The source you quoted is using data from CoalSwarm. The source I quoted is from a CoalSwarm RESEARCHER AND ANALYST. You know... the person who actually puts all that data together. And who, unlike various "journalists" out there - actually knows what she's talking about and what all that data actually shows.
I.e. It's the same source, but mine actually knows what she's talking about.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and claim that this is a product of bias and mental issues by the authors. Much like how the authors of SuperFreakonomics couldn't have resisted their "one clever trick to fix global warming" chapter thanks to their personal biases. Which came back to bite them. Also, the claim made in the paper is clearly false, even fraudulent. Whether due to bias or to drum up publicity, I don't know. But they actually show that they are wrong. More on that below. First a word or two on authors.
Carbon Engineering is funded by several government and sustainability-focused agencies as well as by private investors, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates and oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards.[5][6][7]
In fact, he's done resear... I mean he played with computer models to "prove" that installing windmills will basically... stop the wind. Well... slow it down. Someone should have told him about all those sails we used to use globally, that we're no longer using.
I.e. That a reduction of things to preindustrial levels actually requires reduction of wind speeds as well. Or remind him that the air moved by the wind is a fluid. Like water. And just like how water in the sea doesn't stop moving because of all the boats blocking it from moving freely... neither will global air currents actually slow down. And even if they do - we could just reduce the number of flags and start driving cars only downwind, while wearing more tight fitting clothes, right? Or tell him about the chance that his model is NOT REALLY a completely accurate representation of reality.
As for the study... It claims the following:
generating today's US electricity demand (0.5 TWe) with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24 C. ... The warming effect is: small compared with projections of 21st century warming, approximately equivalent to the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing global electricity generation, and large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity with wind.
It also claims that solar effect would be smaller but that's besides the point, unless you're looking for more bias fodder.
The issue is that those "approximately equivalent" and "large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity" are COMPLETELY ignoring that the US is a part of a global system. As seen from the graph they've provided.
They claim a warming of 0.24C over Continental US from 0.5TWe produced with wind power, by 2080, at which point it would level out. At the same time they claim a cooling of about -0.48C over Continental US from
The so called "study" is a study only in piggybacking on sensationalism and stirring up division. Author, one "Morten Bay, Ph.D., Research Fellow, Center for the Digital Future USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism" is himself, functionally, a troII. Whether he is also intentionally peddling and hyping fraudulent studies to increase his media exposure or is just a victim of his own incompetence... that's up to debate. But let's just say that he didn't pick a less popular franchise for his "study".
Examining 967 tweets (that's TWEETS - not accounts), made "between December 13, 2017 and July 20, 2018." on a platform where around 6000 tweets are made each second, "206 expressed a negative sentiment towards the film and its director, which is 21.9% or a little more than one in five fans." Out of those 206... "Using the Botometer mentioned in the Method section, 11 out of the of 206 accounts expressing negative sentiments were identified as bots." But that's not all! Our boy Morten also claims that through his spider senses he "identified 33 of the 206 negative accounts as troIIs and/or sock puppets." Out of those 33 trolls and socks...
16 of these 33 troII/sock puppet accounts appear to be Russian trolls, or at least possess several of the Russian troII characteristics presented above.
Anyway... author claims he looked through some 967 tweets aimed at Rian Johnson, over a period of 6 months, finding 11 tweets made by probable bots, and 16 he thinks may be Russian. Cause their language skills were poor, their names were generic and they had no profile photos.
7 of the 16 had auto-generated handles consisting of a very common, English name followed by a series of seemingly random digits, and five of those seven had not uploaded a profile image, a combination which according to the studies mentioned above, is a typical characteristic of Russian troII accounts.
Out of those 16, 4(?) were actually identified as Russian troIIs. @1popculturefan, @MarcoSo94862885, @VPalmera and @ThatNikkaGeeked. Also, there is another account retweeting @1popculturefan which is, maybe, also a Russian troll/sock.
It doesn't help that the author keeps interchangeably referring to tweets as accounts. Or that there is no summary of tweets or accounts. Thus one can't tell if he's referring to some of the same accounts (or tweets) when he says that "6 of the 16 accounts have an extremely high retweet rate" and "9 accounts have been through the "resets"" while "4 accounts present themselves as a type of news source". Are those 6 among the 9? 4 among 6? Who knows!
On a side note, TIL that using the word "troII" more than a certain number of times in the text activates Slashdot lameness filter. Luckily, bitches don't know about my upper case i.
