They've been directional drilling for what looks like a lot of new pipe. I'm guessing this is an outright replacement program that leaves the old pipe in the ground, so they would have to do all the utility locate you describe.
That seems high considering the local gas utility has been replacing gas lines in the neighborhood (largely built in the mid-50s), and I would imagine that active work on natural gas lines is more complicated than laying fiber -- ie, you can't disrupt gas service and you're dealing with a flammable and potentially explosive gas.
I would imagine that the equipment side of a fiber rollout would have a lot of costs as you would have all the expensive networking gear to deal with, but the actual directional drilling part wouldn't be as complex as a live natural gas distribution system.
Cooler heads? Kennedy blockaded Cuba, a direct military threat to the Soviet Union.
I think interdependence is a bigger reason it wouldn't happen. The major nuclear powers in the 1960s were largely self-sustaining, and wiping part of the map wouldn't have had much an impact. At worst we may have had some dependencies on third world countries for raw materials in some of the same sectors we had in WW II, like rubber
Now? Even a six month major disruption in economic activity would bring even the US to its knees as we can't make much of what we need at home, and its probably worse elsewhere. The US has the know-how (probably) to jump-start its manufacturing base given a 3-5 year strategic commitment to investment, but we would need to operate at WW II levels of rationing and economic intervention.
There's also the question of elite status -- the elites are in a powerful position in terms of economic status and political power, there's no telling what even a limited nuclear exchange would do to them. A handful may become more powerful, but it seems more likely that a large number would lose their status forever, either due to the economic disruption or due to outright nationalization of assets and the promotion of national security/military interests.
I'm pretty sure nuclear plants aren't run by just one guy who logs in when he gets a pager message and then hits the "shut down plant" button.
There's an entire staff and it would take spoofing all of them and making the on site people not believe the actual plant control systems to take an action that would be "wrong".
I don't think a global nuclear was is likely. I think it's more likely that a small state actor that has nuclear weapons ends up getting hit in a pre-emptive or punitive strike for credibly threatening or actually using one against the US or Russia in a single strike.
Should that happen, it seems unlikely that a major nuclear power would risk some kind of retaliation what would surely end up mutual destruction.
I also doubt that any small state actor, no matter how apparently crazy, would try to do so because you just can't fight and win a nuclear war with Russia, China or the US. The Iranians or the North Koreans simply lack the ability to hit a major player hard enough to prevent an overwhelming retaliatory strike that would be the end of the regime and knock back the country's development by at least 500 years.
If we didn't have a nuclear war in the early 1960s, we aren't having one now.
Isn't an "associate" by which I assume "business associate" of a talent agency watching a movie kind of something Warner wants to happen? Like they want industry visibility of their product, especially to talent agencies?
Isn't it also fair to assume that among industry insiders "off the books" copies of films have been around forever and are widely circulated? I'd guess old timers have significant libraries of 35mm and 16mm prints which were never paid for and some of which may have been made in labs for nothing more than the cost of film and developing.
Unless the talent agency was actively allowing people not associated with the agency to download these films, I'm kind of wondering what Warner is so wound up about. There's literally nothing happening here that hasn't gone on forever, especially since the VHS era.
While I'm sure some finance guy at Warner feels like his numbers would work out better if he could somehow include revenue from every time a film biz insider looked at a Warner film, I'm also guessing that filmmakers making money off of people involved in the filmmaking business isn't exactly what you'd call a business model.
"We're just thrilled. We do think this is the future of transportation," James Sembrot, senior director of logistics strategy at Anheuser-Busch, told Business Insider.
"I have a bonus target that kicks in when I cut our labor tab by $2 million, this will easily help me get there by eliminating a bunch of Teamster hacks and their pension contributions," Sembrot added.
"Wait, is your recorder still running? Can we cut that last part out, I want to keep the focus on how AB-InBev is embracing new technologies, that last part is kind of off the record."
How many people take "getting their news" seriously period?
