> Unfortunately, pg said downvoting for disagreement is perfectly acceptable, so it's probably not going away
Even Homer nods. Pg blew that one. He said:
I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement.
Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it
seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness.
If the down arrows merely did the opposite of the up arrows on comments, and so moved the comment farther down the page, then he'd have a good point. However, as soon as a comment goes non-positive (which will happen if the very first person to vote on it votes down), the color is changed to make it harder to read, and the more it goes down, the harder it gets to read.
If down votes are used for mere expression of disagreement, this means that if a topic is at all controversial it only takes a bit of bad luck to have your comment seen first by a few people who disagree, and then it is so sunk that people can't read it, and the people who would have up voted and brought it back to visibility never see it.
When I read HN on mobile, sometimes I cannot follow the conversation on controversial but interesting topics because so many of the comments are greyed out. When I get back to my desktop (where I override the HN stylesheet to mark those comments in a different way that doesn't make them hard to read), I invariably find that a large fraction of the greyed out comments were well written and valuable contributions to the discussion.
Because of that, several times I've refrained from participating in threads that I thought were going to be controversial.
Downvotes are overloaded. Disagreement is just one of their modes. The overall purpose is to keep HN from being worse. It's an editorial tool for strategic protection of the commons not absolute valuation of each comment.
His parole office didn't like the idea of his wife emailing work files for him... I don't think they would be accepting of this. Ultimately it's up to his parole officer (and even if he were to fight it, a victory might just mean dealing with a pissed off parole officer for the rest of his time on parole).
> While both rural and city racoons readily approached familiar containers, they dealt differently with unfamiliar ones. Where rural raccoons took a long time to approach novel containers, city raccoons would attack them the moment she turned her back.
I wonder if part of this could be due to differences between city and rural attitudes toward killing cute animals?
In cities, we tend to try to deal with a raccoon getting into our stuff by replacing the container with something harder for the raccoon to open, or moving it somewhere else. We try to stop the animal without harming it, even if this inconveniences us. If it is particularly troublesome, we try to trap it without harming it, and relocate it. It takes a lot to get us to go all the way to the kill it option.
In rural areas, we are much more likely to go straight from "there's a raccoon messing with my stuff" to "kill it".
I'm sure you didn't mean to, but that comment comes across as an easy stereotype that sees city-dwellers as respecters of nature and rural people as killers.
The other thing is, my own anecdotal experience contrasts with your own anecdotal experience. (For what that's worth, which isn't much, I admit.)
I've lived in big cities almost all my life and people around me have killed or otherwise sought to harm raccoons on numerous occasions. They're thought of as pest, and in cities, pests abound unless you do drastic things. I've heard raccoons killed outside my window, I've seen bunnies dead from being fed rat poison, etc. In big cities. There's the pests angle, but there's also a fear of animals that seems to be associated with a lack of familiarity with and experience around animals that rural settings are more conducive to having.
By contrast, the years I spent living in rural places I encountered much more sensible attitudes towards things like raccoons. I found that people who live somewhere that leaves one more aware of one's place in nature have more respect for it.
Of course, there were numerous exceptions to both dynamics. And again, just my experience, but I think the notion that city-dwellers are somehow friendlier to nature is a too-easy misconception that's fueled mostly by the us-vs.-them narrative that's being pushed on us by politicians and the media alike. Country-dwellers hate nature! City-dwellers love nature! It's just too easy, too lacking nuance.
And then there's the whole problem to get around of cities being the most subdued nature there is: pouring concrete and asphalt over a large piece of nature and then claiming some kind of moral authority is a difficult concept for me. Manhattan used to be populated by the Lenape...
I know that per-capita you could make a strong case that cities have lower impact per capita, but something about that just doesn't feel sufficient to me.
I wasn't thinking that city people are respecters of nature or rural people hate nature. It's more a consequence of what kind of activities take place in cities vs. rural areas.
For instance, rural raccoons are far more likely than city raccoons to have people in their territory that are keeping chickens for meat and/or eggs. This gives rural raccoons an opportunity to do more damage than their city cousins, and so also increases the chances they will draw a severe response.
Rural people also have more options for lethal force. Raccoons have been bothering your chickens? Go out the next night with your shotgun and blow the raccoons away. Try that in a city to deal with a raccoon trying to get into your recycle bin and you are likely to soon have far bigger problems than the raccoons.
Cities are also more likely to require permits or licenses to kill or trap an animal.
Isn't Hawaii a special case because of its isolation?
If so many people install solar in Southern California or Arizona that the local utility has more power coming in during the day than it can use or store, it can sell the excess via the national grid to someplace that can use it.
As far as I've been able to determine from the internet, there is no connection between Hawaii power grids and the mainland. In fact, it looks like the grids of each island might be isolated from the others.
Exactly. None of the islands grids are connected. I worked for a power plant on the big island a few years ago and even then there was a big issue with too much power during the day and not enough at night. Coupling that with the intermittent wind power and you have a very hard grid to maintain.
NextEra (the energy company that recently bought HECO) is looking to do just this. A Sept. 2013 report by them estimates a capital cost of approximately $600 million for a 200 MW cable connect between Maui and Oahu. (source page 8 of )
This is the low end of the scale with other estimates ranging from $553 Million to $1.24 Billion (page 9).
Note that this does not connect the Big Island to the grid either.
The preliminary proposed route can be seen on page 84 of the report.
No, it does not say that. It says that you should not be compelled to feed your kid. If you read the passage in context, you'll find Rothbard is explicit that you cannot kill the kid, nor stop the kid from leaving if the kid is not happy with the support you are providing.
Of course as a practical matter, if the kid is young enough, or you live sufficiently far from other people, the kid cannot exercise its right to leave, and so effectively you can kill it by not providing food.