Seems really strange to me to reject the notion of 'reading between the lines' when we know the motives of the company's leadership. We know they work with Google, we know they are interested in driving views and profits. Any interpretation that is consistent with their known motivations is worth considering.
Some things just aren't feasible to collect evidence for. You would need access to their private communications to find evidence. So your basically giving a pass to any maleficence done in the dark.
I must be lucky. I'm still rocking a pixel 3. It's got multiple breaks in the screen, the back of the phone is pretty cracked, the camera cover is completed smashed out. Hey somehow this thing still works and takes ok pictures.
I got rid of my Pixel 3 because I wanted the new-sexy... I wish like hell I'd stayed. Best phone I've owned since the dumbphone days. I hate pressing my thumb to the print reader on a screen; feels so wrong compared to the little divot on the back.
Maybe I'm an idiot, but I think the expanded AI capabilities are the biggest step forward for phones in like 5+ years or more.
But I'm someone who is still using a pixel 3, so maybe I'm just trying to make myself feel better about purchase I need to make because my phone's battery is pretty close to useless.
Not at all. I am more concerned having Facebook (or any other Zuck’s spyware) installed on that very computer. I cannot imagine how anyone would hack my very phone. Also I like to decentralise devices, so none of my devices is a super-device. My go-to phone (iPhone SE with no iOS update, but with security updates) has only a few apps installed that I need for being away from home. My other smartphone (Nexus 6P with no security updates) has loads of apps installed, but I use them only when I need it. The phone has its WiFi, Bluetooth and cellular turned off all of the time. I cannot imagine the way you hack into it, tbh. And even if that would happen, I cannot imagine what a hacker would get out of it, if anything at all.
There is ample evidence of China's intentions and capability to install backdoors. Everything made in China or a heavily influenced Chinese country should be assumed to be compromised, even if 'proven' otherwise. Chances are we just haven't found the backdoor yet.
True of the US yes. Equally? I probably wouldn't say that. The US govt doesn't have the same control over media the the Chinese govt has. So they have to work harder to keep things out of public view. The US also has to massage the way they work to be somewhat within the bounds of the constitution.
Requirements are hard, but ... you don't need bug reports to implement bug free requirements. So the only value the bugs would have is if they are for behaviors that should be documented as requirements.
Why do you think an electric heat pump will increase comfort over oil heating? It's not that I think heat pumps are bad, I just didn't know there was a claim of any improvements beyond efficiency / environmental benefits.
Note that this isn't true for all heat pumps, nor all furnaces. A forced-air system can vary the air handler speed, and a hydronic system can vary the water temperature; with heat pumps, there exist variable-speed compressors, but there also exist single-speed compressors.
If there is no other difference besides they use less energy to produce the same amount of heating, then you have extra money, and extra money can buy lots of comforts. Why does the comfort have do come directly from the pump?
Electricity in California is 36 cents or more per kw. Maybe it makes sense in states paying 6 to 15 cents, but I assume I'll end up paying more if forced to switch to heat pumps.
The history of why you guys overpay so much is fascinating. Its a tail of good intentions causing bad unintended consequences. The path to hell is certainly paved with good intention.
California is moving towards a system which would introduce a monthly fixed cost based on your income, while simultaneously decreasing the cost of electricity per kWh (see: AB 205). Heat pumps become more attractive after such a change.
My claim wasn't that an Income Graduated Fixed Charge would make your electric bill go down from what it currently is -- it could very well go up.
My claim is that, assuming an IGFC is implemented and the marginal cost of electricity goes down considerably, then a heat pump becomes cheaper to operate. You'll be paying the same fixed cost to be connected to the grid, whether you have a gas furnace or an electric heat pump. It might just be that the newly-lowered electric rates finally make a heat pump more cost-effective than a gas furnace.
Wait, so once they set your rate you can use as much electricity as you want and still pay the same rate?? That's insane. Crypto miners and EV drivers rejoice.
Not quite. Right now, (most) California residential electric bills are entirely volumetric, meaning that you pay for what you use — if you use zero, you pay (close to) zero. Under the new system, everyone’s bill will instead have a sizable fixed component (determined by household income) for being connected to the grid, and a volumetric component (determined by the amount that you use). The new price per kilowatt hour will be smaller than the existing rates.
Energy cost has long been viewed as a means to constrain consumption. This new approach seems to undermine that approach given the reduced cost per volume.
If I'm paying entirely based on volume, then making my home twice as efficient makes my bill half as much. But under this new system, I wouldn't realize the same savings.
Seems like a policy set with priorities other then environmental protections.
> Seems like a policy set with priorities other then environmental protections.
There are definitely other non-environmental considerations at play, the largest being that the increasing number of home solar installations has reduced revenue streams for utility companies, while at the same time their costs have increased due to grid maintenance and wildfire prevention projects (and lawsuit payouts). Most houses with solar are still heavy users of the grid, yet they pay very little towards its upkeep. This pushes the costs onto people without solar, who tend to be renters or low income households.
> Energy cost has long been viewed as a means to constrain consumption. This new approach seems to undermine that approach given the reduced cost per volume.
The idea that electricity consumption must be constrained makes sense when the electricity is generated by fossil fuels -- replacing a gas furnace with an electric heat pump when the electricity is made by burning coal is not a big improvement. But we're entering a world where most of the electricity is generated by clean solar, and constraining usage doesn't reduce emissions quite as much. In this world, a heat pump powered by solar is a real improvement over a gas furnace, environmentally-speaking. But a heat pump only beats a gas furnace in terms of cost to operate if the price of electricity comes down relative to the price of gas.
From that perspective, removing constraints on electricity usage is not a bug, but a feature.
Well, I can't think of any media articles talking about, specifically state level, censorship efforts from the left. But the Whitehouse was recently told by courts it couldn't communicate with social media companies about content moderation. Trying to claim that isn't censorship will require some mental gymnastics.
But let's not forget the censorship around the hunter Biden laptop story and the censorship of lab leak theories for covid. Both completely legitimate topics, both completely blocked out during an election year. The right wasn't calling for or defending those actions, the left was.
Some things just aren't feasible to collect evidence for. You would need access to their private communications to find evidence. So your basically giving a pass to any maleficence done in the dark.