I still get the printed local newspaper and the NY Times on the weekend. I get up early and usually see the delivery person drop off papers on our street. 10 years ago they stopped at most houses on my block, now it seems like they deliver to only a handful of houses.
Obviously this process started years ago with TV news as the alternate source, but with "news" available so easily online many people don't get the paper at all, and of them I would bet few are serious readers going through the whole web site to get the equivalent of paging through an entire newspaper and discovering stories and reading them (one reason I get the paper is I often find stories I missed online).
But nowadays, so many people are plugged into Facebook that they don't even have a pretense of reading the news, they just kind of click through links on major stories.
IMHO, I doubt these same people are factually less ignorant than they would have been 20 years ago (they may not have been newspaper readers then, either). What's really bad about is the echo chamber effect. Your "friends" on Facebook all have a similar world view, so you just end up getting hammered with the same reinforcing information.
What I think is curious in this election cycle are the number of "anti-Trump" posts by people I'm pretty sure don't have a single Trump supporter in their friend list. Why are they (repetitively) posting information on how horrible Trump is to an audience that already agrees nearly completely with them? I'm starting to think this isn't about being in favor of or against Trump per se, but some other kind of social reinforcement behavior designed to demonstrate to their friends how much they share a common world view.
It almost takes on a quality like a religious piety, like a testifying their religious faith in front of other believers. They're not trying to convince their friends to change their views, they're trying to convince their friends how *strong* their religious beliefs are.
The list of positions a party takes can be seen as its ideology; it doesn't necessarily have to mirror a specific defined ideology (socialism, etc). Party ideology is inherently flexible in a democratic polity but generally remains stable over the medium time even if some elements of party ideals change or shift.
Democrats, for example, have generally supported social welfare, minority rights, gun control, abortion as a right, even if some of these views have shifted (ie, Bill Clinton's support for ending "welfare as we know it").
I think there are some areas where there is only opinion and not truth -- is Pulp Fiction a great movie? There's no objective measurement of its quality, so in many ways the truth of that statement can be defined by a group and stating its your favorite isn't necessarily a falsehood if its collectively agreed to be a great movie.
I also think people in general don't have a lot of deep reflection skills, so even they don't know how they're feeling. They don't even know the answer or they're not really able to evaluate it quickly enough to provide a complete answer.
I also think there's a difference between cognitive bias and purposeful lying. You may know facts X and Y and extend this knowledge to similar idea Z and reason a conclusion about it and assume it's true and report it to others. You're not purposefully aiming to deceive, but you aren't really relating the truth because you don't know enough facts about Z. But because you know X and Y are true you think Z must be true as well.
So I'm rambling a little, but I wonder if the amygdala has a role in the evaluation of truth content. If my general thought is correct, it'd be reasonable to think that there's some part of the brain with is being under-used in people who "end up giving whatever answer is quick and easy".
It reminds me of the bicameral mind theory. It's complex, but it argues that consciousness is a small part of our cognitive life, that mostly we do things without thinking about them actively. It may be that some people have a "quieter voice" in their heads and simply have a lower level of conscious experience than others, and hence have less actual knowledge about their mental state of being.
I had a VT320 and it had a poor CRT. Which is kind of surprising, because the VT100 I used in high school had a really good display, smooth yet sharp, and I would have expected the 320, with newer parts, would have been better. But the 100 was probably a more premium product when new than the 320 was. And the 100 I used was brand new, bought for a friends dad to telecommute, and my 320 came off EBay in 1997.
They sure weren't objective in the Sanders/Clinton primary race. The cheerleading for Clinton was palpable.
I think a columnist somewhere should have taken up the Trump mantle and said "Ok, he's incoherent, but this is what he's trying to advocate if you get past the insults and bravado", with the idea that he was attracting support because people were more or less decoding what he had to say, and that somewhere there were some ideas.
What I wonder, though, is if someone more reasonable acting could have run with the same kind of right wing populism of Trump and gotten as far, or if it actually took a nut job to make it happen.
A political party is typically an organization whose members share a common political view, or ideology.
