Friday, February 11, 2022

Sorry about another tweet-post, but toiletgate just couldn't wait

Earlier today, some big revelations about the mishandling and illegal disposal of documents by the former president made the news, partly because of one colorful detail.

Remember Trump's fixation on having to flush toilets multiple times?



And this

Among journalists and press critics on Twitter, this started a heated debate about how Haberman (when threads collide) handled the story.

And brought up memories of how the press and the NYT in particular, handled another story.












Note: when the New York Times asks for comment, they don't mean comment that makes the New York Times look bad.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, February 10, 2022

We'll give Cartman the last word

[For those not familiar with the layered awfulness of Web3, see here, here, here, and here]


You might have expected people to come out of 2008 more cautious about scams and too-good-to-be-true investments, but for whatever reason (Joseph has some ideas), exactly the opposite happened. Unicorns with laughable business plans can lose hundreds of millions and still be held up as models for their industries. Rumors and pump-and-dump schemes can send the stock of even bankrupt companies through the roof. In this world, crypto seems the next logical step with NFTs the inevitable conclusion. 

After money laundering, the thing NFTs are best at is monetizing fame. The profit potential is huge and since the press, including supposedly sober and responsible publications like the NYT, have largely decided to play along, there is little to no reputational hit for celebrities like Reese Witherspoon, and Jimmy Fallon, and of course, Gwyneth Paltrow joining in on the grift. 

At least we still have South Park.


Sonia Rao writing for the Washington Post.

Gwyneth Paltrow, who promises a better life through items sold by her luxury wellness brand [I would have changed "items" to "dangerous new-age snake oil" but that's just me -- MP], is now promoting digital artwork of a blinking cartoon ape. Matt Damon pops up during commercial breaks to compare the act of investing in cryptocurrency to scaling Mount Everest or exploring space. Reese Witherspoon recently took a break from chatting about her book club and production company to share an ominous prophecy.

“In the (near) future, every person will have a parallel digital identity,” Witherspoon tweeted from her personal account in January. “Avatars, crypto wallets, digital goods will be the norm. Are you planning for this?”

...

Of course, wealthier celebrities have little to lose, as the dollar-sign appeal of these endorsements is the same as any other. The price of bitcoin is surely a small fraction of what Damon took home to place crypto investors on a pedestal beside the Wright brothers. But influential figures attaching their names — and finances, in some cases — to the burgeoning form of currency carries implications beyond their own padded wallets, physical or digital.

...

Now, back to Matt Damon. His one-minute spot for Crypto.com, the company after which the Staples Center was renamed, frames investing in cryptocurrency as a holy crusade. Its YouTube description paints Web3 — the vague concept of a decentralized World Wide Web, based on the blockchain — as our inevitable future. “Fortune favors the brave,” the actor pronounces, tracing the proverb back to the ancient Romans.

Damon is a storyteller by trade; his job, in many ways, is to sell ideas to the public. But many considered it ludicrous and unsettling for a man with such deep pockets to place himself on an even playing field with the average viewer — as he does while referring to historic figures as “mere mortals, just like you and me” — before encouraging them to direct their money toward what his grandiose calls for courage imply is a risky investment.

Even “South Park” made a mockery of Damon’s endorsement in its season premiere this week.

“What does Matt Damon say on that bitcoin commercial? Fortune favors the brave,” Cartman says in an effort to get classmates to join him in rebelling against their school principal. Clyde notes that his father “listened to Matt Damon and lost all his money,” which Cartman quickly brushes off.

“Yes, everyone did! But they were brave in doing so!”


Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, February 9, 2022

Wednesday Tweets (and a few quick thoughts on Twitter)

There is a lot about Twitter that falls in the bad to indefensible range. You could make a pretty good case that we'd all be better off without it, but since that point is moot, I might as well get what I can out of it while avoiding the really nasty spots.

Twitter is a badly designed platform and the search functionality sucks, but it's still a reasonably good place to jot down ideas or to make a note of interesting article and apt anecdotes in a form that's more or less permanent and is easy to share or embed in a post.

