This is a video of a huge class 5 phone switch being set up in someone's garage - something not captured in the title. The video does show exactly how big this thing actually is, though. The components in the later generations of this switch are surprisingly modern for what they are, and they continue to be used in the public network to this day.
I wish more people would realize that lithium battery production is still pretty nasty, especially in countries like China with minimal environmental regulations. Not to mention the electrical grid will take some significant investment (hopefully in renewable energy sources for this huge transition to make any sense) to be ready to accommodate such a huge increase in consumption.
A dependency on fossil fuels isn't a good thing, certainly not to the extent that we've developed, but I really don't think the answer is as clear cut as everybody treats it to be.
The comparable here is oil extraction. I have never seen any evidence that oil extraction is better for the environment than lithium mining.
The grid will require significant investment no matter what at this point. Many parts are nearing the end of their useful lifespan, being built more than 50 years ago. Renewables and electrified transport definitely add to it, but people are trying to pin the entire cost on those things which is just wrong.
It is very comparable in the realm of automobiles. A tank full of gas and a battery full of electrons provide the energy it takes move your car. Oil must be extracted, refined into gas, transported to a local station, and then stored in your gas tank. Even with no renewables on the grid, converting fossil fuels to electricity is more efficient than gas. Except that every year the grid shifts to more renewables.
Bottom line batteries/electricity generation do less ecological damage today than gas/gas tanks, and every year the gap will increase.
> Even if we convert the grid to 100% renewables and get rid of fossil fuels, we will still need to mine for battery materials.
But we'll no longer need to extract and burn fossil fuels, which is where the vast majority of the environmental benefit comes from. You can't say "Aside from the main overwhelming benefit, it doesn't look so good"!
> But we'll no longer need to extract and burn fossil fuels, which is where the vast majority of the environmental benefit comes from.
You're conflating different things. Battery production does not mean we will automatically get 100% clean energy. Gasoline in cars accounts for like 15% of the US's fossil fuel usage.
Again, batteries are energy storage. Not energy production.
This idea that batteries --> clean energy --> All negatives of batteries must be ignored is disingenuous and wrong.
This shouldn't come as a surprise to you, but people advocating for the use of EVs to solve emissions problems are almost universally also arguing for lower emission sources of grid power, like solar/wind. The two go together like ducks and water.
Yeah, and they adopt batteries with all the same emotional attachment and they have for green energy. They consider a discussion of the problems with current battery tech as an attack on green energy itself.
The nice thing about battery EVs is that 95% of what's there is completely indifferent to the kind of battery used. The charging infrastructure can remain exactly the same. Even the battery management system can be tweaked to handle the charge rates and thermal characteristics of almost any chemistry. Lithium isn't the only option. Anything that gets us away from combustion-based/pumped-fuel designs, which lack this flexibility, is a good thing.
Circuit switched landline service is still very much alive. It isn't and hasn't been electromechanical for a very long time, but it's non-packetized in a very large part of the US, provided you actually get a service that legally qualifies as a landline (voip is unregulated).
With the way wiretapping laws work and the bus operator not being a party in any of the conversations they surveil, I wonder if it's legal to be recording peoples' voices here.
I think that public transport would count as a public place. My understanding is that wiretap laws and laws on recording focus primarily on private conversations.
In Baltimore, wiretap laws only apply where there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' (https://cite.case.law/a3d/197/27/#p685) per Fourth Amendment standards (which would suggest that any recordings made in a public place would be lawful).
California is a bit more complex—Penal Code 632 talks only about the confidentiality of the discussion. It would be possible to have a confidential discussion in a public place, however, 632 c) specifically excludes circumstances 'in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded'. It's therefore likely that a simple sign saying 'recording in progress' or something similar would be adequate.
> In Baltimore, wiretap laws only apply where there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' (https://cite.case.law/a3d/197/27/#p685) per Fourth Amendment standards (which would suggest that any recordings made in a public place would be lawful).
It is absolutely insane that not assuming a computerized private investigator is following your every step and listening to your every word as soon as you step through your front door is considered 'unreasonable'.
> It's therefore likely that a simple sign saying 'recording in progress' or something similar would be adequate.
It's even more insane that a simple "conversations may be recorded" sticker is all it takes to nullify the 4th Amendment in public.
I get what you're saying, but I keep trying to bend my head around it and my thoughts end up going down one of two separate tracks here and I end up not reaching a conclusion:
1. The bus is a public space - in which case, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in public (which is well established), and therefore recording should be both legal and protected under the First Amendment.
2. The bus is a private space open to the public - in which case, the owner or the operator of the private space should have the right to record on his/her/their property.
Honestly though, whatever the legal arguments, it FEELS wrong.
1. You're using "no privacy" to mean both "overheard by the grandma in the next row" and "recorded by a centralized mass surveillance system to be analyzed and correlated with the millions of other data points it has on your and your social circle, wholly subservient to the ever-changing will of the state".
So are the courts. By some twisted logic, they concluded that because you can't expect that a random passer-by hears you, you have no reasonable expectation that everywhere in public isn't infested with microphones and cameras uploading everything to intelligence agencies or corporate headquarters.
2. We should be careful, as ever more spaces are becoming "private, open to the public". Perhaps most notably the parks in Wall Street. Soon we may have to travel out of city bounds for any meaningful privacy, if that isn't already the case.
These laws vary wildly by state... And posting notices in many states work to avoid these issues.
So are they legal? Mostly. Yes. But depends where you live and what steps are taken to inform the riders ... But they likely would not record without lawyers saying they are safe to do so.
I can't even read the original article anyway because they keep giving me a page saying they detected unusual activity from my IP. I've tried pressing and holding their captcha button to no avail and this is just another reason why these paywalled sites suck. Thank you for the mirror!
I'd love to know what, in his view, creates the inevitability that Democracies die (or become autocratic) during times of war. Is it because the state becomes more aggressive/potentially overreaching in order to combat an enemy, never releases that power, and citizens either absolutely hate it or go along with it?
While I don't support the war on Ukraine, it's fascinating to hear this guy's perspective. Especially if Russians are largely choosing to support the war as recent articles are saying, it can only help us to understand why people would embrace it.
Agreed. VoLTE is VoIP anyway, so there's not a lot of drawbacks relative to changing out a circuit switched landline. I believe at least in the US as well, STIR/Shaken is being implemented on circuit switched networks.
https://www.telnetbbsguide.com/bbs/connection/dial-up/