Then it becomes a nuisance for read-only pages where fast key navigation is very useful. It is not the browser's fault when you lose a form due to a misplaced backspace, it is the form developer's fault for not building a navigation confirmation into their page (and also a little bit your fault for losing your cursor). If the higher level system cannot make a decision that works for all cases, then that decision should not be made by that system.
If by 'exploit' you mean forcing a whopping 1 more click or button tap to navigate away, then sure. In any reasonably modern browser the unload event is 'special' and the web page code is only able to initiate the prompt but cannot handle or subvert the user's choice in any way. You will also notice that in this prompt 'confirm' is always the focused choice so all you have to do is tap enter or space. Easy-peasy. I personally like backspace as a navigation hotkey and am not a fan of keyboards studded with metafunction keys I never use, so this is my preferred approach to trap the accidental 'back'.
This seems to be your favorite phrase these days. It gets creepier every time you say it. It feels like those unsettling pieces of robo-thesaurus-ized grammar you find in gutter ads of shady websites and the titles of online porn videos uploaded from god-knows-where. It makes you sound not just like a troll, but like a troll who is speaking through Google translate circa 2008.
You aren't even aware of how much seething hatred there is in the feminist movement for trans women, do you?
Make that 2006. Also, you haven't a fucking clue what you are talking about. I actually live among / align with these people you are talking about, and I have no
idea what you are on about. The pressures you are describing are being manufactured by whatever lunatic demagogue feeds you your daily thoughts, because they are certainly not a part of my reality. I find it quite easy to get along in life knowing that there are men/women/gay/trans people, that some subset of each of them are rabid assholes, that most of them are OK folks and, most importantly, that they are all people not caricatures painted by some dipshit who overcompensates for their own suppressed perversions by freaking the fuck out over what everybody else is doing. Please try it sometime, I think you will find it is very relaxing.
Yes, you use emotionally charged terms like "disgusting"
'Anchor baby' is the emotionally charged term that reveals your irrational bias on this topic. 'Disgusting' is the word I use to describe irrational, emotional thoughts injected into debates to rationalize arguments for the dehumanization of groups of people. I think it fits quite nicely. 'Disappointing' is the word I use to describe people who's rhetorical skills are so poor that they need to resort to emotionally charged, irrational statements in a 'reasoned' argument.
Which "race" am I talking about here? Exactly? If you can't tell, that is just an empty throwaway phrase designed to be dismissive without any facts to back it up. You walked right into that one.
Nice word salad. Get back to me when you are ready to decide whether an 'anchor baby' and its parents are valid human beings with feelings, desires and a right to humane treatment. No statement about whether they deserve to be in this country, just are they deserving of our respect and compassion. At that point, one of 2 things will be proven:
1) The term is dehumanizing (which is disgusting), and should not be used in rational discourse. You are not a racist, but you regret the use of this slur because it has no place in a topical debate if you want your views to be taken seriously.
2) You are indeed a racist. In fact, as you say, you did not specify the race, so you are actually a meta-racist, the abstract superclass of all racists. Congratulations?
Yeah I am not seeing the point in this distinction, unless it is to claim that Islamism is somehow unique among all other upstart strata of society in history and that it uniquely deserves casting suspicion on all members of its larger base of Islam. This seems highly unjust, and catastrophically misleading when applied to coming up with a plan to combat it (i.e. let's attack Islam and radicalism, because Islam has somehow done something as a whole to deserve that, and it's not like it's going to increase the radicalism at all, right?). I don't know how many times we have to label X the 'great evil of our decade/generation/century' before we realize that all of the 'thems' are all formed of the same basic tectonic forces that are always at work in society pushing one group of people against, past or through another. None of them are truly unique in their origins, yet each one is accompanied by all new bouts of pearl clutching, doomsday speak and resolutions to crush them out of existence as if such a thing were possible. All this fallacious thinking does is to ensure that you are reset to zero every time you start dealing with a new one, because you didn't fucking learn anything from the last one. Most of the time, 20 years on, the 'great evil' is integrated if not accepted as a part of our society and we look back on the pearl-clutchers as backward assholes, so what was the point of all that?