I follow around fifty people. That's a manageable number. When I see a tweet, I know the person who wrote it (or at least retweeted it). I know their areas of expertise and their biases. For retweets, if I'm interested and unfamiliar the writer, I check out the profile, look at the replies, possibly do a quick Google search before I pass anything on. The filter isn't perfect but it catches most misinformation and almost all disinformation. 











Big corporations are historically hotbeds for leftists.



Fun week on the Tesla beat.










Politics





I supposed we should be grateful it wasn't a chance to win Miller Lite NFTs.


And a few to lighten the mood.





Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, February 8, 2022

Ten Years ago at the blog

Just to be clear, things are very different now. The Straussian model no longer applies. Things have gone feral. The Conservative Movement has lost all control of the process and is just trying to hold on to the tail of the beast, but the seeds of our current situation, especially the distrust of reliable sources of information, were planted by the Straussians. 


Sunday, November 4, 2012

Strauss and the war on data

The most important aspect of Randianism as currently practiced is the lies its adherents tell themselves. "When you're successful, it's because other people are inferior to you." "When you fail, it's because inferior people persecute you (call it going Roark)." "One of these days you're going to run away and everyone who's been mean to you will be sorry."

The most important aspect of Straussianism as currently practiced is the lies its adherents tell others. Having started from the assumption that traditional democracy can't work because most people aren't smart enough to handle the role of voter, the Straussians conclude that superior minds must, for the good of society, lie to and manipulate the masses.

Joseph and I have an ongoing argument about which school is worse, a question greatly complicated by the compatibility of the two systems and the overlap of believers and their tactics and objectives. Joseph generally argues that Rand is worse (without, of course, defending Strauss) while I generally take the opposite position.

This week brought news that I think bolsters my case (though I suspect Joseph could easily turn it around to support his): one of the logical consequences of assuming typical voters can't evaluate information on their own is that data sources that are recognized as reliable are a threat to society. They can't be spun and they encourage people to make their own decisions.

To coin a phrase, if the masses can't handle the truth and need instead to be fed a version crafted by the elite to keep the people happy and doing what's best for them, the public's access to accurate, objective information has to be tightly controlled. With that in mind, consider the following from Jared Bernstein:
[D]ue to pressure from Republicans, the Congressional Research Service is withdrawing a report that showed the lack of correlation between high end tax cuts and economic growth.

The study, by economist Tom Hungerford, is of high quality, and is one I’ve cited here at OTE. Its findings are fairly common in the economics literature and the concerns raised by that noted econometrician Mitch McConnell are trumped up and bogus. He and his colleagues don’t like the findings because they strike at the supply-side arguments that they hold so dear.
And with Sandy still on everyone's mind, here's something from Menzie Chinn:
NOAA's programs are in function 300, Natural Resources and Environment, along with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and a range of conservation and natural resources programs. In the near term, function 300 would be 14.6 percent lower in 2014 in the Ryan budget according to the Washington Post. It quotes David Kendall of The Third Way as warning about the potential impact on weather forecasting: "'Our weather forecasts would be only half as accurate for four to eight years until another polar satellite is launched,' estimates Kendall. 'For many people planning a weekend outdoors, they may have to wait until Thursday for a forecast as accurate as one they now get on Monday. … Perhaps most affected would be hurricane response. Governors and mayors would have to order evacuations for areas twice as large or wait twice as long for an accurate forecast.'"
There are also attempts from prominent conservatives to delegitimize objective data:
Apparently, Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric, is accusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics of manipulating the jobs report to help President Obama. Others seem to be adding their voices to this slanderous lie. It is simply outrageous to make such a claim and echoes the worrying general distrust of facts that seems to have swept segments of our nation. The BLS employment report draws on two surveys, one (the establishment survey) of 141,000 businesses and government agencies and the other (the household survey) of 60,000 households. The household survey is done by the Census Bureau on behalf of BLS. It’s important to note that large single-month divergences between the employment numbers in these two surveys (like the divergence in September) are just not that rare. EPI’s Elise Gould has a great paper on the differences between these two surveys.

