[when cops twisted a suspects arm behind his back and choked him] Your reference to that is what is called trivilising an issue, like Cheney talking about how sometimes he stood up all day when news came out about prisoners being kept in stress positions.
Keep on digging that hole. You think it is "trivial" to twist somebody's arm behind their back and to choke them to gain information, and doesn't rise to the level of torture, but stress positions are.
You also have your story about Cheney wrong (surprise). The comment about standing up all day was from Rumsfeld, and it was handwritten on an approval memo: "However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"
I don't need to - all I have to do is tell you to look it up and ignore your lies and personal attacks.
You've been making the personal attacks of late without any arguments, while I've looked stuff up and quoted them here (unlike you).
Did I lie about you stating that twisting somebody's arm behind their back and choking them to get information is not torture?
Did I lie when I quoted the UN convention against torture?
Did I lie when I quoted from a dictionary?
What lie did I state? You can't name it, just like you couldn't quote from a dictionary because you probably never consulted it in the first place and it doesn't support your position.
Are you normally like this or are you playing some sort of game here?
I return the question to you. Bluster, obfuscation, and poor reading comprehension don't make for an argument.
You're right, there isn't an argument, since you provide no arguments, just bluster. But the record stands, you explicitly said that when cops twisted a suspects arm behind his back and choked him, that it wasn't torture. This is the same position that the Bush administration took with "enhanced interrogation".
You then appealed to an imaginary dictionary you couldn't quote from, never responded to the quoted UN convention against torture definition that I provided (a treaty signed by the US and almost all countries), never responded to the actual dictionary definition I provided, and ludicrously appealed to Amnesty International, as if they would agree that twisting arms behind backs and choking is not torture.
You're just trying to handwave your way through the argument. Not only did I earlier quote the UN convention on torture, in my last post I quoted the dictionary as well. Clearly you have stopped reading and even attempting to address any arguments.
No response to what Amnesty International would think about twisting somebody's arm behind their back and choking them to gain information. They would call it torture, and you know it.
No response to the similarities between the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation" methods and your loose definition of torture, in particular with regards to the UN convention against torture, which I quoted, and previous administrations had signed, per your "leave the definition to such people as Amnesty International and earlier US governments".
You talk about "weasels like Dick Chaney who decided to take the twisted line you appear to be pushing", when in fact is is you who is trying to say when the cops twisted somebody's arm behind their back and choked them to get information, it wasn't torture.
What is your defense? You have none. The dictionary doesn't support you, the UN convention against torture doesn't support you, and there's no way in hell Amnesty International would support your position. You dug yourself a hole that you cannot get out of.
And I'll draw attention again to the long established view in the USSR where they did such a thing a lot that such information could not be trusted.
Repeating yourself isn't going to win the argument. I provided a positive example where it worked, and my position all along is you need some way to verify the info you get.
Of course I didn't because those that defined it are far better suited than either of us. I'm not going to make up my own definition just because you are, I'm going to use the established one from experts instead of delving into irrelevant relativism shit.
I mean quote the dictionary definition you are using. You have to be some kind of idiot to think I meant for you to make up your own "dictionary" definition. And I'm the one that managed to quote from the UN convention against torture, unlike the relativistic bullshit that you adopted because it fit your argument, even though it aligns with "enhanced interrogation" bullshit from the Bush administration.
But since you seem to inept to quote from a dictionary, I'll do it for you:
torture: "Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion."
Now explain how twisting somebody's arm behind their back or choking them to gain information doesn't apply.
So at one point you are saying I did define it and at another that I did?
No, you idiot. I said you adopted the same position, not that you provided a dictionary definition. The two are not the same.
I leave the definition to such people as Amnesty International and earlier US governments instead of weasels like Dick Chaney who decided to take the twisted line you appear to be pushing and then pretending that I agree with.
*snort* So you think Amnesty International would disagree that twisting somebody's arm behind their back and choking them to gain information isn't torture? This was the whole point of "enhanced interrogation". They didn't rip people's fingernails off or put them on the rack, but they did waterboard, rough people up, and other stress forms like making them stand or deriving sleep.
And earlier US governments signed the UN convention against torture, which I already provided the definition for, and it clearly covers things like twisting arms behind people's backs and choking.