CoalSwarm, a global network of researchers tracking fossil-fuel infrastructure, analyzed satellite imagery as of July 2018, and discovered that the construction of around half of those 150 plants is still proceeding, despite the government orders.
Just like that OP NYT article, which sources Urgewald, which again, sources CoalSwarm Database.
We also included companies listed in the CoalSwarm Database as they are planning new coal power plants.
Getting that? Got that? Good.
Now go read the very first line in the link I quoted above, debunking those numbers. Well... putting them in context. It goes kinda like this...
Dr Christine Shearer is a researcher and analyst for the US-based energy research group CoalSwarm.
The stuff you're quoting is accounted for - AND THE COAL PLANT NUMBERS ARE STILL DECREASING.
As for this...
U.S. Exports expected to be up 60% in 2018 go figure.
Again... actually reading the article and looking up sources helps to put things in context.
(Montel) US seaborne thermal coal exports could surge 60% this year amid a shortfall in global supply and healthy import demand, the director of consultancy Perret Associates told Montel on Wednesday. Guillaume Perret estimated the country's coal exports could rise from 36.7m tonnes in 2017 to 58m tonnes this year and 60m tonnes in 2019.
You are relying on predictions of a consulting firm which lives and dies with coal. So take that in consideration when you ask yourself if they are biased. https://www.perretassociates.c...
Now scroll down to the bottom of the text where they try to sneak past the ugly truth.
Meanwhile, he said domestic coal demand in the US "will be flat at best, or erode slightly" over the coming years. And demand from Europe is also on the wane, with the EU-15 countries expected to import just 90.2m tonnes of seaborne thermal coal this year versus 107m tonnes last year.
I.e. Even people selling you coal are admitting, though "hiding" it in last lines of the text, that the demand for their product has peeked and is on decline.
Activists desperate to keep narrative under control obviously keep doing the damage control, good example being your forbes links.
Yeah... Forbes... that bastion of activism. But good job on revealing yourself as a moron AND a conspiracy loon there, with those secret Chinese coal plants - as if they could hide produced power. Thanks.
At least 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. That's not middle class and it's certainly not "no longer at risk of poverty".
Entire US is about 4.4% of the global population. Sooo... don't be so US-centric and egoistic and learn to accept the math? Maybe?
Particularly when you're calling "bullshit" on a what, by your own numbers is 0.44% of the ENTIRE WORLD population. You know... that 10% of US population you don't believe are doing better than you believe. I do not believe that your beliefs are believable.
Planned new coal capacity has been cancelled around the world, with particularly rapid falls in China and India. At the end of 2015, China had plans to build 515GW of new coal capacity. That figure now stands at 76GW. In India, the pre-construction pipeline has shrunk from 218GW in 2015 to 63GW today.
That's the main reason Chinese companies are scrambling around the world trying to sell their coal plants. They already had them in the pipeline and now they can't just scrap billions of dollars already built into steam turbines. So they are trying to get rid of them elsewhere while there's still time.
Coal is simply no longer economical.
Most notably, our figures show that less than 2GW of new coal capacity has been proposed in either China or India in 2018 - a significant development for the two countries that have been the site of 85% of the world's new coal power capacity since 2006.
While some analysts predicted the drop in China and India might be replaced with an increase throughout other parts of the world, the pipeline across the rest of the world also continues to decline. Notably, Japan has called off 3.6GW of proposed coal capacity since 2017, while South Korea will stop issuing permits for new coal plants.... From January through to June 2018, nearly 20GW of new coal capacity was commissioned: 12GW in China (blue area in the chart, below) , 5GW in India (red), and 3GW in the rest of the world (South Africa, Pakistan, Vietnam, Philippines and Japan). While significant, the amount of coal power capacity that began operating during the first half of 2018 (20GW) was nearly matched by the amount retired (16GW), for a net increase of just 4GW - the slowest rate of growth on record. If the slowdown continues global coal capacity should peak by 2022, if not sooner.
So if the police present a signed dashcam video showing that the citizen shot first, we still have to ask if the police had access to the signing key. If yes, then the signature means nothing.
As an incentive for businesses to keep investing in R&D, the tax law provides favorable tax treatment for research and experimental costs. In most cases, you can currently deduct these costs or deduct them over five or ten years.
Government is funding research and development through tax incentives. It's basically giving companies money to spend on playing around with LEGOs, trying to make a better mousetrap. Why? Cause some of them work AND you get to keep and train a lot of experienced LEGO builders and other eggheads. The kind of people who come up with better medicines and bigger bombs.