'Oh that one was different. It was just {Irish|communists|unions|blacks|gays} - they turned out to be not so bad. But this one - this is the real devil in the world! Don't you see!? It's in their very {genetics|religion|philosophy}! They hate us and will do anything to destroy us!'.
.
I can only hear this template for treating people like shit so many times (once) before it is proven to be nonsensical, but somehow we keep spinning the wheel. It's like watching a truly godawful programmer try to write what is clearly meant to be recursive logic using for loops: it just ain't gonna work buddy - time to change your mindset and approach!
Jesus, look at you guys - even your strawmen have strawman arguments now. If you want to know what somebody thinks, try asking them instead of playing your six degrees of imaginary argument bullshit. The first thing you are likely to discover is that (big surprise), people are more complex than 'Liberal' and 'Feminist' and the ridiculous mischaracterized personae that you have built up behind those words. I could type out the epic debate where I utterly trounce a 'Conservative Christian' or a 'Trump Supporter' who just keeps thinking the same dumb shit; but I don't, because that is a cartoon character not a person, and because that would be a masturbatory, idiotic thing to do.
But you guys go ahead and give 'em what for though - everybody's cheering for you! And by everybody I mean all the other fictional characters who populate your papier mache worldview.
No, it is the implication that a person is wielding their child as a tool with criminal intent to defraud a society rather than, you know, being a human being and trying to make a better life for one's self and family that makes you racist. Having a (valid) logistical concern with the amount of immigrants society can bear is one thing, throwing your bigotry on top of that only demonstrates that you are not capable of dealing with the situation rationally.
drop an anchor baby
Congratulations, you managed to make an already disgusting term worse.
Nice false dichotomy there, and an excellent demonstration of why nobody can take you guys seriously. Libertarianism is always defined as what it isn't, what it is a rejection of (except 'freedoms', which doesn't objectively mean anything when you get down to specifics). It's too smart for all the lamestream thinkers out there. It's the 'one weird trick' of political philosophies. And yet, when applied to practical problems it rings naive in the extreme.
If somebody could explain in practical terms just how the hell you plan on enacting its tenets of libertarianism in laws and government bodies I might stop ignoring the remainder of any sentence that contains it. So far all I see is a political system that relies on each individual being rational, responsible and ethical for it to not come apart at the seams. As much as I would love for that to be the case, it is a reality that only exists in thought experiments, which is pretty much the only appropriate place for libertarianism.
If you think that's bad, you should check out his pants-shitting terror rants on the topic of trans women vis a vis bathrooms. The hyperbole is strong with this one.
This is your bellwether for sociological conclusions? Most people at least pretend they are informing their arguments in less idiotic ways but, again, thank you for making this time-efficient for me.
1) really bad with math and 2) really naive about government. I could also throw in 3) never heard of Venezuela
Please. That is some weak-ass strawman shit. I might be tempted to actually respond to these if they weren't so painfully facile. Are you (and all Trump supporters) that guy screaming 'go to fucking Auschwitz!' outside a Trump rally? No? Then do me a favor and try to hold that thought and the transitive property in your head at the same time the next time you read Facebook. Also, it sounds like your friends are idiots. Maybe it is time to reflect on that.
but I'd be a dick at that point
First true statement you have made so far.
Most of Bernie's supporters are the standard left-wingers who are envious of anybody who's "made it".
'Most of Trump's supporters are the standard right-wingers who are envious of the fun-loving lifestyle and hot girlfriends of anybody who's "not an utter twat"'. See how that works? I encourage you to talk to some real people, because you are describing cartoon characters.
If you think they won't turn on you in a heartbeat you're even more naive than I'm assuming above.
Or, maybe, just maybe, people aren't all 1 dimensional characters from the sad puppet show that is your mind. Perhaps it is not wealth but overwhelming dicketry backed by by the power of wealth that people have a problem with. When you call certain people 'liberal elites', is this an expression of envy? Do you hate them for one reason and one reason alone - that they are richer and smarter than you? Or is it that you disagree with their politics, that it irks you that their elite nature allows them disproportionate influence, and you wish there were a more egalitarian system of representation that did not allow such a thing? Funny - that sounds familiar.
