Mine came with an magnetic anti-sag bar and it was badly needed

Mine also came with a bar but my motherboard didn’t have the appropriate holes for it.

I think I’d probably say that the prompts are telling me more about the author than I think is necessary for these tests… I hope they were at least sampled from responses.

Management consult grift is reaching its inevitable end. They’ll cut out the management and insert AI consultants.

Some countries with state gas or utility monopoly will ensure legislation blocks solar power. Example Thailand has huge solar potential but cheap gas, so they block solar panel installations

Yes, there is inequality as can be seen in Pakistan. But once restrictions are dropped the solar panels take off.

Surely you can do what you want within your own home, so long as you don't hook it up to the grid?

I'm also not sure if this fits with the price restriction they mentioned. Prohibitions can't be bypassed by paying a higher price, unless it were to refer to bribes

The systems in the article are hooked up to the grid though.

They're hooked up in an extremely safe and responsible manner, but it's understandable that there are regulations about what can be hooked up, and simply not surprising that they haven't been updated to say "yeah, this is ok".

A lot of solar systems are set up to sell excess power back to the grid. It makes sense that these systems would have some regulatory criteria because you wouldn't want e.g. home solar systems putting power on the lines when the utility company has the power off because of a downed wire or active work.

It's also possible to have a solar system that doesn't do this. Either you have a battery system and if you generate excess power you only put it into your own batteries or the system is small relative to the load of the house so you're rarely if ever generating more than you're actively using and configure the system so the grid is only ever attached to the input side. This should not be any more dangerous to the grid than using a UPS or charging an electric car and if the regulations make it more difficult than that they should be suspected of malicious intent.

The systems discussed in the article aren't necessarily selling excess power back to the grid, but they are sending it back to the grid (possibly for free). Because they work by pumping power into a wall socket.

They do so responsibly (fancy electronics that turn them off when the grid goes down). But it is the case where you are acknowledging that extra regulatory criteria make sense.

I agree there shouldn't be, but I don't think it's surprising that in many places there are. It takes active work for the regulator to look at the product and say "this design is sound, we're sure it won't kill anyone".

It takes active work to do that but not to manually approve zillions of individual installations?

The zillions of individual installations probably aren't actually getting approved, manually or otherwise.

Not if the purpose of the regulations is to thwart them, no. But those are the rules that ought not to be.

Purpose, ought, shouldn't, shouldn't, sense. These are words of minimal relevance to regulations and bureaucracy, which have internal incentive structures that rarely align with any kind of human morality.

Suppose that it isn't literally impossible to affect what the rules are and then if we're going to attempt it we need to determine what they ought to be.

"Need."

If you want the rules that exist and the rules that ought to exist to get closer together, do you not need to reckon what they ought to be?

Well, if you don't have any such compass, your efforts will be at best ineffectual. But an even more likely reason your efforts will be ineffectual is that the change you want to make is to a point outside the possibility space determined by the internal incentive structures of the institution.

Analogously, you might reckon that the best place for a nickel mine would be on 16 Psyche, because that's where the largest surface nickel deposits are. Or you might reckon that it would be good for an interpreter to give an error when the user attempts to run an infinite loop. But, lacking an interplanetary spaceship or a solution to the Halting Problem, these calculations are of little value.

The most effective response I've found to regulations that harm me is to leave.

We’re living in a time of income inequality and this is the natural result.

Is this an AI comment? They have vast business interest and contracts with Israel.

I lost my wife before they developed sickle cell treatments recently. Knowing the pain she went through everyday, makes me grateful that children soon will not have to know that pain. Thank you for sharing your story.

When I see sub 40 percent approval rate for both parties in congress… we’ve almost reached the moment where a majority of people believe both democrats and republicans have a negative view yet the 3rd parties will remain elusive due to gerrymandering districts.

Third parties are nonviable in most of the US due to our voting system.

In order to make it mathematically possible for a third party to compete, we need to switch to something with more nuance than single vote, first-past-the-post winner-take-all elections. Ranked Choice Voting has some momentum right now, and AFAICT is no worse than any of the other options (they all fail in certain edge cases, I believe; it's just a matter of which ones).

RCV also has the advantage of being relatively understandable for the layperson unlike some of the more esoteric ones I’ve seen

As I understand it, Ranked Choice Voting is still winner-take-all, and that's the real problem. There's still only one winner, and that person is rarely anybody's first choice.

People might appreciate having had the chance to express their first choice, but when they're forced to settle for their second, third... hundredth choice, I'm not sure they'll be any happier.

There are ways to do away with the single-winner system, such as party lists. They, too, have drawbacks, but they'd at least be different drawbacks.

Changing the voting method is much easier than changing to proportional representation, or any other means of avoiding a single winner. The former is something that's under control of the states. I...think the latter would require an amendment to the Constitution for Congress, and changing the nature of the Presidency definitely would.

Even just allowing people to provide more than one vote means that people can support third-party candidates without that vote effectively robbing their preferred major-party candidate of a vote. (eg, if you're broadly left-wing, and like the Green Party, you can rank their candidate first, then the Democratic candidate second—and then if the Green Party candidate doesn't win, your vote counts for the Democrat) That's a big, big change.

> I...think the latter would require an amendment to the Constitution for Congress

I don’t think it does [1].

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section4

Yes, I have absolute disdain for both parties.

This is because very few people have even an extremely rough understanding of the difficulties our nation (and world) are facing. This is an very difficult situation for a democracy. When people are confused about important matters, the most reassuring thing is to be told that there is a fairly simple and understandable solution, and that they should just let the adults get in there and solve it. People will always vote for people who say these things. The reality is that we've gotten ourselves into knots upon knots upon knots.

I don't know why downvotes but that statement is true.

Population is confused on what the actual problems are vote for politicians solving wrong problems making things worse.

Congress' approval ratings are always under 40%, and have been for as long as they've been taking data.

And yet most actual Congressmen have a high approval rating within their district. Incumbents have an extremely high return rate.

The problem is never your Congressperson. It's always because Congress is filled with other districts' Congresspeople.

I don't think you'll fix that by un-gerrymandering. If anything, I bet you'll get even higher approval ratings for the incumbents, since you'll have fewer "cracked" districts (boundaries drawn to make a group a minority in two districts instead of the majority in one).

Ending gerrymandering might get a Congress that better reflects what people want. But mostly, what people want is for "the other guys" (whoever is not in your party) to win.

They have developed zero click exploits before

I’ve asked myself why my grandparents did not try to overthrow their Nazi regime. They were not the most immoral people on the surface, they just viewed their actions happening as the only way of survival. I think the answer lies in seeing what really happening instead of what’s portrayed as happening on their propaganda outlets. Articles like this start to transition people away from supporting fascism if they are believed.

I will say that, having grown up in the 80's and 90's far removed from the fascist states of yesteryear, it was always baffling how Western nations succumbed so completely to authoritarianism.

I am not longer baffled.

I’m seeing it happen in real time and am still baffled. I realize now there are groups of people with perceptions of reality so different from mine they are basically akin to an alien species.