It's not the most efficient way of going about it, but the successful results get pumped straight into the economy and you save a lot on administration and planning costs. Cause someone somewhere is probably developing something you don't even know you'll absolutely need in ten years. Unlike monkeys on typewriters, scientists and engineers DO come up with useful things by just playing around with stuff all day.
It's not a problem to tag videos or any kind of a digital recording with invisible but readable watermarks based on the content of the video. Hell... Kids today love blockchains. Put a blockchain in it and tag it all the way from the lens to the eyeball. OK... CCD/CMOS to LCD.
The problem is backwards compatibility and the cost of upgrades. There's still video out there that is captured with outdated analog devices, particularly of the security kind. And that's not even talking about EVERYTHING ELSE. CCD/CMOS to LCD. Or about a security protocol (as in agreement, not as in software) to coordinate that on a global scale. Which would have to go R&D to consumer.
We're talking pan-global standards and cooperation and trillions of dollars and decades of implementation. On the other hand, that's trillions of dollars and decades of sales for the side that comes up with a globally viable standards first. And easiest to implement.
Yeah... but that's again grading service. Personal preferences and prejudices and all that. One to five stars is simply not a proper way to objectively grade a service. It should be a questionnaire.
Things I talk about are more like physical products or cultural artifacts such as books, movies, music... E.g. One of my favorite "judging by the quality of judgment" cases is comparing the number of reviews for Boyhood with the number of reviews for 400 Blows... and everyconsecutivefilm in that series.
I.e. Of all the professional critics and the audience who gave such rave and "fresh" reviews to a movie whose gimmick is that it was filmed over a decade - practically none of them even know of a series filmed over multiple decades, where the main character is actually an alter-ego of the director, who basically invented auteur theory. Where thus the gimmick is not a gimmick. And even a "clip show" is not just a clip show.
But people who don't know of that, though it's their job to know that, and some of whom even went to school to learn that... they clearly don't know of the series. And they think that a gimmicky movie is "fresh" and fantastic. Hmm...
Something tells me that their praises of that movie are kinda overrated and underinformed.
First thing that came to my mind reading that "Funding was not secured, the price of $420 was not based in reality" anonymous coward quote in the summary was - "What about a price of $240 then? Or about? Is there funding secured for THAT price?"
Cause, thanks to the timeline, he can now just turn around and point his finger at SEC. "You caused this, with that talk of an investigation, not me. In fact, I think of suing you for devaluing my stock and losing me and my shareholders billions."
I want to know what the others hated about the thing they graded. Often times the fact a crank or an idiot hates something will tell you more than the glowing or factual but dry reviews. "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." works both ways.
Granted... You can't really apply that to services, like Uber. Nor should a simple 5-star system be used for something like that, where both providing and experiencing a service is utterly subjective. The point of a grade system is to eliminate subjectivity and to present the quality of that which is graded in an objective fashion. And you can't do that when people can give grades based on personal preferences and hangups. There's a name for that. Prejudice.
If there's significant demand for local content in a given country, the streaming services would fund it on their own. If they don't, then a new comer would identify the market and do so. Legislating means that the market doesn't see the demand.
Not everyone wants to live in a world of 24/7 "Ow! My Balls!" marathon. I.e. 0$ budget productions watched by mental vegetables with voyeuristic disorders and the taste for sensationalism. You know... What the "markets" crave. The Trump "base".
While I tend not to utter those words myself, I do think it's farcical that others allow them to exert such power.
Wait... Did you just throw down the challenge to the internet at large, claiming that people shouldn't be at all affected by verbal insults, you child molesting necrophiliac Nazi cunt?
1530s (in Anglo-Latin from mid-13c.), via French and Italian, from Arabic hashishiyyin "hashish-users," plural of hashishiyy, from the source of hashish (q.v.).
A fanatical Ismaili Muslim sect of the mountains of Lebanon in the time of the Crusades, under leadership of the "Old Man of the Mountains" (translates Arabic shaik-al-jibal, name applied to Hasan ibu-al-Sabbah), they had a reputation for murdering opposing leaders after intoxicating themselves by eating hashish. The plural suffix -in was mistaken in Europe for part of the word (compare Bedouin). Middle English had the word as hassais (mid-14c.), from Old French hassasis, assasis, which is from the Arabic word.
You are confusing etymology with historical accuracy.