I am wealthy, I support Bernie. Normally I wouldn't bother to state such an uninteresting combination of 2 facts, or with trying to list the various aspects of objective reality that contradict your ridiculous, uninformed and, well, hateful description of a group of 'others' (gee, where have I heard such rhetoric recently?), but you wrote your argument so poorly that this simple statement seems to QED the whole show, so...thanks for saving me some time I guess?
It's called Principal Engineer, dipshit. It means you are actually good at what you do, not racing to get into management before somebody notices how incompetent you are.
You're not questioning Islam, you are making a claim that the questionable tenets of Islam are directly responsible for militant extremism. Nothing to do with the geopolitical history of the middle east, no of course not, it must be some words in a book that made those people behave that way. It is your failure to grasp this distinction that makes everybody (correctly) think you are a bigoted moron, not your questioning of scripture.
Insults are easy to brush off, and usually come from overly defensive pedants with no real talent desperately trying to keep their grip on some digital fiefdom. The real nut punch is simply seeing somebody silently be better than you.
One says a blog and a video suggested it. The other says Texas frequently sees 9-15 participation from moderate Democrats and people who want more say in local issues. Neither say word one about it actually happening. Do you even read these?
Yeah, the mention of a minor clerical mistake was enough to give him instant flop sweats and run out of an interview, as opposed to casually explaining it as the simple matter that it was. Do you see how silly that sounds?
Yeah sure, and his rallies are packed with Democrat-hired actors just pretending to be rabid lunatics.
From the article:
The majority of the evidence, however, indicates that primary crossover, in which a voter from a certain party votes in the primary of the opposite party, is relatively rare.
The whole 'article' is a giant piece of exposition about what voter crossover is, not that it actually happened, despite its obvious wishful thinking that this may be why the Republican party is such a spectacular shit show. Also, maybe you didn't notice that it is posted on the page of a political strategy consultant firm, not a journalism site? Sounds like you are the one not paying attention.
I love this new trend where everything that reflects poorly on your point of view is some kind of conspiracy perpetrated by shills from the opposing side. Not a reason to rethink your allegiances, or reflect on whether you are / have gotten in bed with a vile group of people...no of course not - definitely just a conspiracy.
Seriously. The question that has been building as I read all these posts about the supposed replaceability of kitchen staff is 'where the fuck have you people been eating?!'.
Aardvarkjoe: Yes, your food is crap. And, apparently, yes I do eat at restaurants staffed by wizards. I wish you could see it. It's fucking amazing.
Actually, FYI: in Germany big solar plants are used to stabilize grid frequency. Something with the electric property of being a "capacitor" and how to connect it trailing or leading to the grid... but that is even for me a bit to complicated:D
Haha, yes I have seen Amprion and that shit is straight up crazy.
No disagreement that solar should have a bigger role, but that's not quite how load following works in general. I think maybe what you are saying is that solar's output naturally tracks approximately with load(?), but I wouldn't agree with that either since it peaks mid-day and peak demand is mornings and evenings.
<pedantry>
Technically speaking, almost nothing follows load as a real time quantity. Most everything follows a forecast of load (including nuclear), and since load following is a function of the system as a whole not individual generators, this allows the generation dispatch optimization engines to easily incorporate even slow ramping resources like nuclear into an accurate total dispatch. Nuclear may not move fast, but we don't really need it to because it is used to supply a more or less constant base of the load curve.
Different load forecast algorithms (say, one each for T-1 day, T-1 hour, and T-5 minutes) are revised and re-incorporated into the generation dispatch engine along with current weather data leading up to real time, which offers plenty of opportunities in that lead up to keep slow-ramping generation in line with the load curve. Usually unless there is a major anomaly, the only resources being called on to correct for load in a short-term responsive fashion are certain low/medium output fast-ramp/fast-start units which have elected in to a program designated for this purpose (for which they are paid handsomely when needed, thus making this the casino section of the energy market). Solar is generally not even eligible for these programs because they require a guaranteed/certified response time and output level.
