You think this guy has 47 guns because he’s scared? Really???
Edit: sure keep down voting me. No one buys 47 guns because they are “scared”. Clearly this guy loves guns and collects them for fun. He’s still a POS but describing what drives his behavior as “scared” just makes you look completely out of touch with reality, which doesn’t help improve the overall situation.
That’s not really a fair comparison though. They all handle and fire different. This piece of shit is still a piece of shit, but collecting different guns is more akin to “I participate in 10,000 point fights with my choice of Orks or Blueberry Spacemarines” than toasters.
At least we agree that it’s mostly the shitheads that are the problem, not so much the hobby. I’m pretty sure this shithead would have killed his wife if his hobby was hiking or cosplay too.
Ever hear the story of the nuclear boy scout? Now thats a hobby no one should be allowed to have.
You can wax hypothetical about what abusers would have done, but they overwhelmingly use guns, since they’re great for threatening people or executing them in an instant with a slim chance of survival or intervention.
Shitheads get into all hobbies. Some hobbies are more dangerous than others, and need more safety than others.
You know what’s a dangerous hobby that ALSO appeals to masculinity-troubled people? Modding cars to go faster and drift harder. You can tool around in them legally and if you drive like a shithead you can drive through a crowd. Modding pickups is also a big shitwaffle magnet. Still a hobby.
I avoided the whole “are guns the problem” subject in my comment for a reason. My comment served to illustrate that collecting large numbers of “Object” is a hobby. Whether or not the hobby is good, or bad, or dangerous, or safe, was not my comment.
No, it was a correction of how people collecting guns is not like collecting the same toaster over and over, more like different toasters, specifically not addressing anyone’s use of them.
But you’re specifically asking people to not treat gun collectors like toaster collectors.
If someone had a collection of 50 toasters, people would find that weird, but generally harmless.
But if that person then claimed to not be even slightly interested in toast, that would immediately set off warnings in people’s head.
Why would they collect so many toasters if they didn’t like toast? It’s what toasters are for. Sure, they could maybe find some off label use for them, but that still makes it a weird choice of hobby.
I’d definitely think they were much more interested in toast than they let on and if they were one day caught eating toast with a full erection, I wouldn’t be even slightly surprised.
Guns are a stupid and dangerous hobby, though. If Warhammer was responsible for thousands of deaths per year, I would not want to contribute to that, and I’d find something else to do.
Keep digging and guaranteed to find the Russians as well.
The most terrifying thing of all is how almost accepted all this is. None of it is particularly shocking. Hard core Republicans will even justify it, possibly even flaunt it. This is how far down the rabbit hole we’ve allowed things to get.
Fucking media… find the idiot that actually wants to be on tv and interview them, easy way to get engagement… it’s like there’s a certain type of person that wants to be tv
As solar becomes increasingly widespread and electricity prices plummet in the middle of the day when the sun is brightest, some see a risk that the incentive to deploy solar power also decreases, said Esparrago.
That makes grid improvements and the rapid rollout of storage technologies like batteries crucial, experts argue. But the EU is still lagging behind in that area.
I wonder however how far we are from that? There is probably a lot of incentivising that can be done to get people and industry to use this ‘surplus’ daytime energy up surely. Its weird because its usually the opposite with cheap night rates - I know many people who intentionally consume energy overnight instead of the day because its cheaper. Flip that on its head maybe that isn’t as pressing an issue?
The issue isn’t really comparing high noon to midnight. The issue is comparing prices at either high noon (when supply is large) or midnight (when demand is small) to the space in between, especially dinnertime (when demand peaks just as solar supply finishes tailing off). There are ways to move some of that peak into noon (e.g: if homes are well insulated, they can be cooled or heated while solar is still up and used as a thermal battery to at least bridge over to the nighttime hours), but some of the peak is much harder to shift around. If everybody starts cooking and turns on the television around dinnertime, the only way to distribute that is to stagger dinnertime, which is easier said than done for a lot of people’s schedules. Having power storage to bridge that gap (wouldn’t it be nice if everyone that has an electric car got home and used whatever range they had leftover in their battery to absorb their extra demand and then start charging again at nighttime rather than immediately start charging at the worst time of day. Or having solar plants that store excess daytime power in thermal, hydro, or chemical batteries to discharge and increase supply later) is likely easier than convincing enough people to work odd shifts or delay their after work leisure activities
If that’s the case or becomes the case, isn’t it easily solvable since the batteries only need to store the energy for a few hours? Maybe some spinning wheel thing?