I think you're looking at "being political" as meaning some kind of malleability or flexibility on issues, like a politician who reads polls and takes the more popular stand on the issue vs. the one that aligns with their party.
Back in the VT100 terminal days, black on white (aka inverse) was tough because phosphor bleed made the black text blurry. White text on a black background actually benefited slightly from phosphor bleed by smoothing the gaps and making the bitmapped fonts smoother.
I think Trump's populism and Sanders' populism differ by the solutions they advocate, not by the problems they diagnose.
In many ways, Trump seems to have the kind of everyman "common sense" mindset shared by ordinary people who don't really know and/or care about high-level ideological alignment and coherence. I think this is what frustrates a lot of people when it comes to politics and why so many Americans identify as "independent" -- in their minds, solutions should be practical and effective first. They're not bothered by the fact that $solution_1 and $solution_2 are ideologically inconsistent.
More than many Democrats, Sanders seemed to be more pragmatic focused, or at least he seemed that way by focusing closely on more everyday economic concerns.
The more "political" a politician or voter is, the more they seem to demand ideological consistency, purity and cohesion.
Wifi is a crapshoot in crowds that size, especially when you consider that > 90% of the fans in the stands have smartphones, all of which at least have wifi on and most of which probably have some setting that automatically connects them to open networks. At a minimum there's a bunch of RF noise from this alone.
It's worse if you consider the number of stadiums that install wifi -- I've never been to one where it worked well and in many it doesn't work at all. And stadiums themselves are often a clusterfuck of management, "operated" by the team in terms of cash revenue but managed by some stadium commission as a physical facility so that the local taxpayer can pick up the tab for annoying facility costs that aren't related to making the team owner richer.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if older stadiums retrofitted with wifi were done so on the local sports facility commission/taxpayer's dime and had all the usual corners cut as one might expect with such a project. The expectation (and effort) was probably decent coverage in luxury boxes, locker rooms and press areas. Fan seating areas get "covered" with a visible 2+ bar SSID, but nobody was willing to pay for RF engineering a workable solution for 70,000 people to actually use it.
So at best they're operating in RF soup with proper APs nearby, hoping that between signal proximity and operating on the 5 Ghz band they will get useful coverage. At worst they're working in RF soup off a crap solution.
Ideally, their software would be designed to be as network-independent as possible so that as much useful work as possible could be done without any network signal. But what do you bet it's a bunch of BS cloud based bullshit, dependent on appy Azure apps that Microsoft is hoping NFL teams and their corporate leaders will buy into even further.
It'd be nice if we could run a phone VM on our phones.
The security uncaring could run everything in the "native" phone session, just like any smartphone now.
The security conscious could run a phone VM which would would contain all their sensitive data. Access to the phone VM could have more complex authentication methods.
I think the media hasn't been all that fair to Trump. It strikes me that Trump is quoted without context and they take things he says so literally without reading between the lines or really reporting what he says in anything like the manner his audiences understand what he's saying.
To be fair to the media, Trump doesn't have a traditional ideology and I think the media struggle to report on him because they don't find any of the traditional ideological interfaces to connect with. And Trump says some pretty bizarre and stupid stuff, quite often.
I think they already do and I think the major media outlets have been soft-pedaling leaked Clinton campaign documents. They've been reporting on them but it sure feels like selective and soft reporting designed to minimize perceptual damage to Clinton.
If they took leaked emails related to Clinton and really ran with them, it could conceivably damage her campaign, so they aren't.
Personally, I think they underestimate just what Clinton backers will tolerate and are miscalculating by soft-peddling the information, because in the long run it destroys their credibility. If they would really light her up it wouldn't make Trump look any better AND the media would regain some of their credibility.
There's two problems. One is the arbitrary labeling of gun control measures as "common sense", two is that gun control advocates never bring anything to the table -- it's their "common sense" gun control policies only, they refuse to compromise anything to get what they want. They are willing to give NOTHING in return.