Also, this is not a horseshoes and hand grenades situation, so following the 'big picture' of load is not really all that useful as a property. Solar's utility lies in it's renewable nature and its low long term operation cost, not so much in it's ability to be a key player in grid frequency-keeping. Solar and wind are in fact exponentially harder to incorporate into grid solutions than their dirty cousins. If they weren't so important from an ecological standpoint most of us who have to deal with this stuff would prefer they did not exist.
A nonsense platitude - fitting way to cap off your inane argument.
I repeat:
How does it organize? Where/when/how do they train? Who is armed with what? Who reports to who? How do we even know who is in it? Who are they protecting, and from what? What are their rules of engagement? How do we call them up when needed?
And I add: what makes you think that on 'the day that the people are needed', all the guns will be pointing the same direction? If the thing that finally gets you riled up to shoot somebody is our 'tyrannical' (democratic) government, on that day I'd sooner take up arms against you than them, because handing political power over to the whim of small groups of angry people with guns is most definitely not the American way. And don't kid yourself - you will be a small group, because you won't all rise up for the same reason at the same time, because you are not a well-regulated militia.
we hope that day never comes
Bullshit. You fantasize about it. If you were actually serious in any way about this you would have better answers to my questions.
And you seem to think that I think 'regulations' specifically mean governmental controls, so you have really just fallen into your own trap of silly semantics. In order for something to be well-regulated as in 'functioning in good working order' that implies that there actually is a semblance of order to be evaluated - order that comes from rules that define what constitutes being 'well regulated'. I don't give a shit who is applying these rules, but there is no way you can look at American civilian gun ownership and call that a 'well-regulated militia'. How does it organize? Where/when/how do they train? Who is armed with what? Who reports to who? How do we even know who is in it? Who are they protecting, and from what? What are their rules of engagement? How do we call them up when needed? What even is it? You can't even define this militia in terms more specific than 'people with guns', so I don't know how on Earth you think you can get to the point of calling it 'well-regulated'.
The day that all gun owners register with a local militia, sign up for mandatory training courses, subject themselves to a democratic process that includes their local populations and actually perform a service for their community, that is the day I will grant to you that gun ownership is in service of the 2nd amendment and I will promptly shut up about guns. Until then the 'well-regulated militia' remains a preposterous line of argument for every person independently stockpiling weapons to use at their own personal discretion when and how they and they alone see fit. Hardly a conerstone of a strong democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Then it becomes a nuisance for read-only pages where fast key navigation is very useful. It is not the browser's fault when you lose a form due to a misplaced backspace, it is the form developer's fault for not building a navigation confirmation into their page (and also a little bit your fault for losing your cursor). If the higher level system cannot make a decision that works for all cases, then that decision should not be made by that system.
If by 'exploit' you mean forcing a whopping 1 more click or button tap to navigate away, then sure. In any reasonably modern browser the unload event is 'special' and the web page code is only able to initiate the prompt but cannot handle or subvert the user's choice in any way. You will also notice that in this prompt 'confirm' is always the focused choice so all you have to do is tap enter or space. Easy-peasy. I personally like backspace as a navigation hotkey and am not a fan of keyboards studded with metafunction keys I never use, so this is my preferred approach to trap the accidental 'back'.
cisfemale hunnies
This seems to be your favorite phrase these days. It gets creepier every time you say it. It feels like those unsettling pieces of robo-thesaurus-ized grammar you find in gutter ads of shady websites and the titles of online porn videos uploaded from god-knows-where. It makes you sound not just like a troll, but like a troll who is speaking through Google translate circa 2008.
You aren't even aware of how much seething hatred there is in the feminist movement for trans women, do you?
Make that 2006. Also, you haven't a fucking clue what you are talking about. I actually live among / align with these people you are talking about, and I have no idea what you are on about. The pressures you are describing are being manufactured by whatever lunatic demagogue feeds you your daily thoughts, because they are certainly not a part of my reality. I find it quite easy to get along in life knowing that there are men/women/gay/trans people, that some subset of each of them are rabid assholes, that most of them are OK folks and, most importantly, that they are all people not caricatures painted by some dipshit who overcompensates for their own suppressed perversions by freaking the fuck out over what everybody else is doing. Please try it sometime, I think you will find it is very relaxing.