BLS is a highly professional agency with dozens of people involved in the tabulation and analysis of these data. The idea that the data are manipulated is just completely implausible. Moreover, the data trends reported are clearly in line with previous monthly reports and other economic indicators (such as GDP). The key result was the 114,000 increase in payroll employment from the establishment survey, which was right in line with what forecasters were expecting. This was a positive growth in jobs but roughly the amount to absorb a growing labor force and maintain a stable, not falling, unemployment rate. If someone wanted to help the president, they should have doubled the job growth the report showed. The household survey was much more positive, showing unemployment falling from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. These numbers are more volatile month to month and it wouldn’t be surprising to see unemployment rise a bit next month. Nevertheless, there’s nothing implausible about the reported data. The household survey has shown greater job growth in the recovery than the establishment survey throughout the recovery. The labor force participation rate (the share of adults who are working or unemployed) increased to 63.6 percent, which is an improvement from the prior month but still below the 63.7 percent reported for July. All in all, there was nothing particularly strange about this month’s jobs reports—and certainly nothing to spur accusations of outright fraud.
We can also put many of the attacks against Nate Silver in this category.

Going back a few months, we had this from Businessweek:
The House Committee on Appropriations recently proposed cutting the Census budget to $878 million, $10 million below its current budget and $91 million less than the bureau’s request for the next fiscal year. Included in the committee number is a $20 million cut in funding for this year’s Economic Census, considered the foundation of U.S. economic statistics.
And Bruce Bartlett had a whole set of examples involving Newt Gingrich:
On Nov. 21, Newt Gingrich, who is leading the race for the Republican presidential nomination in some polls, attacked the Congressional Budget Office. In a speech in New Hampshire, Mr. Gingrich said the C.B.O. "is a reactionary socialist institution which does not believe in economic growth, does not believe in innovation and does not believe in data that it has not internally generated."

Mr. Gingrich's charge is complete nonsense. The former C.B.O. director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, now a Republican policy adviser, labeled the description "ludicrous." Most policy analysts from both sides of the aisle would say the C.B.O. is one of the very few analytical institutions left in government that one can trust implicitly.

It's precisely its deep reservoir of respect that makes Mr. Gingrich hate the C.B.O., because it has long stood in the way of allowing Republicans to make up numbers to justify whatever they feel like doing.

...

Mr. Gingrich has long had special ire for the C.B.O. because it has consistently thrown cold water on his pet health schemes, from which he enriched himself after being forced out as speaker of the House in 1998. In 2005, he wrote an op-ed article in The Washington Times berating the C.B.O., then under the direction of Mr. Holtz-Eakin, saying it had improperly scored some Gingrich-backed proposals. At a debate on Nov. 5, Mr. Gingrich said, "If you are serious about real health reform, you must abolish the Congressional Budget Office because it lies."
...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Because Mr. Gingrich does know more than most politicians, the main obstacles to his grandiose schemes have always been Congress's professional staff members, many among the leading authorities anywhere in their areas of expertise.                                                                                                                                                                                                

To remove this obstacle, Mr. Gingrich did everything in his power to dismantle Congressional institutions that employed people with the knowledge, training and experience to know a harebrained idea when they saw it. When he became speaker in 1995, Mr. Gingrich moved quickly to slash the budgets and staff of the House committees, which employed thousands of professionals with long and deep institutional memories.

Of course, when party control in Congress changes, many of those employed by the previous majority party expect to lose their jobs. But the Democratic committee staff members that Mr. Gingrich fired in 1995 weren't replaced by Republicans. In essence, the positions were simply abolished, permanently crippling the committee system and depriving members of Congress of competent and informed advice on issues that they are responsible for overseeing.

Mr. Gingrich sold his committee-neutering as a money-saving measure. How could Congress cut the budgets of federal agencies if it wasn't willing to cut its own budget, he asked. In the heady days of the first Republican House since 1954, Mr. Gingrich pretty much got whatever he asked for.