Nice try to weasel out of it "I'm not saying..." style.
No, what I said I believe, and stand by: that you can get useful information out of torture. That's not saying the same thing that you should torture, or that torture always works or even mostly works.
Also how can I be a hypocrite when all we've been doing here is pointing out flaws in your position?
The hypocrisy is that you tried to paint me as pro-torture, when it is in fact you you who adopted the same position as the Bush administration after 9/11, that "enhanced interrogation" wasn't torture.
And I was right. You didn't provide the dictionary definition, despite claiming that's what you were going by. You're full of shit and a hypocrite, and have dug yourself a hole you can't get out of.
Please, then, provide me with the dictionary definition that supports your position, that choking somebody and twisting their arm behind their back to get information isn't torture. I already quoted the UN convention.
You won't, because you're full of shit and a hypocrite.
All forms of energy need backup and that is usually goal or gas because those forms can ramp up fairly quickly. 99% of the time they are not needed though. What was the problem again?
Where does this 99% figure come from? More handwaving? The problem is a matter of how much coal and gas will be needed after the promised land has been reached 10 years from now.
That was not "reasoning" but a thin veneer on "because Cheney paid for us to come up with a quasi-legal sounding excuse".
Which makes it all the more hypocritical for you to adopt the same standards and try to redefine torture as not torture.
It's a bit depressing to read American children
Ad hominem.
posting about how useful torture is.
If you want to have a real argument about torture, then have a real argument. Don't try to shortcut it by stating you can't get useful information out of it, and then try to redefine torture when it is explicitly shown to have happened and been useful.
I never advocated torture, and never condoned it. I explicitly stated I was playing devil's advocate, since the groupthink position doesn't want to admit that torture could possibly work. And unlike you, I didn't try to redefine torture to not include torture as a matter of convenience. The horrible person is you.
Nice straw man you are setting on fire there to try to avoid looking in the mirror.
Nice inappropriate use of the straw man logical fallacy. I directly quoted you as saying, "not something that is referred to as torture", and directly responded to that, with a citation as well, and correctly linked your line of reasoning with the exact same reasoning that Bush's administration took after 9/11. If the shoe fits, wear it.
I suggest trying to think for yourself instead of falling for "might makes right" propaganda.
Non sequitur. I honestly have no idea where this came from or what you are talking about. I suggest not posting when drunk.
I'm asking you about peak load when the weather doesn't cooperate. Germany has to handle it. That they get 40% when things are fine doesn't contradict my question.
Instead of facing reality, you want to handwave away the question. I'm not even saying it can't work, I'm asking how they deal with it.
Since you clearly don't have the answer and are living in a fantasy land where this isn't a problem, I looked up the answer myself. They rely on coal and gas to make up for shortfalls due to variability, the two products you even mentioned yourself in your original post. You just seem to think they magically won't be needed when more renewables come online.
They could have gotten the same information using non-torture.
They might have. It is unknown if they would have, or how long it would have taken, and if the person would have been moved or killed by the time they did.
Torture does not work on the people for whom there aren't other less extreme forms of interrogation.
We have a positive example in this case where it did work: After initial questioning the person refused to answer, he was tortured, and he gave up the info. We only have your assertion that he would have answered otherwise.
What's more, when torturing for information, you have no way of knowing if it's true nor do you have any way of knowing if it's all of the relevant information.
They checked the place and rescued the victim and arrested the other kidnapper.
In the case of those kidnappers, there could easily have been information that the kidnaper would kill the victim if they approached through a certain door, or would be killed if they didn't receive a call at a certain time.
Indeed, which could also be true for a non-torture method, so are you arguing for the torture method as the quick way to get actionable info?
So yes, this is no real information
Sounds like you are just in denial.
it is the simplest type of information and not typically the sort of information that people are tortured to get.
It's a positive example when it is claimed that torture doesn't work. I said it can work, but you need actionable info or the ability to cross-check it.
Sorry, but that is not something that is referred to as torture. When you find out what we are writing about here you will be truly sickened and will get a glimpse of how evil people can be.
I'm truly sickened that you think it isn't torture. It certainly is under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: "[..] any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him [..]"