I always wonder what would happen if both sides would bargain freely on the topic what either side would give away in exchange for some kind of restriction.
Would gun control advocates agree to exempting suppressors from the NFA in exchange for closing the "gun show" loophole? A carry permit valid nationwide in exchange for deeper background checks? Re-opening the machine gun registry in exchange for a national registry of all guns?
Sure, you could charge a powerwall and then charge your Tesla at night from that, but there would be a lot of inefficiency in addition to heavy cycling on the powerwall.
But overall it doesn't seem like a compelling sales pitch -- buy solar panels to charge the car that will be at work when the sun is shining.
Maybe the spreadsheet math works financially by offsetting daytime use vs. nighttime charging.
I go through enough of it that I've only had one little packet expire. I usually buy a 5 pack through Amazon and keep the unused stuff in the fridge, which is supposed to extend the life further.
I've thought of vacuum sealing it as well, but since I use enough to not have it expire on me I haven't gone that far, plus its sealed well in Mylar and I expect that exposure to air only accelerates curing and that it would self-cure even in a vacuum.
Another option is silicone tape, but the stretching needed to apply it would be a challenge on small stuff like USB cables.
The small tubes of regular clear silicone caulk (the kind that doesn't use a caulk gun) can be used instead of Sugru in some applications, but it gets kind of messy. If you're willing to waste a certain amount, you can mix cornstarch with regular silicone caulk and get a Sugru-like product that cures faster and is easier to handle, but it's messy to make.
In Minnesota, you can use deadly force to stop the commission of a felony in your home.
The felony doesn't have to represent a risk of physical harm, although I think it would help -- shooting a 16 year old kid with your iPad, about the climb out the broken window he came in might be something the DA would consider charging, if only for the DAs own personal PR.
The adult with any kind of a weapon, especially a firearm? They've met the definition of a felony right there, plus there is the risk of harm.
Slashdot Mirror
They've been directional drilling for what looks like a lot of new pipe. I'm guessing this is an outright replacement program that leaves the old pipe in the ground, so they would have to do all the utility locate you describe.
That seems high considering the local gas utility has been replacing gas lines in the neighborhood (largely built in the mid-50s), and I would imagine that active work on natural gas lines is more complicated than laying fiber -- ie, you can't disrupt gas service and you're dealing with a flammable and potentially explosive gas.
I would imagine that the equipment side of a fiber rollout would have a lot of costs as you would have all the expensive networking gear to deal with, but the actual directional drilling part wouldn't be as complex as a live natural gas distribution system.
Cooler heads? Kennedy blockaded Cuba, a direct military threat to the Soviet Union.
I think interdependence is a bigger reason it wouldn't happen. The major nuclear powers in the 1960s were largely self-sustaining, and wiping part of the map wouldn't have had much an impact. At worst we may have had some dependencies on third world countries for raw materials in some of the same sectors we had in WW II, like rubber
Now? Even a six month major disruption in economic activity would bring even the US to its knees as we can't make much of what we need at home, and its probably worse elsewhere. The US has the know-how (probably) to jump-start its manufacturing base given a 3-5 year strategic commitment to investment, but we would need to operate at WW II levels of rationing and economic intervention.
There's also the question of elite status -- the elites are in a powerful position in terms of economic status and political power, there's no telling what even a limited nuclear exchange would do to them. A handful may become more powerful, but it seems more likely that a large number would lose their status forever, either due to the economic disruption or due to outright nationalization of assets and the promotion of national security/military interests.
I'm pretty sure nuclear plants aren't run by just one guy who logs in when he gets a pager message and then hits the "shut down plant" button.
There's an entire staff and it would take spoofing all of them and making the on site people not believe the actual plant control systems to take an action that would be "wrong".
I don't think a global nuclear was is likely. I think it's more likely that a small state actor that has nuclear weapons ends up getting hit in a pre-emptive or punitive strike for credibly threatening or actually using one against the US or Russia in a single strike.
Should that happen, it seems unlikely that a major nuclear power would risk some kind of retaliation what would surely end up mutual destruction.