In addition to decimating committee budgets, he also abolished two really useful Congressional agencies, the Office of Technology Assessment and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. The former brought high-level scientific expertise to bear on legislative issues and the latter gave state and local governments an important voice in Congressional deliberations.

The amount of money involved was trivial even in terms of Congress's budget. Mr. Gingrich's real purpose was to centralize power in the speaker's office, which was staffed with young right-wing zealots who followed his orders without question. Lacking the staff resources to challenge Mr. Gingrich, the committees could offer no resistance and his agenda was simply rubber-stamped.

Unfortunately, Gingrichism lives on. Republican Congressional leaders continually criticize every Congressional agency that stands in their way. In addition to the C.B.O., one often hears attacks on the Congressional Research Service, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Government Accountability Office.

Lately, the G.A.O. has been the prime target. Appropriators are cutting its budget by $42 million, forcing furloughs and cutbacks in investigations that identify billions of dollars in savings yearly. So misguided is this effort that Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma and one of the most conservative members of Congress, came to the agency's defense.

In a report issued by his office on Nov. 16, Senator Coburn pointed out that the G.A.O.'s budget has been cut by 13 percent in real terms since 1992 and its work force reduced by 40 percent -- more than 2,000 people. By contrast, Congress's budget has risen at twice the rate of inflation and nearly doubled to $2.3 billion from $1.2 billion over the last decade.

Mr. Coburn's report is replete with examples of budget savings recommended by G.A.O. He estimated that cutting its budget would add $3.3 billion a year to government waste, fraud, abuse and inefficiency that will go unidentified.

For good measure, Mr. Coburn included a chapter in his report on how Congressional committees have fallen down in their responsibility to exercise oversight. The number of hearings has fallen sharply in both the House and Senate. Since the beginning of the Gingrich era, they have fallen almost in half, with the biggest decline coming in the 104th Congress (1995-96), his first as speaker.

In short, Mr. Gingrich's unprovoked attack on the C.B.O. is part of a pattern. He disdains the expertise of anyone other than himself and is willing to undercut any institution that stands in his way. Unfortunately, we are still living with the consequences of his foolish actions as speaker.

We could really use the Office of Technology Assessment at a time when Congress desperately needs scientific expertise on a variety of issues in involving health, energy, climate change, homeland security and many others. And given the enormous stress suffered by state and local governments as they are forced by Washington to do more with less, an organization like the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations would be invaluable.






Posted by at No comments:

Monday, February 7, 2022

Canadian Truckers, Tyler Cowen's views

This is Joseph

Tyler Cowen has his own set of thoughts on the Canadian Truckers
But the movement may well end up as the most consequential story of the year.

And about this we most definitely agree.  

Posted by at No comments:

Canadian Truckers

This is Joseph.

As of Friday, Feb 4th, Truckers and assorted right wing persons have been holding an anti-vaccine blockade of the Canadian capital for a week. Some of the more extreme, if rare, symbols on display are Swastikas and Confederate flags. Insofar as Canada was involved in the Civil War, there were a 100 times more Canadians fighting on the union side than the Confederate. And I think it is well known that Canada was not a part of the Axis in world war 2. Like, so well known that I am not even including a link. So it is a little confusing why these symbols are a part of a protest, being part of neither Canadian heritage or historical vaccination policy (one might make an argument that pro-vaccine policy was associated with the US continental army, but I don't see Union Jacks in evidence). 

That said, it has been terrible for people who have the misfortune to live in Ottawa:
But as tensions rise between protesters and local officials, analysts say the recent events could signal the birth of a growing populist movement which could potentially reshape Canadian politics.
Despite the cold, Aubue said he’s been well taken care of by organizers and some residents who oppose public health measures. He says he’s received hot meals and fuel to run the truck’s generator for heat.
Another protester, Philip Grenier, said he would remain in Ottawa “for as long as it takes” for the federal government to repeal pandemic restrictions – although almost all such rules fall under provincial jurisdiction.
But local people say the protests – which have included honking truck horns, but also allegations of assault and intimidation – have left them frustrated, fed up and – at times – in fear of leaving their homes.
A local woman who gave her name as Jennifer said that she’d been harassed by a group of men wearing Canada flags as capes and shouting “Freedom!” before two other men in an idling truck called her a “dumb cunt sheep” for wearing a mask.
“I’m just done with these people,” she said.
When Tim Abray, a communications consultant, attempted to take a picture of the protests, he was confronted by three men who grabbed and shoved him. He said nearby police officers failed to intervene.