If you want to claim having your arm twisted behind your back or being choked doesn't cause severe pain or suffering, you're a liar. Yes, there are even worse forms of torture, but that's the problem the Bush administration got into after 9/11 by trying to say that their torture wasn't torture, but "enhanced interrogation".
In your effort to not admit it can work, you have become evil yourself.
Dropping the existing GNOME 2 userbase had to happen, they had no choice.
No, they didn't, and if they weren't cowboys having fun with new whiz-bang ideas they wouldn't have adopted this idea. That's why they don't give a shit, and abused the Gnome 2 userbase as they did, and any claims that they really care is so much hot air.
Let me give you one some simple examples of how they could have approached things. First, let me say I'm running Gnome 3 on my desktop right now, and I get by with a few tweaks.
When I switched to Gnome 3, I lost all my custom settings, like my background, my theme, and my caps-as-ctl setting. All of these could have been carried forward if they cared. That's what it entails to make an effort at the un-fun stuff.
Another example is I used to have the standard system load widget in the system tray or whatever the Gnome name for it is. When I switched it was lost, and I could find no replacement. I googled around and found a blog post saying how great the new API was for the Gnome 3 system tray (or whatever the proper name is), and you could do everything Gnome 2 could and more.
Great, so why didn't they have a wrapper to support backwards compatibility? Because they didn't care. They went with the "clean slate" model because it was fun and easy, and left everybody else to pick up the pieces.
I've seen weather in my local parts where it has been cloudy with drizzle for 2 weeks straight. I can't imagine the solar panels would be doing much good at that point.
Trying to handwave away problems like this doesn't inspire much confidence.
So basically they are upset they ended up losing out, but really don't give a crap about the existing Gnome 2 userbase they pissed off. I fail to see how this supports your earlier statements.
By the way, this statement in particular:
They didn't sign up to maintain GNOME 2. They aren't there to build a 90s style desktop.
is particularly telling, and supports what I said.
No, it just gets you something else to use in a show trial once you've already decided the person is guilty.
You need actionable information or some way of verifying it. Example: Leon v. Wainwright:
"Leon [one of the kidnappers] and Frank Gachelin [a relative of the kidnapee] met in the shopping center parking lot at 2:00 a.m. During the confrontation Leon drew a gun on Frank. The police officers, who had accompanied Frank to the meeting, immediately arrested Leon and demanded that he tell them where he was holding Gachelin. When he refused to tell them the location, "he was set upon by several of the officers." Leon v. State, 410 So.2d 201, 202 (Fla.3d DCA 1982). "They threatened and physically abused him by twisting his arm behind his back and choking him until he revealed where Louis [Gachelin] was being held." Id. The officers went to the apartment, rescued Gachelin and arrested Armand [the second kidnapper]."
Sure, you can practice crude torture, get signed "confessions" and boatloads of real and made up information. But to say you can't get any information from torture is just trying to shortcut the argument.
Microsoft took a gamble on a new UI paradigm.I've been struggling to understand why that's so offensive to the/. masses for quite some time.
It's trying forcing a touch interface onto a desktop. I would think that pissing off your desktop base would be an obvious reason for hate. This is like Vista all over again, but worse.
I remember when 95 and XP came out, and people were generally pleased. Especially 95. That was when Microsoft almost buried Apple for good.
To play devil's advocate, if you're looking for information, torture with cross-checking will probably gain you some. It will cost you in other ways, though.
There was plenty of bad press early on in the process. They showed no willingness to either listen to users or work on meaningful backwards compatibility. There was also the bad press surrounding KDE3 to 4, and also the original Gnome to Gnome 2 transition, so it's not like they couldn't have seen this coming.
I've also seen no contrition on their part. Perhaps you can point to some?
As I said, if they weren't getting paid, then I can't blame them. Doing careful work, paying careful attention to user feedback, and maintaining backwards compatibility, is all hard work, and not nearly as quick or fun as cowboying up a new design without regards to either.
Slashdot Mirror
[when cops twisted a suspects arm behind his back and choked him] Your reference to that is what is called trivilising an issue, like Cheney talking about how sometimes he stood up all day when news came out about prisoners being kept in stress positions.
Keep on digging that hole. You think it is "trivial" to twist somebody's arm behind their back and to choke them to gain information, and doesn't rise to the level of torture, but stress positions are.