You know, it bugs me when people say "well science is not a democracy. Something is either proven or it isn't."
The scientific method is essentially democratic
You didn't get what "the people" say there. Mainly because you have wrong ideas about science and/or democracy.
Science is not a democracy because you don't get to DECIDE or COMPROMISE or AGREE on the nature of reality - reality just is. You can't argue or vote your or any other way with science any more than you can make a cold fire by coming up with an alternative temperature scale.
And there's nothing "essentially democratic" about the scientific method itself. It is in fact an autocracy of reality. There's ONE way to do it right, you don't get to choose another way, it doesn't matter how many votes of how many people you got on your side - reality just puts its foot down and goes "It's MY way or it's not science. Deal with it."
One person claims to have done something via an experiment, and that doesn't prove anything. You need a whole bunch more people to do the same experiment....to convince them.
No.
You are confusing some kind of a mix of publishing and academia and education and general knowledge with science. One person's experimental proof of a theory, if done according to strict rules of scientific method, is enough. For the precise reason that it would provide the same exact results REGARDLESS of how many people do the same experiment or how many people are convinced.
Also, replication or peer review are NOT done in order to convince "a bunch of people". Replication and peer review are done in order to try to TEST the theory and/or the experiment - by doing the exact same thing as the original experimenter. To see if it will break this time. And if the science behind the theory and the experiment is solid - it won't break. REGARDLESS of how convinced a "bunch of people" are.
If scientific method was about democracy and conviction, everyone could simply agree that the Moon is made out of cheese. And then the conviction that the Moon is made out of cheese would make it so. You just gouda believe it hard enough, that's all.
And they are essentially the same problem - too many fake taxi cars are creating traffic congestion while adding pollution and waste by "adding 5.7 billion vehicle miles to nine major urban areas over six years". I.e. About a billion vehicle miles per year more than before.
As for the public transportation problem - there isn't one. It's still there. It's just that people are coaxed into giving money to corporations who shift all the expenses and risk onto other people - instead of using services of a public company. Ultimately ending in a situation where people make no real profit out of that exchange, while incurring plenty of hidden costs.
Observers have noted how Express Pool, for example, is modeled - well - like a bus.
In a typical commute, Express Pool riders might walk to a busy intersection where they are met by a car that shuttles them along a straight route to an often-popular destination. The vehicle makes as few turns as possible, sometimes picking up other passengers along the way; the cost of a ride can be as low as $3 or $4.
But problems such as "deadheading," where drivers roam city streets in empty cars waiting for a fare, markedly reduce the efficiency of these rides. And even if ride-hail services can expand the reach of shared mobility services and fill as many seats as possible, they will never be as efficient as rail or bus - ultimately resulting in more congestion and higher reliance on automobiles, the research says.
And as those fake taxi companies are openly competing with services already paid for by the citizens - why shouldn't the city government protect their citizen's investment by leveling the playing field? Tax them like a taxi company that they are and make them pay and treat their drivers like a taxi company would have to. Or a bus company, if they insist on the bus-like model described above.
They can still "share" the rides. Which is just bullshit jargon. Most rides are "one car - one passenger". And even should the "share" share increase - it's still just adding pollution and waste.
Lyft says that today, a third of its rides in major markets are shared. The company has outlined a goal to make half of its ride shared by 2022.
"Even if Lyft managed to meet its 50 percent shared ride goal, you still increase [vehicle miles traveled] by 120 percent," Schwartz said, citing the report's finding that 50 percent shared ride adoption would still add about 2.2 vehicle miles to roads, or a 120 percent increase in driving overall.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading comprehension not your forte, eh?
The source you quoted is using data from CoalSwarm.
The source I quoted is from a CoalSwarm RESEARCHER AND ANALYST. You know... the person who actually puts all that data together.
And who, unlike various "journalists" out there - actually knows what she's talking about and what all that data actually shows.
I.e. It's the same source, but mine actually knows what she's talking about.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and claim that this is a product of bias and mental issues by the authors.
Much like how the authors of SuperFreakonomics couldn't have resisted their "one clever trick to fix global warming" chapter thanks to their personal biases. Which came back to bite them.
Also, the claim made in the paper is clearly false, even fraudulent.
Whether due to bias or to drum up publicity, I don't know. But they actually show that they are wrong.
More on that below. First a word or two on authors.
David W.Keith is a pusher of solar and geoengineering as a solution for climate change.
Also, best way to solve that climate change, according to him, is to start spraying sulfuric acid into air.
