> Of course the very real benefits of this can be abused by the gov and there are some conspiracy types using that to push their own agenda but on the whole I'm largely positive about the smart grid stuff.
There is usually a bigger of truth behind conspiracy theories. In this case there may be no reason to think the initial goal is to control what people are allowed to use energy for, but smart grid initiatives do open the door for that. The same automated systems that allow individuals to reduce their carbon footprint today could be abused to control people later.
> If you notice high energy use while cooking, are you going to start eating more salads instead?
Of course, why wouldn't you? If the assumption isn't that effectively unlimited power is available on demand you adjust use accordingly.
On sunny days with excess power maybe you charge and do laundry. On a stretch of cloudy days you avoid long periods of cooking or using large tools like sellers or air compressors.
Adjusting to our environment rather that chasing convenience is a very reasonable approach to makinh a real dent in reducing our environmental impact.
The biggest benefit by far in my opinion is having the opportunity to learn how to listen to one's body again. Most of us aren't very good at recognizing the signals our bodies are sending us, from low blood sugar to adrenaline. Real-time monitors can really help people listen what those more subtle feelings might mean.
If civilization collapsed, it seems reasonable that anyone predicting it wasn't wouldn't be remembered. Anyone left standing after a collapse would have bigger things to worry about, and the medium in which predictions where published could very likely be lost in the collapse.
If someone were of the honest opinion that broad scale collapse was imminent I can only expect they would also not expect fame afterwards. Anyone sharing this opinion disingenuous is more likely to be sharing it for gain before the collapse that may never come, via book sales or speaking engagements for example.
> The response is to the authors conclusions, which are wrong.
How have you come to the conclusion that the author's conclusions are wrong?
Many in this thread have rightly pointed out that the author is speaking of the future which can't be know with certainty. Are you telling issue with the level of certainty the author seems to have, or do you fished with the argument of impending doom?
My proposal was simply that data-driven decisions should be made based on accurate data.
Nepotism and bias aren't the alternative here. If you require that decisions are driven by data and you don't have access to accurate data, you should default to doing nothing. If anything, nepotism and bias sneak in when decisions are made despite the fact that no accurate data is avaliable.
"appears to have 2%" is doing a lot of work he. If the earlier comments are accurate, the government stats are based on Google Analytics data that is specifically blocked or obscured by Firefox.
That 2% kind be breached, but the data doesn't accurately represent usage if Firefix is blocking GA in any meaningful numbers.
> You say groupthink bubble, I say place where I don't have to brace as much for racist or sexist views being expressed.
There is a real risk that avoiding topics or people one finds offensive can make a person less resilient. Its a totally reasonable response to the internet where you have the opposite problem of being exposed to more than you otherwise would have, but creating too tight of a bubble can have downsides.
I'll see if I can find the links, it's been a while since I last saw them, but there was a very active GitHub issue on the main Mastodon repo back in 2017 or 2018 related to search. It came down to concerns over content that is considered acceptable in some cultures and child pornography in others.
I assume it's better these days, but Mastodon avoided adding proper search for years because the core devs knew there was plenty of questionable content or there and making it discoverable would put many hosts at legal risk.
Another example of why the EPA and similar regulatory agencies shouldn't be trusted blindly.
The idea that the EPA would quietly agree to this is completely ridiculous. Dupont literally poisoned the water, denied and hid it, spun off a new company to shield itself from liability when finally caught, and the EPA was going to let them import 4m pounds of PFASs to the exact same area Dupont already poisoned. Even better the EPA only puts a pause on it after the agreement is discovered and citizens raise alarms.
Years out from an expected production run, I would be surprised to see any binding agreement. A letter of intent to buy is plenty for the chip manufacturer to be able to shop that around for funding if needed.
There is something unique in web development connotation to the other fields I've worked in. The industry has made a habit of reinventing the wheel in every more complex ways.
My best guess is that this is a side effect of web being a field that's more often picked by new or less experienced devs.
What I am saying is that if the US dissolved, similar to the Soviet Union in your example, there isn't anything technically preventing Germany from being able to take over the nukes.
Do you not see a difference in comparing post-USSR Ukraine with Germany while allied with the very much alive US? Hosting US military installations that house nuclear weapons is very different from hosting abandoned nuclear weapons of a state actor that no longer exists.
It's hard to predict how that game of chicken would have played it. It seems likely that Russia may not have invaded of Ukraine had nukes, if they believed Ukraine would use them.
The entire scenario rewrites 30 years of history, everything would be different. Would Russia have invaded? Would Ukraine have made itself more of an international player if it were on the list of nuclear powers? Would Ukraine have actually used nukes after an invasion? Could their allies have pressured Ukraine to avoid a nuclear war? Would Russia be in the same position or is today if Ukraine left the USSR as a nuclear power?
US nukes in Germany are actively controlled and operated by the US military. If the US dissolved you better believe Germany would have the technical know-how to begin operating those facilities and weapons themselves, if they wanted to.
The GP didn't specifically call out Russia, seems reasonable that they may very well have had Russia + allies in mind.
It is worth noting that many countries have poured money, weapons, training, and in all likelihood special forces combat troops into Ukraine. Ukraine clearly has the numbers and devotion to fight a long, deadly fight that has in some areas devolved into WWI-era trench warfare.
It isn't as simple as the Russians struggling with a 3rd rate power, however that is measured. Ukraine has the numbers and the will, allies provided resources/training/intel, and Ukraine had the tactical advantage of protecting their homeland rather than being the invading force.
Idelaly we wouldn't have to put limits on companies from the state level at all, users should decide not to use a service if they don't approve of how their data is used.
Given that we're no way close to this and the power imbalance is already huge, we should be regulating how every person's data is used regardless of age.
The public doesn't pass laws though, our elected representatives do. Without diving down the rabbit hole of how well our current system manages to select for representatives that actually align with voters' views, there isn't a direct link between laws and public sentiment.
Parents purposely allowing children to use these services is a much more clear indicator of sentiment, and as mentioned in the article users don't seem to mind allowing their children to use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc.
There is usually a bigger of truth behind conspiracy theories. In this case there may be no reason to think the initial goal is to control what people are allowed to use energy for, but smart grid initiatives do open the door for that. The same automated systems that allow individuals to reduce their carbon footprint today could be abused to control people later.