And they are being treated with kid gloves because, well, guns:

Police say that a number of blockade members are believed to armed, and amid growing calls for counter protests, there is growing of fear that violence could erupt
But the spectacle has caught the attention of influential far-right voices in the United States, including former president Donald Trump and his son, and Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Tesla founder Elon Musk also tweeted his support of the truck convoy. On Wednesday, Ottawa police said a “significant” amount of the funding and organizing was coming from the United States.

What I find most fascinating about this development is, in addition to showing that the rise of the extreme right is an international anglosphere phenomenon (US, UK, and Canada now), is just how much better I feel about the Jan 6th movement in the United States. It lasted a single day. There have been more than 700 arrests, with probably less significant property damage.  Nobody even considered building a fuel and food depot on public land to support the protest. Like seriously, there is a depot of fuel and propane tanks (look at pictures) being build to support a right wing protest and there is no police response (at least as of mid-day Feb 4th). 

In Washington DC there was no stockpile and it seems unimaginable that it would have been permitted to be built during a period of civil unrest. 

I must admit that this has made me greatly upgrade my assessment of US state capacity in the response to the Jan 6th insurrection (which was in favor of the current US president, whereas the Canadian truckers are opposed to Trudeau and Biden). It was a one day event and followed by significant engagement in dealing with the consequences (there is even a congressional committee investigating this event). I mean there is a website and everything including a tip line. 

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, February 4, 2022

Web one, two, three . . .

This is Joseph.

As I understand it, Web 1 is the original internet tools (e.g., email) that were completely distributed. The downside of these tools was that they were decentralized and hard to update. Which led to Web 2 (applications like Facebook) that could be centrally updated and maintained by a single company. 

Web 3 is a strange beast. It involves distributed blockchains that can't be changed and are a permanent record. They are maintained by distributed updates. By calling it Web 3 there is a sense that it is the future of the web. But there are some challenges that I think might be understated. 

One, there is a classic libertarian problem. Look at color museum where people can own (and get royalties) on colors that are used in NFTs (or the thing that NFTs point at). How does this improve anything? it does not create new colors that were previously unknown. It does not improve market efficiency but rather, if successful, creates a big source of rent seeking for those who successfully gambled that this would work. Will we need see an alphabet NFT with a race to mint both large and small case "e"? But why should early adopters get permanent property rights on what was previously communal property that they put no effort into creating or making available. It is not like minting the NFTs increased the range of graphics cards. 

Two, the blockchain itself is not easily able to handle errors. Look at Ethereum, where a coding error in the DAO (decentralized autonomous organization) led to a fork when a coding error led to the ability to transfer funds in a way that was not intended. There are now two Ethereum blockchains, with both being traded and used. This seems like a bad feature.

Three, people have wondered if DAOs can replace legal contracts. Please look above to see how coding errors can cause problems, and who has worked in any non-trivial coding project in which there are not errors or exploits?  Further, what is the enforcement mechanism? Insofar as the coding needs to be interpreted by outsiders, how is this possible (via Mike Dunford who is following the Spice DAO):


Now, as the thread goes on to say, maybe this is ok. But what is the point of a DAO if it does not automatically cover the issue of quorum. If quorum is not needed then why was a decision to ignore it needing to be taken? Remember these are real funds being spent. 

Four, the reason you need courts is ambiguity (like that above). There is a famous case of two ships with the same name using the same trade route. This required the court to decide when both parties thought that they were in the right because of an ambiguous phrase in the contract. Now, it is true that you never make these mistakes twice and it is easy to see how to handle this in hindsight. But I cannot imagine a faster way to introduce these problems then using code to "represent" the real world and disputes arising as to what a particular item in the code refers to. If the goal is to tokenize the whole world, how is that feasible, efficient, or better than Web 2? 