And he owns and runs a geoengineering company.
Which kinda runs on tar sands money.
Carbon Engineering is funded by several government and sustainability-focused agencies as well as by private investors, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates and oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards.[5][6][7]
Lee Miller on the other hand really hates them windmills.
And both windmills and photovoltaics should be kept out of the cities, tucked away somewhere in the desert.
In fact, he's done resear... I mean he played with computer models to "prove" that installing windmills will basically... stop the wind. Well... slow it down.
Someone should have told him about all those sails we used to use globally, that we're no longer using.
I.e. That a reduction of things to preindustrial levels actually requires reduction of wind speeds as well.
Or remind him that the air moved by the wind is a fluid. Like water.
And just like how water in the sea doesn't stop moving because of all the boats blocking it from moving freely... neither will global air currents actually slow down.
And even if they do - we could just reduce the number of flags and start driving cars only downwind, while wearing more tight fitting clothes, right?
Or tell him about the chance that his model is NOT REALLY a completely accurate representation of reality.
As for the study... It claims the following:
generating today's US electricity demand (0.5 TWe) with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24 C.
...
The warming effect is: small compared with projections of 21st century warming, approximately equivalent to the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing global electricity generation, and large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity with wind.
It also claims that solar effect would be smaller but that's besides the point, unless you're looking for more bias fodder.
The issue is that those "approximately equivalent" and "large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity" are COMPLETELY ignoring that the US is a part of a global system.
As seen from the graph they've provided.
They claim a warming of 0.24C over Continental US from 0.5TWe produced with wind power, by 2080, at which point it would level out.
At the same time they claim a cooling of about -0.48C over Continental US from
The so called "study" is a study only in piggybacking on sensationalism and stirring up division.
Author, one "Morten Bay, Ph.D., Research Fellow, Center for the Digital Future USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism" is himself, functionally, a troII.
Whether he is also intentionally peddling and hyping fraudulent studies to increase his media exposure or is just a victim of his own incompetence... that's up to debate.
But let's just say that he didn't pick a less popular franchise for his "study".
Anyway...
The Fraudulent Study found following...
Examining 967 tweets (that's TWEETS - not accounts), made "between December 13, 2017 and July 20, 2018." on a platform where around 6000 tweets are made each second, "206 expressed a negative sentiment towards the film and its director, which is 21.9% or a little more than one in five fans."
Out of those 206... "Using the Botometer mentioned in the Method section, 11 out of the of 206 accounts expressing negative sentiments were identified as bots."
But that's not all!
Our boy Morten also claims that through his spider senses he "identified 33 of the 206 negative accounts as troIIs and/or sock puppets."
Out of those 33 trolls and socks...
16 of these 33 troII/sock puppet accounts appear to be Russian trolls, or at least possess several of the Russian troII characteristics presented above.
Anyway... author claims he looked through some 967 tweets aimed at Rian Johnson, over a period of 6 months, finding 11 tweets made by probable bots, and 16 he thinks may be Russian.
Cause their language skills were poor, their names were generic and they had no profile photos.
7 of the 16 had auto-generated handles consisting of a very common, English name followed by a series of seemingly random digits, and five of those seven had not uploaded a profile image, a combination which according to the studies mentioned above, is a typical characteristic of Russian troII accounts.
Out of those 16, 4(?) were actually identified as Russian troIIs.
@1popculturefan, @MarcoSo94862885, @VPalmera and @ThatNikkaGeeked.
Also, there is another account retweeting @1popculturefan which is, maybe, also a Russian troll/sock.
It doesn't help that the author keeps interchangeably referring to tweets as accounts.
Or that there is no summary of tweets or accounts.
Thus one can't tell if he's referring to some of the same accounts (or tweets) when he says that "6 of the 16 accounts have an extremely high retweet rate" and "9 accounts have been through the "resets"" while "4 accounts present themselves as a type of news source".
Are those 6 among the 9? 4 among 6? Who knows!
On a side note, TIL that using the word "troII" more than a certain number of times in the text activates Slashdot lameness filter.
Luckily, bitches don't know about my upper case i.
Oh, and the movie did suck.
Your article comes from CoalSwarm.
CoalSwarm, a global network of researchers tracking fossil-fuel infrastructure, analyzed satellite imagery as of July 2018, and discovered that the construction of around half of those 150 plants is still proceeding, despite the government orders.
Just like that OP NYT article, which sources Urgewald, which again, sources CoalSwarm Database.
