nevertheless we could insist upon certain standards. Not being a pathological liar, a sociopath, deeply conflicted or self-interested, and so on, seem like good starting positions.
I’m not arguing that we live in a reality that reflects this, of course. Just that it would be nice to.
The definition of survivorship bias because you literally are alive to say this.
Tens of millions have been killed by CEOs of tobacco companies, and that's just one industry. Energy companies will likely cause the death of billions.
We got rid of many dangerous American oligarchs in the Gilded Age by using govt to break them up. Things don't "just work out," people sacrifice huge amounts of time and energy to fix them.
didn‘t the “tens of millions” of humans who died have any agency? And by definition, aren’t “energy companies” helping fix the problem of “energy poverty” which increases human welfare?
In both cases, the agency of individuals was undermined by regulatory capture and the publishing of false studies (despite having real studies that the companies buried).
For decades, people didn't even know it was dangerous to smoke or have lead in gasoline or burn fossil fuels because the information was systematically suppressed by the producers of those products.
Came here to say this. I was genuinely interested in reading this page, but the blue-on-gray promptly gave me a legitimate headache. I cannot understand the person who thinks this is OK.
That's my go-to the moment any kind of pop-up or overlay appears, or if the site seems to be interfering with scrolling. If reader mode doesn't work (it's disabled on some sites) I move on.
reply