I also doubt that any small state actor, no matter how apparently crazy, would try to do so because you just can't fight and win a nuclear war with Russia, China or the US. The Iranians or the North Koreans simply lack the ability to hit a major player hard enough to prevent an overwhelming retaliatory strike that would be the end of the regime and knock back the country's development by at least 500 years.
If we didn't have a nuclear war in the early 1960s, we aren't having one now.
Isn't an "associate" by which I assume "business associate" of a talent agency watching a movie kind of something Warner wants to happen? Like they want industry visibility of their product, especially to talent agencies?
Isn't it also fair to assume that among industry insiders "off the books" copies of films have been around forever and are widely circulated? I'd guess old timers have significant libraries of 35mm and 16mm prints which were never paid for and some of which may have been made in labs for nothing more than the cost of film and developing.
Unless the talent agency was actively allowing people not associated with the agency to download these films, I'm kind of wondering what Warner is so wound up about. There's literally nothing happening here that hasn't gone on forever, especially since the VHS era.
While I'm sure some finance guy at Warner feels like his numbers would work out better if he could somehow include revenue from every time a film biz insider looked at a Warner film, I'm also guessing that filmmakers making money off of people involved in the filmmaking business isn't exactly what you'd call a business model.
"We're just thrilled. We do think this is the future of transportation," James Sembrot, senior director of logistics strategy at Anheuser-Busch, told Business Insider.
"I have a bonus target that kicks in when I cut our labor tab by $2 million, this will easily help me get there by eliminating a bunch of Teamster hacks and their pension contributions," Sembrot added.
"Wait, is your recorder still running? Can we cut that last part out, I want to keep the focus on how AB-InBev is embracing new technologies, that last part is kind of off the record."
That would be a bad omen.
How many people take "getting their news" seriously period?
I still get the printed local newspaper and the NY Times on the weekend. I get up early and usually see the delivery person drop off papers on our street. 10 years ago they stopped at most houses on my block, now it seems like they deliver to only a handful of houses.
Obviously this process started years ago with TV news as the alternate source, but with "news" available so easily online many people don't get the paper at all, and of them I would bet few are serious readers going through the whole web site to get the equivalent of paging through an entire newspaper and discovering stories and reading them (one reason I get the paper is I often find stories I missed online).
But nowadays, so many people are plugged into Facebook that they don't even have a pretense of reading the news, they just kind of click through links on major stories.
IMHO, I doubt these same people are factually less ignorant than they would have been 20 years ago (they may not have been newspaper readers then, either). What's really bad about is the echo chamber effect. Your "friends" on Facebook all have a similar world view, so you just end up getting hammered with the same reinforcing information.
What I think is curious in this election cycle are the number of "anti-Trump" posts by people I'm pretty sure don't have a single Trump supporter in their friend list. Why are they (repetitively) posting information on how horrible Trump is to an audience that already agrees nearly completely with them? I'm starting to think this isn't about being in favor of or against Trump per se, but some other kind of social reinforcement behavior designed to demonstrate to their friends how much they share a common world view.
It almost takes on a quality like a religious piety, like a testifying their religious faith in front of other believers. They're not trying to convince their friends to change their views, they're trying to convince their friends how *strong* their religious beliefs are.
The list of positions a party takes can be seen as its ideology; it doesn't necessarily have to mirror a specific defined ideology (socialism, etc). Party ideology is inherently flexible in a democratic polity but generally remains stable over the medium time even if some elements of party ideals change or shift.
Democrats, for example, have generally supported social welfare, minority rights, gun control, abortion as a right, even if some of these views have shifted (ie, Bill Clinton's support for ending "welfare as we know it").
I think there are some areas where there is only opinion and not truth -- is Pulp Fiction a great movie? There's no objective measurement of its quality, so in many ways the truth of that statement can be defined by a group and stating its your favorite isn't necessarily a falsehood if its collectively agreed to be a great movie.