You also have your story about Cheney wrong (surprise). The comment about standing up all day was from Rumsfeld, and it was handwritten on an approval memo: "However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"
I don't need to - all I have to do is tell you to look it up and ignore your lies and personal attacks.
You've been making the personal attacks of late without any arguments, while I've looked stuff up and quoted them here (unlike you).
Did I lie about you stating that twisting somebody's arm behind their back and choking them to get information is not torture?
Did I lie when I quoted the UN convention against torture?
Did I lie when I quoted from a dictionary?
What lie did I state? You can't name it, just like you couldn't quote from a dictionary because you probably never consulted it in the first place and it doesn't support your position.
Are you normally like this or are you playing some sort of game here?
I return the question to you. Bluster, obfuscation, and poor reading comprehension don't make for an argument.
You're right, there isn't an argument, since you provide no arguments, just bluster. But the record stands, you explicitly said that when cops twisted a suspects arm behind his back and choked him, that it wasn't torture. This is the same position that the Bush administration took with "enhanced interrogation".
You then appealed to an imaginary dictionary you couldn't quote from, never responded to the quoted UN convention against torture definition that I provided (a treaty signed by the US and almost all countries), never responded to the actual dictionary definition I provided, and ludicrously appealed to Amnesty International, as if they would agree that twisting arms behind backs and choking is not torture.
Pathetic.
You're just trying to handwave your way through the argument. Not only did I earlier quote the UN convention on torture, in my last post I quoted the dictionary as well. Clearly you have stopped reading and even attempting to address any arguments.
No response to what Amnesty International would think about twisting somebody's arm behind their back and choking them to gain information. They would call it torture, and you know it.
No response to the similarities between the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation" methods and your loose definition of torture, in particular with regards to the UN convention against torture, which I quoted, and previous administrations had signed, per your "leave the definition to such people as Amnesty International and earlier US governments".
You talk about "weasels like Dick Chaney who decided to take the twisted line you appear to be pushing", when in fact is is you who is trying to say when the cops twisted somebody's arm behind their back and choked them to get information, it wasn't torture.
What is your defense? You have none. The dictionary doesn't support you, the UN convention against torture doesn't support you, and there's no way in hell Amnesty International would support your position. You dug yourself a hole that you cannot get out of.
Stephen Hawking? Maybe.
Why? Because he couldn't reach it? That's the only reason I'd trust anybody.
And I'll draw attention again to the long established view in the USSR where they did such a thing a lot that such information could not be trusted.
Repeating yourself isn't going to win the argument. I provided a positive example where it worked, and my position all along is you need some way to verify the info you get.
Of course I didn't because those that defined it are far better suited than either of us. I'm not going to make up my own definition just because you are, I'm going to use the established one from experts instead of delving into irrelevant relativism shit.
I mean quote the dictionary definition you are using. You have to be some kind of idiot to think I meant for you to make up your own "dictionary" definition. And I'm the one that managed to quote from the UN convention against torture, unlike the relativistic bullshit that you adopted because it fit your argument, even though it aligns with "enhanced interrogation" bullshit from the Bush administration.
But since you seem to inept to quote from a dictionary, I'll do it for you:
torture: "Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion."
Now explain how twisting somebody's arm behind their back or choking them to gain information doesn't apply.
So at one point you are saying I did define it and at another that I did?
No, you idiot. I said you adopted the same position, not that you provided a dictionary definition. The two are not the same.
I leave the definition to such people as Amnesty International and earlier US governments instead of weasels like Dick Chaney who decided to take the twisted line you appear to be pushing and then pretending that I agree with.
*snort* So you think Amnesty International would disagree that twisting somebody's arm behind their back and choking them to gain information isn't torture? This was the whole point of "enhanced interrogation". They didn't rip people's fingernails off or put them on the rack, but they did waterboard, rough people up, and other stress forms like making them stand or deriving sleep.
And earlier US governments signed the UN convention against torture, which I already provided the definition for, and it clearly covers things like twisting arms behind people's backs and choking.
Nice try to weasel out of it "I'm not saying ..." style.
No, what I said I believe, and stand by: that you can get useful information out of torture. That's not saying the same thing that you should torture, or that torture always works or even mostly works.
Also how can I be a hypocrite when all we've been doing here is pointing out flaws in your position?
