I dunno about "most places". I definitely had to get a boating license, though for some reason the law had an exception for people born before 1978. A cursory search show most states have some sort of legislation regarding it. Many other countries have different legislation based on engine horsepower and age, but it's definitely regulated to some degree most places I've seen. I don't suppose you'd be able to paddle hard enough to cause serious damage
Facebook used to post sites you visited. Not even interacted with by liking, it would show that you have read a certain article. They still collect that information, but they no longer publish it on your feed and rather keep the information to profit off of themselves. It's close enough that I'd say it's the same thing.
That precedent was and still is legally used to federally regulate marijuana harsher than fentanyl, a precedent I strongly disagree with, so you'll have to forgive me for believing that the degree to which something causes harm matters more than the amount of misuse
On a level playing field where both are equally subsidized, solar and wind would still outcompete coal. Their point seems to be applicable to the degree to which harmful power generation is subsidized relative to regular power generation, not just the subsidies themselves.
If your accounting model is "build some production, plug it to the grid and let someone else worry about the details", sure, you're right. But if you factor in grid development costs, the picture is different.
For instance, you lften hear about Germany importing lots of energy, and usually there's always someone to say "But they export a lot, too". Well, these imports & exports require lines to happen, and these lines aren't cheap. The EU mandates that countries should develop interconnexion to facilitate the market, but this ruling mostly helps intermittent energy sources.
Another example in France, where the south-western region has a lot of solar, and not many industrial consumers. To make things worse, that region is close to an interconnexion with Spain, which has a lot of solar production. In order to move all that power to places where it can be used, new lines have to be built.
These costs are not factored in if you only price new production, but they're also significant.
This is also not factored into France utilizing ~10 GW of neighboring flexible fossil fueled flexibility to not have to turn down their nuclear reactors as much during the night.
The French grid would be even more uneconomical without the interconnections.
Shipping got containerized without a significant amount[1] of tax breaks or handouts for that purpose. Rail standards were developed without significant preferential treatment as were the early electrical standards. Without subsidies of specific tech we'd likely see more balkanization and partial standardization of the grid. Perhaps the grid would have remained less reliable longer. In all likelihood things would "mostly" be the same on a medium-long timeline.
Remember, prior to the 1960s and 1970s expansions of the federal bureaucracy the government didn't really get as proactively involved in this sort of thing as they are now. Though there were several cases in which they lit a pile of money on fire and kept feeding it until they got the results they wanted (I can't think of an example of this that wasn't directed at defense tech though).
I think it would likely be a lateral move, or close enough to lateral that we can't really say with a high degree of certainty whether it would have turned out better or worse. I think it's very possible that without tax breaks we'd have gotten more solar earlier but with a slower adoption curve after that if none of this stuff was subsidized.
[1] I know of none but I don't want some nit picker to find some case where someone got a $2k research grant in 1961 and act like that invalidates the point here.
I promise you the fancy technology is in the electronics, software, and implementation, and not the fact that the cylinder with legs looks like another cylinder with legs
Using ableist language on Hacker News, however, is alright? I dislike Elon too, but this comment feels a little out of place and date, especially for the point it's trying to make
Funny, when someone was falsifying documents about me and forging my signature, attempts to raise awareness to my issue were also downplayed as "airing dirty laundry". Is it a new buzzword or something to help large businesses punch downward?
I still call my 12 year old cat a "kitty". If someone marked my answer as incorrect because "chicks aren't chickens yet" I would think they're wasting their time with riddles instead of actual intelligence testing. Besides, if the chicks were sellable to the farmer, why the hell wouldn't the farmer be able to sell them?
The OP there also has a pretty bad riddle (due to a grammatical error that completely changes the meaning and makes the intended solution nonsensical, and a solution that many people wouldn’t even have heard of).
Exactly! I read that riddle and thought "a couple islands over the international date line" solely because of the last line, but still had no idea what the name of these islands thousands of miles away from me were named. Might as well make the riddle who their little brother is, and make the answer "Fairway Rock", if niche knowledge is your goal. Which, completely to GPT-o1's credit, it did solve in a single prompt when I asked!
> Besides, if the chicks were sellable to the farmer, why the hell wouldn't the farmer be able to sell them?
I think maybe the original poster is making some sort of additional assumption that the farmer must be selling chickens as meat at the market and a chick wouldn't be sold for that purpose until it's a mature chicken?
(Of course depending on how you interpret the question a chick is a chicken (species) and there's nothing inherently preventing reselling the chicks so I don't really understand why OP thinks the ai answer is clearly objectively wrong. It seems more like a matter of interpretation.)
After posting I realized that the farmer bought some chicks so it could be interpreted that way. I should have modified it to say that 6 chickens hatched.
Anyways this thread is a perfect example of the chaotic datasets that are being used to train FMs. These arguments of whether it’s reasonable to assume a chick could mature into a chicken within a week are happening everyday and have been taking place for years. Safe to say a billion dollars has been spent on datasets to train FMs where everybody has a different interpretation and the datasets are not aligned.
Would you like to explain how the transportation system with less emissions per kilogram per mile is causing more harm than one of the least efficient forms of terrestrial transport?
Its important that anyone reading fiction knows its fiction.
Without that we can run into a situation where a fictional story on the radio convinces the public that we are under alien attack in what could be called a war of the worlds.
Yes! Or a situation where the public was not under any misconception at all, where there were multiple intermissions throughout the play calling attention to the fact that it was a work of fiction, but someone made up the idea of mass panic because it made for a good story that sold a lot of newspapers!
I would say that it's the responsibility of the reader to read any content in the context of which it's published. For example, to expect a radio play to be fictional as the vast majority of listeners did.