Yes, you use emotionally charged terms like "disgusting"
'Anchor baby' is the emotionally charged term that reveals your irrational bias on this topic. 'Disgusting' is the word I use to describe irrational, emotional thoughts injected into debates to rationalize arguments for the dehumanization of groups of people. I think it fits quite nicely. 'Disappointing' is the word I use to describe people who's rhetorical skills are so poor that they need to resort to emotionally charged, irrational statements in a 'reasoned' argument.
Which "race" am I talking about here? Exactly? If you can't tell, that is just an empty throwaway phrase designed to be dismissive without any facts to back it up. You walked right into that one.
Nice word salad. Get back to me when you are ready to decide whether an 'anchor baby' and its parents are valid human beings with feelings, desires and a right to humane treatment. No statement about whether they deserve to be in this country, just are they deserving of our respect and compassion. At that point, one of 2 things will be proven:
1) The term is dehumanizing (which is disgusting), and should not be used in rational discourse. You are not a racist, but you regret the use of this slur because it has no place in a topical debate if you want your views to be taken seriously.
2) You are indeed a racist. In fact, as you say, you did not specify the race, so you are actually a meta-racist, the abstract superclass of all racists. Congratulations?
Yeah I am not seeing the point in this distinction, unless it is to claim that Islamism is somehow unique among all other upstart strata of society in history and that it uniquely deserves casting suspicion on all members of its larger base of Islam. This seems highly unjust, and catastrophically misleading when applied to coming up with a plan to combat it (i.e. let's attack Islam and radicalism, because Islam has somehow done something as a whole to deserve that, and it's not like it's going to increase the radicalism at all, right?). I don't know how many times we have to label X the 'great evil of our decade/generation/century' before we realize that all of the 'thems' are all formed of the same basic tectonic forces that are always at work in society pushing one group of people against, past or through another. None of them are truly unique in their origins, yet each one is accompanied by all new bouts of pearl clutching, doomsday speak and resolutions to crush them out of existence as if such a thing were possible. All this fallacious thinking does is to ensure that you are reset to zero every time you start dealing with a new one, because you didn't fucking learn anything from the last one. Most of the time, 20 years on, the 'great evil' is integrated if not accepted as a part of our society and we look back on the pearl-clutchers as backward assholes, so what was the point of all that?
'Oh that one was different. It was just {Irish|communists|unions|blacks|gays} - they turned out to be not so bad. But this one - this is the real devil in the world! Don't you see!? It's in their very {genetics|religion|philosophy}! They hate us and will do anything to destroy us!'.
.
I can only hear this template for treating people like shit so many times (once) before it is proven to be nonsensical, but somehow we keep spinning the wheel. It's like watching a truly godawful programmer try to write what is clearly meant to be recursive logic using for loops: it just ain't gonna work buddy - time to change your mindset and approach!
Jesus, look at you guys - even your strawmen have strawman arguments now. If you want to know what somebody thinks, try asking them instead of playing your six degrees of imaginary argument bullshit. The first thing you are likely to discover is that (big surprise), people are more complex than 'Liberal' and 'Feminist' and the ridiculous mischaracterized personae that you have built up behind those words. I could type out the epic debate where I utterly trounce a 'Conservative Christian' or a 'Trump Supporter' who just keeps thinking the same dumb shit; but I don't, because that is a cartoon character not a person, and because that would be a masturbatory, idiotic thing to do.
But you guys go ahead and give 'em what for though - everybody's cheering for you! And by everybody I mean all the other fictional characters who populate your papier mache worldview.
Because if you say "Anchor baby" you're a racist!
No, it is the implication that a person is wielding their child as a tool with criminal intent to defraud a society rather than, you know, being a human being and trying to make a better life for one's self and family that makes you racist. Having a (valid) logistical concern with the amount of immigrants society can bear is one thing, throwing your bigotry on top of that only demonstrates that you are not capable of dealing with the situation rationally.
drop an anchor baby
Congratulations, you managed to make an already disgusting term worse.