It is a very solvable problem, and mechanical or thermal batteries are likely to be at least part of the solution. Of the three kinds of gaps/shortfalls that grid storage would have to cover, the milliseconds-long and hours-long gaps are probably the easiest to solve. The days-long gaps (stretches of cloudy days, low winds for extended periods) is probably the most expensive to solve, but even those are not really that difficult (hydro storage is a tested technology that works well and HVDC transmission linking regions together can allow local shortfalls to be covered by remote surpluses). It’s all more a matter of building capacity than needing new technology to solve an unsolvable problem, from what I understand
Longevity is the big problem. Every practical method of energy storage I can think of is negatively impacted by frequent charge discharge cycles. Even a flywheel like you suggest would eventually need new bearings, need rebalancing, etc…
It would not be nice to power my house with my car. It’s extra wear on the battery, which is basically half the cost of an electric car. It opens me up to potential issues if I need to leave in the evening, my car now has reduced range.
Powering a couple appliances for a few hours is nothing for a car battery, those things are huge and powerful because cars are so inefficient. That’s not to say that V2G or V2X will work perfectly for everybody, but with the average commute around 25 miles and plenty of EVs out there over 200 mile range (which equates to mutliple days of typical electrical usage), there’s certainly some extra capacity. If you were compensated for the power you sold back at peak times, it could help justify paying for and lugging around the kind of battery capacity that is specced for your weekend/holiday road trips just to make your likely shorter daily commute. I’m using you generically, I don’t know your specific situation, so you certainly could be someone who would not feel a need to engage in that kind of scheme
Low power cycling (and powering a house is miniscule draw for a car) below 80% SOC cannot induce enough wear on a car battery to show up at all before calendar aging makes the battery unusable (which is about 10 years after the rest of the car has worn out on average). And the range it reduces is about 10% for an evening of powering a house, leaving more range than the typical ICE has when it is parked with the tank less than half full.
As to the investment. A tesla 3 is $40k and has an 86kWh battery in it (82kWh usable). Modern LFP batteries are rated for 8000 cycles at 0.1C (8kW or about what you can squeeze through a reasonable-sized wire at 240V ). If you somehow manage to wear it out and got 8c/kWh, you’ve made a profit. At 30c/kWh spread that some people pay, that’s tripling your investment.
You can only 50% drain your battery during peak 5-9pm consumption though so this will take 22 years of going full-tilt every day. The other 1.5 cars in each average household won’t get a turn, nor will several of your neighbors because peak electricity consumption is under 8kW per capita pretty much everywhere.
If you are lucky enough to wear out your battery this way, it will pay somewhere between 50% and 300% of the TCO of your car depending on where you live. 5% isn’t a great investment, but it also comes with a free car (and currently up to $8k ofnsubsidies not counted above).
A long way away I would guess. People will need more air conditioning during the day. Pretty much need solar on every rooftop to even begin to cover that. By making rates cheaper during the day it means demand will also go up as people run their appliances and charge their cars when rates are cheap.
Pumped hydro takes really specific geography and destroys an ecosystem to build. You really need a lake, as a river is going to have significant changes in flow from the operation. If you want a green solution pumped hydro isn’t really in the mix.
You don’t need a lake, just a hill or a hole. And the only places without a vast excess of pumped hydro resources have amazing solar and wind resource so don’t need it.
A renewable system with PHES for storage is both viable pretty much everywhere, and significantly cheaper than thermal generation. They likely won’t get built because it’s not really competitive vs batteries for short duration storage, takes a lot of time/coordination, and storage requirements are about an order of magnitude less than the fossil fuel shills are claiming.
Batteries will hit break-even with the split on peak vs off-peak electricity starting in a year or two.
Current retail consumer batteries (installation consisting of screw it to a wall and plug in three wires if you have a compatible inverter) are at around $280/kWh or 75c per kWh if you use it daily to load shift for one year. About 15c over 5 years. Halve that and anyone buying on peak electricity in a high-price area is going to be very interested in a battery rather than paying the next two quarters’ electricity bills. Quarter it (which is conceivable once sodium ion scales enough to meet utility demand) and average-price areas are looking at it real hard
EVs are hitting $1000/kWh pre-subsidy in the west or $300/kWh in china for the entire car. V2L or V2G becomes very appealing for anyone not using their car during the day.
I wonder what China will do. Wargames with NK? Start supplying Russia war supplies? Increase spying in the US (like they’re not doing that already)? China tries to cultivate its appearance on the world stage but half the time ends up looking insecure and blustery.
The moment you see discrimination against people you don’t like and see it as justified. You are nothing but an authoritarian bully no better than the fascists you rail against.
Nobody should be discriminated against for their beliefs, even those you like to strawman as being the embodiment of evil because they’re not like you and put value in tradition.
The loss of life is tragic, but I’m not sure what she’s upset about. Tourists didn’t come there to mock or make light. They just have bad timing in paradise.
Tourism will play a huge part in helping the community recover economically too. They’re going to need tourists to stay/come back asap. I thought the Greek president was canny to offer tourists affected by the wildfires in Rhodes a free holiday next year.
I hear the challenge right now is that even before the fire there was a housing shortage. Tourists should not travel to Hawaii right now if those hotel beds can instead be used to shelter displaces people near term.
