There are enough panels available to do both and there is no overlap in financing for both. So just do every installation that is economically viable, they don't compete for money or panels.
Comparable, I guess. But the result is a lot worse compared to Sonnet for sure. Parts of the example code doesn't make much sense. Meanwhile Sonnet seems to have the latest API of Bevy considered, and mostly makes sense.
How expensive is it to not build a single-purpose building like an office or housing condo in the first place, but a true multipurpose building that can do both well with manageable retooling costs?
Multipurpose anything tends to not work out well. Different use cases have different requirements. Specialization is everywhere, both in nature and in human creations.
Some of that is lost due to regulatory 70% limits during peak times.
Also the rated capacity is for some synthetic sun conditions. I have no idea what's the conversion factor between ideal sun in Germany and the PV rating sun.
Then there is the fact that many installations are explicitly using small converters, not all installations face the same way (east-west setups are a big thing for farms and other large scale setups). I live right next to Germany and getting 80% of your installed capacity is considered optimal.
Increased social equality and mobility, happiness index, etc. are a free bonus I hear, so I guess one could generally recommend that. Depends a bit on where you're coming from, Norway/Switzerland/Iceland are also not EU for example.
I like Jetbrains. And this is one of the nice things about their license. I subscribe and feel that it’s a worthwhile cost as they constantly add new features and improve features/address bugs frequently. But having the option to stop my subscription and still having continued access is a nice bonus.
20x? No. But I paid way more than the annual subscription cost ($40/yr) for a perpetual license of plex pass ($120 for life), so in general, yes.
This was also the case for everybody who had bought a perpetual license for Adobe products and then did not subscribe to them when they switched to a subscription model.
I think a more reasonable multiple would be 5x. The problem you'll run into is that people who complain want the cheap subscription price and perpetual access.
I'm not sure that twenty times the yearly price would look like a reasonable price, but if it's software I actually want, I might agree. I would weigh that price against the functionality of the software, ignoring whether there is a subscription model. As I said, I'm not beyond paying a three-digit sum for software I like (and Mathematica is the first example that came to mind, but not the only one).
Only the provider of that service can provide that, and not even completely.
Third parties promising it would still be at the whim of the original provider. If they shut down the service, what would that third party do to fulfill their promise to you?
What we need is open, documented protocols for internet-connected hardware and escrow for pure internet services, with a guarantee to open source if the original provider shuts down their servers.
The latter will be difficult to enforce. The service provider could, instead of shutting down the service, just raise prices to something above absurd, and then shut down once all customers are gone.
I doubt many would actually use it because complainers on HN aren’t average users, and the number of months you’d have to prepay would likely be quite high to actually make it make sense for the businesses involved.
But still, if you could make a business reselling monthly subs as 1-off purchases, it would be pretty dang cool!
The control group is needed to measure process properties / systematic error.
It does not need to be a placebo group. Previous data at the same hospital does not help because the regular medicine does not run according to study protocols.
reply