Nice false dichotomy there, and an excellent demonstration of why nobody can take you guys seriously. Libertarianism is always defined as what it isn't, what it is a rejection of (except 'freedoms', which doesn't objectively mean anything when you get down to specifics). It's too smart for all the lamestream thinkers out there. It's the 'one weird trick' of political philosophies. And yet, when applied to practical problems it rings naive in the extreme.
If somebody could explain in practical terms just how the hell you plan on enacting its tenets of libertarianism in laws and government bodies I might stop ignoring the remainder of any sentence that contains it. So far all I see is a political system that relies on each individual being rational, responsible and ethical for it to not come apart at the seams. As much as I would love for that to be the case, it is a reality that only exists in thought experiments, which is pretty much the only appropriate place for libertarianism.
If you think that's bad, you should check out his pants-shitting terror rants on the topic of trans women vis a vis bathrooms. The hyperbole is strong with this one.
From what I see on my facebook wall
This is your bellwether for sociological conclusions? Most people at least pretend they are informing their arguments in less idiotic ways but, again, thank you for making this time-efficient for me.
1) really bad with math and 2) really naive about government. I could also throw in 3) never heard of Venezuela
Please. That is some weak-ass strawman shit. I might be tempted to actually respond to these if they weren't so painfully facile. Are you (and all Trump supporters) that guy screaming 'go to fucking Auschwitz!' outside a Trump rally? No? Then do me a favor and try to hold that thought and the transitive property in your head at the same time the next time you read Facebook. Also, it sounds like your friends are idiots. Maybe it is time to reflect on that.
but I'd be a dick at that point
First true statement you have made so far.
Most of Bernie's supporters are the standard left-wingers who are envious of anybody who's "made it".
'Most of Trump's supporters are the standard right-wingers who are envious of the fun-loving lifestyle and hot girlfriends of anybody who's "not an utter twat"'. See how that works? I encourage you to talk to some real people, because you are describing cartoon characters.
If you think they won't turn on you in a heartbeat you're even more naive than I'm assuming above.
Or, maybe, just maybe, people aren't all 1 dimensional characters from the sad puppet show that is your mind. Perhaps it is not wealth but overwhelming dicketry backed by by the power of wealth that people have a problem with. When you call certain people 'liberal elites', is this an expression of envy? Do you hate them for one reason and one reason alone - that they are richer and smarter than you? Or is it that you disagree with their politics, that it irks you that their elite nature allows them disproportionate influence, and you wish there were a more egalitarian system of representation that did not allow such a thing? Funny - that sounds familiar.
Seriously, man. Try harder. This is just sad.
That will be a lovely sentiment for your Mother's day card on Sunday 'Fuck you, and fuck your cancer. Love, Donald'
I think maybe you don't know how taxes work, or for that matter percentages.
I am wealthy, I support Bernie. Normally I wouldn't bother to state such an uninteresting combination of 2 facts, or with trying to list the various aspects of objective reality that contradict your ridiculous, uninformed and, well, hateful description of a group of 'others' (gee, where have I heard such rhetoric recently?), but you wrote your argument so poorly that this simple statement seems to QED the whole show, so...thanks for saving me some time I guess?
It's called Principal Engineer, dipshit. It means you are actually good at what you do, not racing to get into management before somebody notices how incompetent you are.
You're not questioning Islam, you are making a claim that the questionable tenets of Islam are directly responsible for militant extremism. Nothing to do with the geopolitical history of the middle east, no of course not, it must be some words in a book that made those people behave that way. It is your failure to grasp this distinction that makes everybody (correctly) think you are a bigoted moron, not your questioning of scripture.
Insults are easy to brush off, and usually come from overly defensive pedants with no real talent desperately trying to keep their grip on some digital fiefdom. The real nut punch is simply seeing somebody silently be better than you.
Or, more to the point, are you seriously suggesting that this dubious phenomenon is responsible for Trump? That is some next level denial.
One says a blog and a video suggested it. The other says Texas frequently sees 9-15 participation from moderate Democrats and people who want more say in local issues. Neither say word one about it actually happening. Do you even read these?
Yeah, the mention of a minor clerical mistake was enough to give him instant flop sweats and run out of an interview, as opposed to casually explaining it as the simple matter that it was. Do you see how silly that sounds?