I also think people in general don't have a lot of deep reflection skills, so even they don't know how they're feeling. They don't even know the answer or they're not really able to evaluate it quickly enough to provide a complete answer.
I also think there's a difference between cognitive bias and purposeful lying. You may know facts X and Y and extend this knowledge to similar idea Z and reason a conclusion about it and assume it's true and report it to others. You're not purposefully aiming to deceive, but you aren't really relating the truth because you don't know enough facts about Z. But because you know X and Y are true you think Z must be true as well.
So I'm rambling a little, but I wonder if the amygdala has a role in the evaluation of truth content. If my general thought is correct, it'd be reasonable to think that there's some part of the brain with is being under-used in people who "end up giving whatever answer is quick and easy".
It reminds me of the bicameral mind theory. It's complex, but it argues that consciousness is a small part of our cognitive life, that mostly we do things without thinking about them actively. It may be that some people have a "quieter voice" in their heads and simply have a lower level of conscious experience than others, and hence have less actual knowledge about their mental state of being.
I had a VT320 and it had a poor CRT. Which is kind of surprising, because the VT100 I used in high school had a really good display, smooth yet sharp, and I would have expected the 320, with newer parts, would have been better. But the 100 was probably a more premium product when new than the 320 was. And the 100 I used was brand new, bought for a friends dad to telecommute, and my 320 came off EBay in 1997.
...ruminates on how it's not the bong that matters, but the weed that goes into it.
Stays up late writing blog post on same idea, but extrapolated to hardware & software.
They sure weren't objective in the Sanders/Clinton primary race. The cheerleading for Clinton was palpable.
I think a columnist somewhere should have taken up the Trump mantle and said "Ok, he's incoherent, but this is what he's trying to advocate if you get past the insults and bravado", with the idea that he was attracting support because people were more or less decoding what he had to say, and that somewhere there were some ideas.
What I wonder, though, is if someone more reasonable acting could have run with the same kind of right wing populism of Trump and gotten as far, or if it actually took a nut job to make it happen.
A political party is typically an organization whose members share a common political view, or ideology.
I think you're looking at "being political" as meaning some kind of malleability or flexibility on issues, like a politician who reads polls and takes the more popular stand on the issue vs. the one that aligns with their party.
Which old days?
Back in the VT100 terminal days, black on white (aka inverse) was tough because phosphor bleed made the black text blurry. White text on a black background actually benefited slightly from phosphor bleed by smoothing the gaps and making the bitmapped fonts smoother.
I think there's more than chance at work.
I think Trump's populism and Sanders' populism differ by the solutions they advocate, not by the problems they diagnose.
In many ways, Trump seems to have the kind of everyman "common sense" mindset shared by ordinary people who don't really know and/or care about high-level ideological alignment and coherence. I think this is what frustrates a lot of people when it comes to politics and why so many Americans identify as "independent" -- in their minds, solutions should be practical and effective first. They're not bothered by the fact that $solution_1 and $solution_2 are ideologically inconsistent.
More than many Democrats, Sanders seemed to be more pragmatic focused, or at least he seemed that way by focusing closely on more everyday economic concerns.
The more "political" a politician or voter is, the more they seem to demand ideological consistency, purity and cohesion.
My money is on wifi not working right.
Wifi is a crapshoot in crowds that size, especially when you consider that > 90% of the fans in the stands have smartphones, all of which at least have wifi on and most of which probably have some setting that automatically connects them to open networks. At a minimum there's a bunch of RF noise from this alone.
It's worse if you consider the number of stadiums that install wifi -- I've never been to one where it worked well and in many it doesn't work at all. And stadiums themselves are often a clusterfuck of management, "operated" by the team in terms of cash revenue but managed by some stadium commission as a physical facility so that the local taxpayer can pick up the tab for annoying facility costs that aren't related to making the team owner richer.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if older stadiums retrofitted with wifi were done so on the local sports facility commission/taxpayer's dime and had all the usual corners cut as one might expect with such a project. The expectation (and effort) was probably decent coverage in luxury boxes, locker rooms and press areas. Fan seating areas get "covered" with a visible 2+ bar SSID, but nobody was willing to pay for RF engineering a workable solution for 70,000 people to actually use it.