Ya exactly. “It’s okay if a local people are exploited by industry and country. It helps the economy” is such a terrible take and I genuinely don’t know why people here are defending it
I was thinking more along the lines of a large proportion of locals must work in the tourist industry - whether that’s owning hotels, working in them, owning touristy shops, tour guides, surf instructors etc etc. The locals haven’t just suffered loss of life, property and sites of historic importance, a lot of them will lose their jobs without tourism. “Economy” was the wrong term I guess. People need those jobs not just to live but to rebuild their lives and their property.
I'm hoping that the Hawaii and Maui gov'ts don't allow rich people to grab the land afterwards, instead allocating all of it to traditional Hawaiian people.
I don’t think destroying the Hawaiian economy would help the homeless problem in Hawaii. If anything, what needs to be happening is that the Hawaiian government needs to set up temporary housing and support rebuilding efforts.
Tourists should not travel to Hawaii right now if those hotel beds can instead be used to shelter displaces people near term.
I am not saying there should not be any tourism. I am saying that near term, there is likely a shelter need that needs to be addressed. Putting tourism on hold for a few months won’t kill tourism. Hawaii shut down for the pandemic and had very strict Covid requirements as the world re opened. I think it can shut down for a few weeks until more aid and support arrives and is built.
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you. Yeah, for a few weeks, absolutely, the government should be buying up vacant hotel rooms in bulk while they arrange temporary housing
NP. My take was very quick and short. I think tourism will likely always be a big part of Hawaii’s recovery, and will help the recovery. But I just want to know that the workers and people that live in hawaii have roofs over their heads when things re open.
I mean we can all sympathise. We know why she’s upset. If she took more than a couple of minutes to calm down, she’ll argue herself that the country needs tourists and that they can’t be blamed for wanting to make the most of their holidays.
Out of personal experience, it’s incredibly frustrating to see people happy and smiling when your whole world is collapsing around you. It’s irrational but it makes sense.
The companies who sold them a vacation should have refunded everything and apologized, but you don’t see anyone pointing that out.
I get it, but if they’re upset, I still wouldn’t be able to afford to flush a Hawaiian vacation for any reason and I don’t think even the people who are swimming can afford it. I would be respectful by sticking to places that didn’t just have a wildfire, but if it’s going to cost me $10,000 USD (a year’s income to me, this is purely hypothetical and I don’t know the actual cost of a Hawaiian vacation but it sounds expensive) then I can’t do much more without endangering my own financial stability. Remember, $10k is 2/3 of a new car’s sticker price, the part that indefensible is that the area burnt to the ground and a couple dozen (according to the camera footage) horrible people were swimming there.
That’s an insane estimate lol. That’s how much Maldives would be at a nice hotel.
This year it cost $5000 total for my package with 2 people in Kauai and we went expensive. Last year it was closer to $3000 for flights and hotel in Oahu.
Fair enough. Just note that I didn’t make a typo when I said I make the equivalent of just barely 5 digits of income. $3000 isn’t a vacation to Hawaii, it’s a once-every-5-years PC upgrade.
I’m not sure I understand your analogy. Someone making $10,000 is risking their financial stability either way by booking a trip that costs $3-10k. The money is already spent whether they go or not.
I don’t think it’s feasible for tourists that are already there should immediately up and leave. But any tourist who is still flying in should have rebooked elsewhere else. Airlines are offering free changes and hotels usually have flexible cancellations, especially with travel insurance.
The government should have positioned hotels as temporary shelters for Hawaiians that are displaced in this fire.
You don’t just double the cost for more people. The kids wouldn’t be renting their own cars and you could get a room with 2 kings rather than separate rooms.
In any case, the analogy doesn’t make sense because a family that can afford a $10,000 trip (when there are way cheaper options in even in Hawaii) can afford to switch their plans for a fee. They aren’t exactly worried about their financial stability. Airlines were offering to change for free anyways.
That would depend on the age of the kids. You’re right that a $10,000 trip for four would get you just about anywhere in the world, but whether its $5,000 or $500, a trip to Hawaii could be a once in a lifetime experience. Maybe they always dreamed of Hawaii instead of Fiji or Recife or the French Riviera. Nobody could have predicted these specific wildfires (climate scientists notwithstanding) when they were planning their trips.
Airlines were scrambling to provide flights off the island, and while hotels and rental companies are extending refunds now, most are only now doing it in response to this precise backlash.
I’m with you that people should leave the island, and visitors should delay or change their plans. Shit happens, and this sucks for everyone. But the people who have lost their homes, the people who have lost loved ones, they are the ones suffering and they have every right to be angry at the tourism industry that is still catering to clients above supporting relief efforts. Their anger is far more effective directed at the right people. Getting angry at crowds of tourists is like getting angry at the wildfire itself: understandable, but ineffectual.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.