We also included companies listed in the CoalSwarm Database as they are planning new coal power plants.
Getting that? Got that? Good.
Now go read the very first line in the link I quoted above, debunking those numbers. Well... putting them in context.
It goes kinda like this...
Dr Christine Shearer is a researcher and analyst for the US-based energy research group CoalSwarm.
The stuff you're quoting is accounted for - AND THE COAL PLANT NUMBERS ARE STILL DECREASING.
As for this...
U.S. Exports expected to be up 60% in 2018 go figure.
Again... actually reading the article and looking up sources helps to put things in context.
(Montel) US seaborne thermal coal exports could surge 60% this year amid a shortfall in global supply and healthy import demand, the director of consultancy Perret Associates told Montel on Wednesday.
Guillaume Perret estimated the country's coal exports could rise from 36.7m tonnes in 2017 to 58m tonnes this year and 60m tonnes in 2019.
You are relying on predictions of a consulting firm which lives and dies with coal. So take that in consideration when you ask yourself if they are biased.
https://www.perretassociates.c...
Now scroll down to the bottom of the text where they try to sneak past the ugly truth.
Meanwhile, he said domestic coal demand in the US "will be flat at best, or erode slightly" over the coming years.
And demand from Europe is also on the wane, with the EU-15 countries expected to import just 90.2m tonnes of seaborne thermal coal this year versus 107m tonnes last year.
I.e. Even people selling you coal are admitting, though "hiding" it in last lines of the text, that the demand for their product has peeked and is on decline.
Activists desperate to keep narrative under control obviously keep doing the damage control, good example being your forbes links.
Yeah... Forbes... that bastion of activism.
But good job on revealing yourself as a moron AND a conspiracy loon there, with those secret Chinese coal plants - as if they could hide produced power.
Thanks.
At least 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. That's not middle class and it's certainly not "no longer at risk of poverty".
Entire US is about 4.4% of the global population.
Sooo... don't be so US-centric and egoistic and learn to accept the math? Maybe?
Particularly when you're calling "bullshit" on a what, by your own numbers is 0.44% of the ENTIRE WORLD population.
You know... that 10% of US population you don't believe are doing better than you believe.
I do not believe that your beliefs are believable.
Nor has China which is still building new coal plants
Except the actual and up to date source of the info in your article points otherwise.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/gu...
Planned new coal capacity has been cancelled around the world, with particularly rapid falls in China and India.
At the end of 2015, China had plans to build 515GW of new coal capacity. That figure now stands at 76GW. In India, the pre-construction pipeline has shrunk from 218GW in 2015 to 63GW today.
That's the main reason Chinese companies are scrambling around the world trying to sell their coal plants.
They already had them in the pipeline and now they can't just scrap billions of dollars already built into steam turbines.
So they are trying to get rid of them elsewhere while there's still time.
Coal is simply no longer economical.
Most notably, our figures show that less than 2GW of new coal capacity has been proposed in either China or India in 2018 - a significant development for the two countries that have been the site of 85% of the world's new coal power capacity since 2006.
While some analysts predicted the drop in China and India might be replaced with an increase throughout other parts of the world, the pipeline across the rest of the world also continues to decline. ...
Notably, Japan has called off 3.6GW of proposed coal capacity since 2017, while South Korea will stop issuing permits for new coal plants.
From January through to June 2018, nearly 20GW of new coal capacity was commissioned: 12GW in China (blue area in the chart, below) , 5GW in India (red), and 3GW in the rest of the world (South Africa, Pakistan, Vietnam, Philippines and Japan).
While significant, the amount of coal power capacity that began operating during the first half of 2018 (20GW) was nearly matched by the amount retired (16GW), for a net increase of just 4GW - the slowest rate of growth on record.
If the slowdown continues global coal capacity should peak by 2022, if not sooner.
Gas is cheap, solar is cheaper, wind is cheapest... it's simply no longer profitable to mine and burn coal.
So if the police present a signed dashcam video showing that the citizen shot first, we still have to ask if the police had access to the signing key. If yes, then the signature means nothing.
That is not how asymmetric encryption works.
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-...
As an incentive for businesses to keep investing in R&D, the tax law provides favorable tax treatment for research and experimental costs. In most cases, you can currently deduct these costs or deduct them over five or ten years.
Government is funding research and development through tax incentives.
It's basically giving companies money to spend on playing around with LEGOs, trying to make a better mousetrap.
Why? Cause some of them work AND you get to keep and train a lot of experienced LEGO builders and other eggheads.