So at best they're operating in RF soup with proper APs nearby, hoping that between signal proximity and operating on the 5 Ghz band they will get useful coverage. At worst they're working in RF soup off a crap solution.
Ideally, their software would be designed to be as network-independent as possible so that as much useful work as possible could be done without any network signal. But what do you bet it's a bunch of BS cloud based bullshit, dependent on appy Azure apps that Microsoft is hoping NFL teams and their corporate leaders will buy into even further.
It'd be nice if we could run a phone VM on our phones.
The security uncaring could run everything in the "native" phone session, just like any smartphone now.
The security conscious could run a phone VM which would would contain all their sensitive data. Access to the phone VM could have more complex authentication methods.
I think the media hasn't been all that fair to Trump. It strikes me that Trump is quoted without context and they take things he says so literally without reading between the lines or really reporting what he says in anything like the manner his audiences understand what he's saying.
To be fair to the media, Trump doesn't have a traditional ideology and I think the media struggle to report on him because they don't find any of the traditional ideological interfaces to connect with. And Trump says some pretty bizarre and stupid stuff, quite often.
I think they already do and I think the major media outlets have been soft-pedaling leaked Clinton campaign documents. They've been reporting on them but it sure feels like selective and soft reporting designed to minimize perceptual damage to Clinton.
If they took leaked emails related to Clinton and really ran with them, it could conceivably damage her campaign, so they aren't.
Personally, I think they underestimate just what Clinton backers will tolerate and are miscalculating by soft-peddling the information, because in the long run it destroys their credibility. If they would really light her up it wouldn't make Trump look any better AND the media would regain some of their credibility.
There's two problems. One is the arbitrary labeling of gun control measures as "common sense", two is that gun control advocates never bring anything to the table -- it's their "common sense" gun control policies only, they refuse to compromise anything to get what they want. They are willing to give NOTHING in return.
I always wonder what would happen if both sides would bargain freely on the topic what either side would give away in exchange for some kind of restriction.
Would gun control advocates agree to exempting suppressors from the NFA in exchange for closing the "gun show" loophole? A carry permit valid nationwide in exchange for deeper background checks? Re-opening the machine gun registry in exchange for a national registry of all guns?
Sure, you could charge a powerwall and then charge your Tesla at night from that, but there would be a lot of inefficiency in addition to heavy cycling on the powerwall.
But overall it doesn't seem like a compelling sales pitch -- buy solar panels to charge the car that will be at work when the sun is shining.
Maybe the spreadsheet math works financially by offsetting daytime use vs. nighttime charging.
I go through enough of it that I've only had one little packet expire. I usually buy a 5 pack through Amazon and keep the unused stuff in the fridge, which is supposed to extend the life further.
I've thought of vacuum sealing it as well, but since I use enough to not have it expire on me I haven't gone that far, plus its sealed well in Mylar and I expect that exposure to air only accelerates curing and that it would self-cure even in a vacuum.
Another option is silicone tape, but the stretching needed to apply it would be a challenge on small stuff like USB cables.
The small tubes of regular clear silicone caulk (the kind that doesn't use a caulk gun) can be used instead of Sugru in some applications, but it gets kind of messy. If you're willing to waste a certain amount, you can mix cornstarch with regular silicone caulk and get a Sugru-like product that cures faster and is easier to handle, but it's messy to make.
Use of force gets complicated, fast.
In Minnesota, you can use deadly force to stop the commission of a felony in your home.
The felony doesn't have to represent a risk of physical harm, although I think it would help -- shooting a 16 year old kid with your iPad, about the climb out the broken window he came in might be something the DA would consider charging, if only for the DAs own personal PR.
The adult with any kind of a weapon, especially a firearm? They've met the definition of a felony right there, plus there is the risk of harm.