The hypocrisy is that you tried to paint me as pro-torture, when it is in fact you you who adopted the same position as the Bush administration after 9/11, that "enhanced interrogation" wasn't torture.
And I was right. You didn't provide the dictionary definition, despite claiming that's what you were going by. You're full of shit and a hypocrite, and have dug yourself a hole you can't get out of.
Please, then, provide me with the dictionary definition that supports your position, that choking somebody and twisting their arm behind their back to get information isn't torture. I already quoted the UN convention.
You won't, because you're full of shit and a hypocrite.
All forms of energy need backup and that is usually goal or gas because those forms can ramp up fairly quickly. 99% of the time they are not needed though. What was the problem again?
Where does this 99% figure come from? More handwaving? The problem is a matter of how much coal and gas will be needed after the promised land has been reached 10 years from now.
That was not "reasoning" but a thin veneer on "because Cheney paid for us to come up with a quasi-legal sounding excuse".
Which makes it all the more hypocritical for you to adopt the same standards and try to redefine torture as not torture.
It's a bit depressing to read American children
Ad hominem.
posting about how useful torture is.
If you want to have a real argument about torture, then have a real argument. Don't try to shortcut it by stating you can't get useful information out of it, and then try to redefine torture when it is explicitly shown to have happened and been useful.
I never advocated torture, and never condoned it. I explicitly stated I was playing devil's advocate, since the groupthink position doesn't want to admit that torture could possibly work. And unlike you, I didn't try to redefine torture to not include torture as a matter of convenience. The horrible person is you.
Nice straw man you are setting on fire there to try to avoid looking in the mirror.
Nice inappropriate use of the straw man logical fallacy. I directly quoted you as saying, "not something that is referred to as torture", and directly responded to that, with a citation as well, and correctly linked your line of reasoning with the exact same reasoning that Bush's administration took after 9/11. If the shoe fits, wear it.
I suggest trying to think for yourself instead of falling for "might makes right" propaganda.
Non sequitur. I honestly have no idea where this came from or what you are talking about. I suggest not posting when drunk.
They make up for it with coal and gas, as I said. Trying to hide behind nebulous "they plan for it" is a copout.
Sorry, wrong link in my earlier post. Here's the correct one with the graphs: http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/19/fossil-fuel-really-beginning-to-hate-renewable-energy-graphs/
I'm asking you about peak load when the weather doesn't cooperate. Germany has to handle it. That they get 40% when things are fine doesn't contradict my question.
Instead of facing reality, you want to handwave away the question. I'm not even saying it can't work, I'm asking how they deal with it.
Since you clearly don't have the answer and are living in a fantasy land where this isn't a problem, I looked up the answer myself. They rely on coal and gas to make up for shortfalls due to variability, the two products you even mentioned yourself in your original post. You just seem to think they magically won't be needed when more renewables come online.
Source, with some interesting graphs: http://blogs.platts.com/2013/04/19/german-power/
They could have gotten the same information using non-torture.
They might have. It is unknown if they would have, or how long it would have taken, and if the person would have been moved or killed by the time they did.
Torture does not work on the people for whom there aren't other less extreme forms of interrogation.
We have a positive example in this case where it did work: After initial questioning the person refused to answer, he was tortured, and he gave up the info. We only have your assertion that he would have answered otherwise.
What's more, when torturing for information, you have no way of knowing if it's true nor do you have any way of knowing if it's all of the relevant information.
They checked the place and rescued the victim and arrested the other kidnapper.
In the case of those kidnappers, there could easily have been information that the kidnaper would kill the victim if they approached through a certain door, or would be killed if they didn't receive a call at a certain time.
Indeed, which could also be true for a non-torture method, so are you arguing for the torture method as the quick way to get actionable info?
So yes, this is no real information
Sounds like you are just in denial.
it is the simplest type of information and not typically the sort of information that people are tortured to get.
It's a positive example when it is claimed that torture doesn't work. I said it can work, but you need actionable info or the ability to cross-check it.
Sorry, but that is not something that is referred to as torture. When you find out what we are writing about here you will be truly sickened and will get a glimpse of how evil people can be.
I'm truly sickened that you think it isn't torture. It certainly is under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: "[..] any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him [..]"