Five, I tried to get Mark interested in this because he has connections in the music industry. There is an NFT project minting NFTs based on hit music. The artists are discovering this by surprise. Also covered by Mike Dunford, he points out that it is an NFT -- you might not be able to alter the blockchain to remove infringing NFTs. Think about how that lack of flexibility might interact with copyright law.

Now if you are an anarcho-libertarian this might be ok. But this goes back to a central problem of libertarianism - namely, is current wealth justly earned? Does the Queen of England have a clear claim to her wealth that does not involve inheriting wealth that involved injustice (just look at King Henry the VIII and the dissolution of the monasteries). But do we really think that just minting NFTs and giving huge amounts of wealth to early adopters is a fair way to distribute web 3 wealth? Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs are selling for more than a thousand times their original minting cost in less than a year (April 23rd, 2021) which, should the value be real, is a huge wealth benefit to early adopters. 

Of course, these may be mostly scams. In that case Web 3 is just a way to remove excess money from people who are naïve about technology. I don't know. But I am really having trouble seeing how this could possibly work better than Web 1 and Web 2, given the problems noted above. I hope to eventually get Mark to weigh in on how musicians view the minting of NFTs being marketed on their brand without permission, but this sort of action seems to be highlighting the problems that the blockchain is bringing with it.

So what are the benefits? 

EDIT: the day after I write this, Bret Devereaux does a very nice piece on the long term sustainability of trying to evade the state via cyberspace. He does not mention NFTs, but the issues with cryptocurrency would seem to extend to those of NFT players like Hit Music trying to evade US copyright and trademark laws.  



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Thursday, February 3, 2022

Winter again in the Lone Star State

And it's starting to look a lot like the last one. Which means threads with winter advice both standard...
And weirdly Texas specific...


If you'll recall, the state's innovative plan for a magic-of-the-markets reinvention of the power grid proved to be a bit more disruptive than expected, but don't worry, the governor isn't out of ideas.

From Bloomberg: [emphasis added]

Last fall, Texas Governor Greg Abbott gathered dozens of cryptocurrency deal makers in Austin where they discussed an idea that, on its face, seemed almost upside down: Electricity-hungry Bitcoin miners could shore up the state’s power grid, a top priority after a deep freeze last winter triggered blackouts that left hundreds dead.

The industry’s advocates have been making that pitch to the governor for years. The idea is that the miners’ computer arrays would demand so much electricity that someone would come along to build more power plants, something Texas badly needs. If the grid starts to go wobbly, as it did when winter storm Uri froze up power plants in February 2021, miners could quickly shut down to conserve energy for homes and businesses. At least two Bitcoin miners have already volunteered to do just that.

There’s no guarantee anyone will build more generation or switch off just because they’re asked. There’s even a chance the idea could backfire and put more strain on the grid overall. But at last October’s meeting at the governor’s mansion, Abbott made it clear that he was going to count on the miners’ assistance when the electricity grid faced colder months ahead. Help me get through the winter, the governor said, according to four people who attended the meeting.


I have to admit this seems much more cutting edge and Web3ish than the idea we've been pushing for the past decade of promoting mature technology with a proven track record. 

I guess we're just old fashioned.

___________________________________


Thursday, November 12, 2020

Ground source heat pumps are "the most energy-efficient, environmentally clean, and cost-effective space conditioning systems available," but maybe we can get journalists to talk about them anyway.

I'm joking but I'm not kidding. 

If Elon Musk or some other Silicon Valley visionary proposed some laughable plan based on non-existent technology, reporters would be scheduling interviews within the hour, but a solution supported by experts based on mature, tested systems will get little to no coverage.

One of the biggest crises facing California is a failing electrical grid, particularly during summer heat waves which are going to continue becoming more frequent and severe as the planet warms. Ground source heat pumps and similar technology could greatly alleviate pressure on the grid, especially when coupled with roof top solar. On top of that, its efficiency reduces demand for fossil fuels.