Yeah sure, and his rallies are packed with Democrat-hired actors just pretending to be rabid lunatics.
From the article:
The majority of the evidence, however, indicates that primary crossover, in which a voter from a certain party votes in the primary of the opposite party, is relatively rare.
The whole 'article' is a giant piece of exposition about what voter crossover is, not that it actually happened, despite its obvious wishful thinking that this may be why the Republican party is such a spectacular shit show. Also, maybe you didn't notice that it is posted on the page of a political strategy consultant firm, not a journalism site? Sounds like you are the one not paying attention.
I love this new trend where everything that reflects poorly on your point of view is some kind of conspiracy perpetrated by shills from the opposing side. Not a reason to rethink your allegiances, or reflect on whether you are / have gotten in bed with a vile group of people...no of course not - definitely just a conspiracy.
Aardvarkjoe: Yes, your food is crap. And, apparently, yes I do eat at restaurants staffed by wizards. I wish you could see it. It's fucking amazing.
Actually, FYI: in Germany big solar plants are used to stabilize grid frequency. Something with the electric property of being a "capacitor" and how to connect it trailing or leading to the grid ... but that is even for me a bit to complicated :D
Haha, yes I have seen Amprion and that shit is straight up crazy.
No disagreement that solar should have a bigger role, but that's not quite how load following works in general. I think maybe what you are saying is that solar's output naturally tracks approximately with load(?), but I wouldn't agree with that either since it peaks mid-day and peak demand is mornings and evenings.
<pedantry>
Technically speaking, almost nothing follows load as a real time quantity. Most everything follows a forecast of load (including nuclear), and since load following is a function of the system as a whole not individual generators, this allows the generation dispatch optimization engines to easily incorporate even slow ramping resources like nuclear into an accurate total dispatch. Nuclear may not move fast, but we don't really need it to because it is used to supply a more or less constant base of the load curve.
Different load forecast algorithms (say, one each for T-1 day, T-1 hour, and T-5 minutes) are revised and re-incorporated into the generation dispatch engine along with current weather data leading up to real time, which offers plenty of opportunities in that lead up to keep slow-ramping generation in line with the load curve. Usually unless there is a major anomaly, the only resources being called on to correct for load in a short-term responsive fashion are certain low/medium output fast-ramp/fast-start units which have elected in to a program designated for this purpose (for which they are paid handsomely when needed, thus making this the casino section of the energy market). Solar is generally not even eligible for these programs because they require a guaranteed/certified response time and output level.
Also, this is not a horseshoes and hand grenades situation, so following the 'big picture' of load is not really all that useful as a property. Solar's utility lies in it's renewable nature and its low long term operation cost, not so much in it's ability to be a key player in grid frequency-keeping. Solar and wind are in fact exponentially harder to incorporate into grid solutions than their dirty cousins. If they weren't so important from an ecological standpoint most of us who have to deal with this stuff would prefer they did not exist.
</pedantry>
I repeat:
How does it organize? Where/when/how do they train? Who is armed with what? Who reports to who? How do we even know who is in it? Who are they protecting, and from what? What are their rules of engagement? How do we call them up when needed?
And I add: what makes you think that on 'the day that the people are needed', all the guns will be pointing the same direction? If the thing that finally gets you riled up to shoot somebody is our 'tyrannical' (democratic) government, on that day I'd sooner take up arms against you than them, because handing political power over to the whim of small groups of angry people with guns is most definitely not the American way. And don't kid yourself - you will be a small group, because you won't all rise up for the same reason at the same time, because you are not a well-regulated militia.
we hope that day never comes
Bullshit. You fantasize about it. If you were actually serious in any way about this you would have better answers to my questions.
The day that all gun owners register with a local militia, sign up for mandatory training courses, subject themselves to a democratic process that includes their local populations and actually perform a service for their community, that is the day I will grant to you that gun ownership is in service of the 2nd amendment and I will promptly shut up about guns. Until then the 'well-regulated militia' remains a preposterous line of argument for every person independently stockpiling weapons to use at their own personal discretion when and how they and they alone see fit. Hardly a conerstone of a strong democracy.