If you want to claim having your arm twisted behind your back or being choked doesn't cause severe pain or suffering, you're a liar. Yes, there are even worse forms of torture, but that's the problem the Bush administration got into after 9/11 by trying to say that their torture wasn't torture, but "enhanced interrogation".
In your effort to not admit it can work, you have become evil yourself.
Dropping the existing GNOME 2 userbase had to happen, they had no choice.
No, they didn't, and if they weren't cowboys having fun with new whiz-bang ideas they wouldn't have adopted this idea. That's why they don't give a shit, and abused the Gnome 2 userbase as they did, and any claims that they really care is so much hot air.
Let me give you one some simple examples of how they could have approached things. First, let me say I'm running Gnome 3 on my desktop right now, and I get by with a few tweaks.
When I switched to Gnome 3, I lost all my custom settings, like my background, my theme, and my caps-as-ctl setting. All of these could have been carried forward if they cared. That's what it entails to make an effort at the un-fun stuff.
Another example is I used to have the standard system load widget in the system tray or whatever the Gnome name for it is. When I switched it was lost, and I could find no replacement. I googled around and found a blog post saying how great the new API was for the Gnome 3 system tray (or whatever the proper name is), and you could do everything Gnome 2 could and more.
Great, so why didn't they have a wrapper to support backwards compatibility? Because they didn't care. They went with the "clean slate" model because it was fun and easy, and left everybody else to pick up the pieces.
I've seen weather in my local parts where it has been cloudy with drizzle for 2 weeks straight. I can't imagine the solar panels would be doing much good at that point.
Trying to handwave away problems like this doesn't inspire much confidence.
So basically they are upset they ended up losing out, but really don't give a crap about the existing Gnome 2 userbase they pissed off. I fail to see how this supports your earlier statements.
By the way, this statement in particular:
They didn't sign up to maintain GNOME 2. They aren't there to build a 90s style desktop.
is particularly telling, and supports what I said.
No, it just gets you something else to use in a show trial once you've already decided the person is guilty.
You need actionable information or some way of verifying it. Example: Leon v. Wainwright:
"Leon [one of the kidnappers] and Frank Gachelin [a relative of the kidnapee] met in the shopping center parking lot at 2:00 a.m. During the confrontation Leon drew a gun on Frank. The police officers, who had accompanied Frank to the meeting, immediately arrested Leon and demanded that he tell them where he was holding Gachelin. When he refused to tell them the location, "he was set upon by several of the officers." Leon v. State, 410 So.2d 201, 202 (Fla.3d DCA 1982). "They threatened and physically abused him by twisting his arm behind his back and choking him until he revealed where Louis [Gachelin] was being held." Id. The officers went to the apartment, rescued Gachelin and arrested Armand [the second kidnapper]."
Sure, you can practice crude torture, get signed "confessions" and boatloads of real and made up information. But to say you can't get any information from torture is just trying to shortcut the argument.
Genuinely disgusting. Washing and kissing feet is fetish cult behavior. Might as well add in literal ass-kissing to the mix.
Microsoft took a gamble on a new UI paradigm.I've been struggling to understand why that's so offensive to the /. masses for quite some time.
It's trying forcing a touch interface onto a desktop. I would think that pissing off your desktop base would be an obvious reason for hate. This is like Vista all over again, but worse.
I remember when 95 and XP came out, and people were generally pleased. Especially 95. That was when Microsoft almost buried Apple for good.
To play devil's advocate, if you're looking for information, torture with cross-checking will probably gain you some. It will cost you in other ways, though.
There was plenty of bad press early on in the process. They showed no willingness to either listen to users or work on meaningful backwards compatibility. There was also the bad press surrounding KDE3 to 4, and also the original Gnome to Gnome 2 transition, so it's not like they couldn't have seen this coming.
I've also seen no contrition on their part. Perhaps you can point to some?
As I said, if they weren't getting paid, then I can't blame them. Doing careful work, paying careful attention to user feedback, and maintaining backwards compatibility, is all hard work, and not nearly as quick or fun as cowboying up a new design without regards to either.
Renewables currently make up about 40% of Germany's energy mix, and 40% of that is individuals with solar PV.
So what happens when the weather doesn't cooperate for a while and they need to meet peak load?