If we're going solve our problems, we can't go on being disinterested in solutions. 



From Wikipedia:

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has called ground source heat pumps the most energy-efficient, environmentally clean, and cost-effective space conditioning systems available. Heat pumps offer significant emission reductions potential, particularly where they are used for both heating and cooling and where the electricity is produced from renewable resources.
...
Ground source heat pumps are characterized by high capital costs and low operational costs compared to other HVAC systems. Their overall economic benefit depends primarily on the relative costs of electricity and fuels, which are highly variable over time and across the world. Based on recent prices, ground-source heat pumps currently have lower operational costs than any other conventional heating source almost everywhere in the world. Natural gas is the only fuel with competitive operational costs, and only in a handful of countries where it is exceptionally cheap, or where electricity is exceptionally expensive. In general, a homeowner may save anywhere from 20% to 60% annually on utilities by switching from an ordinary system to a ground-source system. However, many family size installations are reported to use much more electricity than their owners had expected from advertisements. This is often partly due to bad design or installation: Heat exchange capacity with groundwater is often too small, heating pipes in house floors are often too thin and too few, or heated floors are covered with wooden panels or carpets.
...
Capital costs may be offset by government subsidies, for example, Ontario offered $7000 for residential systems installed in the 2009 fiscal year. Some electric companies offer special rates to customers who install a ground-source heat pump for heating or cooling their building. Where electrical plants have larger loads during summer months and idle capacity in the winter, this increases electrical sales during the winter months. Heat pumps also lower the load peak during the summer due to the increased efficiency of heat pumps, thereby avoiding costly construction of new power plants. For the same reasons, other utility companies have started to pay for the installation of ground-source heat pumps at customer residences. They lease the systems to their customers for a monthly fee, at a net overall savings to the customer.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, February 2, 2022

The FSD plot might be thickening...

First off, apologies for two tweet-based posts in a row, but things appear to be breaking quickly on this story. 

A few years ago, Tesla shifted the focus of their hype from EV performance to autonomy (Musk is now trying to shift it again, this time to Tesla's proposed line of humanoid robots, but that doesn't seem to be getting much traction, partially because the closet thing they have to a prototype is a dancing woman in a robot suit). 

Tesla is nowhere near the leader in the AV field -- never has been -- and it lacks the engineering talent and the R&D budget to ever catch up. Musk's solution was just to declare victory and release a far from street-ready Full Self-Driving product for beta-testing by fan boys. 

As a stock pump, it worked beautifully, earning Musk billions in bonuses, but examples of amusing or frightening malfunctions started showing up on YouTube and Twitter and regulators finally started taking a closer look at FSD.

Particularly at this...

Inevitably...


Musk took the news with his characteristic quiet dignity and grace. (For those who came in late, Tesla doesn't have a PR department but Whole Mars Catalog unofficially fills the role). 


Niedermeyer, who wrote the definitive book on Tesla, weighs in.


Here's the system beta-testers are counting on to determine when it's safe to roll through a stop sign at 5 and a half miles an hour.

FSD was supposed to be fully perfected years ago. Musk promised to deliver a million robotaxis by 2020. The actual number is fewer and none of them are Teslas.



Posted by at 2 comments:

Tuesday, February 1, 2022

Tuesday Crypto Tweets -- Looking forward to the Matt Damon/Ben McKenzie cage match

Damon's an action star but McKenzie's younger and there was that time Jim Gordon punched that guy's face off* so it could go either way.























A bit of background on the bill's sponsor:
Rogers is a member of Oath Keepers, an anti-government militia organization whose members took part in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.[5] Since being elected, her rhetoric has become increasingly extreme, including comparing herself to Kyle Rittenhouse and indicating agreement with the white supremacist Great Replacement conspiracy theory, and she has appeared on a webcast that promotes hate speech.[6] In October 2021, Rogers spoke at a QAnon-linked political conference in Las Vegas.







I honestly don't know if this is a joke.
*Admittedly, it wasn't that well attached but still a cool scene. 
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, January 31, 2022

For the math nerds in the audience (or in our case, "the audience")

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)