The kind of people who come up with better medicines and bigger bombs.
It's not the most efficient way of going about it, but the successful results get pumped straight into the economy and you save a lot on administration and planning costs.
Cause someone somewhere is probably developing something you don't even know you'll absolutely need in ten years.
Unlike monkeys on typewriters, scientists and engineers DO come up with useful things by just playing around with stuff all day.
That's not how embedded encrypted hashes work.
It's not a problem to tag videos or any kind of a digital recording with invisible but readable watermarks based on the content of the video.
Hell... Kids today love blockchains.
Put a blockchain in it and tag it all the way from the lens to the eyeball. OK... CCD/CMOS to LCD.
The problem is backwards compatibility and the cost of upgrades.
There's still video out there that is captured with outdated analog devices, particularly of the security kind.
And that's not even talking about EVERYTHING ELSE. CCD/CMOS to LCD.
Or about a security protocol (as in agreement, not as in software) to coordinate that on a global scale.
Which would have to go R&D to consumer.
We're talking pan-global standards and cooperation and trillions of dollars and decades of implementation.
On the other hand, that's trillions of dollars and decades of sales for the side that comes up with a globally viable standards first. And easiest to implement.
It's a choice.
Own a smart watch - or be smart.
...as always, is "Is it more a Pyramid or a Ponzi?"
That's Charmin but Preparation H is truly a rocket that will go places.
Yeah... but that's again grading service. Personal preferences and prejudices and all that.
One to five stars is simply not a proper way to objectively grade a service. It should be a questionnaire.
Things I talk about are more like physical products or cultural artifacts such as books, movies, music...
E.g. One of my favorite "judging by the quality of judgment" cases is comparing the number of reviews for Boyhood with the number of reviews for 400 Blows... and every consecutive film in that series.
I.e. Of all the professional critics and the audience who gave such rave and "fresh" reviews to a movie whose gimmick is that it was filmed over a decade - practically none of them even know of a series filmed over multiple decades, where the main character is actually an alter-ego of the director, who basically invented auteur theory.
Where thus the gimmick is not a gimmick. And even a "clip show" is not just a clip show.
But people who don't know of that, though it's their job to know that, and some of whom even went to school to learn that... they clearly don't know of the series.
And they think that a gimmicky movie is "fresh" and fantastic. Hmm...
Something tells me that their praises of that movie are kinda overrated and underinformed.
Indeed.
First thing that came to my mind reading that "Funding was not secured, the price of $420 was not based in reality" anonymous coward quote in the summary was - "What about a price of $240 then? Or about? Is there funding secured for THAT price?"
Cause, thanks to the timeline, he can now just turn around and point his finger at SEC.
"You caused this, with that talk of an investigation, not me.
In fact, I think of suing you for devaluing my stock and losing me and my shareholders billions."
I want to know what the others hated about the thing they graded.
Often times the fact a crank or an idiot hates something will tell you more than the glowing or factual but dry reviews.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." works both ways.
Granted... You can't really apply that to services, like Uber.
Nor should a simple 5-star system be used for something like that, where both providing and experiencing a service is utterly subjective.
The point of a grade system is to eliminate subjectivity and to present the quality of that which is graded in an objective fashion.
And you can't do that when people can give grades based on personal preferences and hangups.
There's a name for that. Prejudice.
If there's significant demand for local content in a given country, the streaming services would fund it on their own. If they don't, then a new comer would identify the market and do so. Legislating means that the market doesn't see the demand.
Not everyone wants to live in a world of 24/7 "Ow! My Balls!" marathon.
I.e. 0$ budget productions watched by mental vegetables with voyeuristic disorders and the taste for sensationalism.
You know... What the "markets" crave. The Trump "base".
While I tend not to utter those words myself, I do think it's farcical that others allow them to exert such power.
Wait...
Did you just throw down the challenge to the internet at large, claiming that people shouldn't be at all affected by verbal insults, you child molesting necrophiliac Nazi cunt?
No you didn't.
You can't even type properly. Most likely you're just a script, run from somewhere in Russia.
But I sure know the problem... it is really surprising how often (or how many) buried obscenities pass under our eyes
Tehehe! You said but. And ass.
You're welcome.
If people want efficiency, long life, power savings, they will buy them of their own free will.
Why mandate and force people to buy certain products.
Let people decide what is best for themselves.
Typical nanny state control freaks !
Funny...
We can actually tell your parents yelled out those same lines back when the phasing out of leaded gasoline was announced.
https://www.etymonline.com/wor...
assassin (n.)
1530s (in Anglo-Latin from mid-13c.), via French and Italian, from Arabic hashishiyyin "hashish-users," plural of hashishiyy, from the source of hashish (q.v.).
A fanatical Ismaili Muslim sect of the mountains of Lebanon in the time of the Crusades, under leadership of the "Old Man of the Mountains" (translates Arabic shaik-al-jibal, name applied to Hasan ibu-al-Sabbah), they had a reputation for murdering opposing leaders after intoxicating themselves by eating hashish. The plural suffix -in was mistaken in Europe for part of the word (compare Bedouin). Middle English had the word as hassais (mid-14c.), from Old French hassasis, assasis, which is from the Arabic word.
You are confusing etymology with historical accuracy.
You know, it bugs me when people say "well science is not a democracy. Something is either proven or it isn't."
The scientific method is essentially democratic
You didn't get what "the people" say there.
Mainly because you have wrong ideas about science and/or democracy.
Science is not a democracy because you don't get to DECIDE or COMPROMISE or AGREE on the nature of reality - reality just is.
You can't argue or vote your or any other way with science any more than you can make a cold fire by coming up with an alternative temperature scale.
And there's nothing "essentially democratic" about the scientific method itself. It is in fact an autocracy of reality.
There's ONE way to do it right, you don't get to choose another way, it doesn't matter how many votes of how many people you got on your side - reality just puts its foot down and goes "It's MY way or it's not science. Deal with it."
One person claims to have done something via an experiment, and that doesn't prove anything. You need a whole bunch more people to do the same experiment....to convince them.
No.
You are confusing some kind of a mix of publishing and academia and education and general knowledge with science.
One person's experimental proof of a theory, if done according to strict rules of scientific method, is enough.
For the precise reason that it would provide the same exact results REGARDLESS of how many people do the same experiment or how many people are convinced.
Also, replication or peer review are NOT done in order to convince "a bunch of people".
Replication and peer review are done in order to try to TEST the theory and/or the experiment - by doing the exact same thing as the original experimenter.
To see if it will break this time. And if the science behind the theory and the experiment is solid - it won't break.
REGARDLESS of how convinced a "bunch of people" are.
If scientific method was about democracy and conviction, everyone could simply agree that the Moon is made out of cheese.
And then the conviction that the Moon is made out of cheese would make it so.
You just gouda believe it hard enough, that's all.
There are only two problems, not three.
And they are essentially the same problem - too many fake taxi cars are creating traffic congestion while adding pollution and waste by "adding 5.7 billion vehicle miles to nine major urban areas over six years".
I.e. About a billion vehicle miles per year more than before.
As for the public transportation problem - there isn't one. It's still there.
It's just that people are coaxed into giving money to corporations who shift all the expenses and risk onto other people - instead of using services of a public company.
Ultimately ending in a situation where people make no real profit out of that exchange, while incurring plenty of hidden costs.
Observers have noted how Express Pool, for example, is modeled - well - like a bus.
In a typical commute, Express Pool riders might walk to a busy intersection where they are met by a car that shuttles them along a straight route to an often-popular destination.
The vehicle makes as few turns as possible, sometimes picking up other passengers along the way; the cost of a ride can be as low as $3 or $4.
But problems such as "deadheading," where drivers roam city streets in empty cars waiting for a fare, markedly reduce the efficiency of these rides.
And even if ride-hail services can expand the reach of shared mobility services and fill as many seats as possible, they will never be as efficient as rail or bus - ultimately resulting in more congestion and higher reliance on automobiles, the research says.
And as those fake taxi companies are openly competing with services already paid for by the citizens - why shouldn't the city government protect their citizen's investment by leveling the playing field?
Tax them like a taxi company that they are and make them pay and treat their drivers like a taxi company would have to.
Or a bus company, if they insist on the bus-like model described above.
They can still "share" the rides. Which is just bullshit jargon. Most rides are "one car - one passenger".
And even should the "share" share increase - it's still just adding pollution and waste.
Lyft says that today, a third of its rides in major markets are shared.
The company has outlined a goal to make half of its ride shared by 2022.
"Even if Lyft managed to meet its 50 percent shared ride goal, you still increase [vehicle miles traveled] by 120 percent," Schwartz said, citing the report's finding that 50 percent shared ride adoption would still add about 2.2 vehicle miles to roads, or a 120 percent increase in driving overall.