I'd love to hear what others that have seen both think since I'll want to put aside some time to watch this one after all the holiday hustle and bustle are done.
I think it's a great model based on what Nick's tour showed.
People don't realize how much electric heating costs in comparison to the fossil fuel alternatives. Gas so much cheaper per joule it more than makes up for the efficiency losses. This is true even without California's insane electricity economy.
The US average residential electricity price is 18.07 c/kWh [0]. Natural gas is $15.39/thousand cubic ft [1]. 1k cubic feet of gas is about 300kWh (this varies because natural gas is not always the same and because the higher heating value and lower heating value are different. So the US average is about 5c/kWh of natural gas.
In decent weather, one should not use resistive electric heat — one should use a heat pump. In decent weather, a COP of 4 is about par for the course, making electric heat a bit cheaper. So I don’t believe your assertion that “gas is so much cheaper per joule”.
Obviously this varies by what you do with your heat and the conditions. Gas stoves are wildly inefficient, but induction can exceed a COP of 100%. In very very cold weather, heat pump COP drops, so gas will win. Gas tankless water heaters are reasonably priced and can reach well over 90% efficiency, whereas heat pump water heaters need a tank, which is somewhat lossy.
But gas has a major downside (aside from CO2 and other emissions): you need to pipe the stuff to the endpoint, and a lot of communities, especially new developments, have decided that this is not worth the expense or danger.
I'm not sure what physics you're using to get a COP > 1 for an induction stove. I'm pretty sure you could put a Stirling engine on that stove and have a perpetual motion machine. Most of them run about 80-90% compared to 30-40% for gas equivalents, about 2-2.5x more efficient. And this is with expensive, high-end cooktops.
I think heat pumps make sense to use when available, but that's kind of separate from electric heat sources. If you actually have to source your heat from the power source itself, it's cheaper to get it cookies.
I have a heat pump on my house, but there's also a high-efficiency furnace and its COP is over 90% combusting gas.
Whoops, that was a typo. Gas stoves really are kind of absurdly inefficient, though. You can buy silly pots with heat exchangers on the bottom that do better, though.
The cost is having the satellite systems in place, working, and available. You don't save money by not using the tiny amount of bandwidth when it isn't "an emergency"
Same reason communities still maintain HAM radio clubs and rely on them for emergency communications in a grid down situation - it's an interesting (though expensive) hobby that has some merit for isolated communities.
People don't maintain HAM clubs for the potential use in an emergency, any more than people learn to fly in the hope of being able to rescue a commercial aircraft when both pilots are incapacitated.
They enjoy HAM radio as a hobby in and of it's self. It's doesn't come free to the government either, I'm sure some HFT organisation would pay handsomely for some of the bands currently used by HAM radio.
That's simply not true, many HAMs in remote areas join to learn how to operate radio equipment and assist crisis responders - especially in the northern frontier states. There's a big appeal in my community - but we might not be the norm.
Look into the ARES program (ARRL).
They absolutely also enjoy it for personal use, but in areas where dying from exposure is a real concern in winter, the radio is an important lifeline.
The burden on taxpayers would be significantly less if the government simply paid to run the system rather than additionally funding two sets of attorneys to duke it out in court to make an out of control executive actually execute the law. It's getting harder and harder to believe that this fascist movement was ever earnestly about saving money.
It doesn't look like the Federal Government is being erased. In fact, it and its debt are rapidly growing. I'd say the motte is autocratic authoritarianism (ie fascism).
I would love to drop some of the extensions that I currently have loaded for this purpose, but sadly I'm not confident the positive signal instructing opt-out will be honored, and I'll need to retain my defensive extensions.
Could you share the video where he says "women should be secondary to men"? I'm interested in seeing this. I'm familiar with him saying "...prioritize marriage and children over career goals.." and "young women who supported Kamala Harris don't value having children..." but that had nothing to do with "secondary". He also said "young MEN should order their lives correctly by putting family first." But I'm always interested in knowing if I'm missing something.
You're completely misrepresenting and misquoting the access to weapons comment. A parallel would be "give me liberty or give me death" which is a foundational quote in the invention/founding of the Constitutional Federal Republic system that has been adopted by many western nations.
When an order to harm is given and followed, the harm was caused proximately by the person following the order; and ultimately by the system in which the speech was to be taken as an order, and was followed. It was not caused by the speech itself.
Where American law makes an exception for "incitement to imminent lawless action", this is a recognition that something more than mere "speech" is going on.
Let's say we're both in the army and I'm your commanding officer. I order you to kill a civilian and you do it.
Did I just kill a civilian, or did I just say some words?
I think it's clearly the former.
Another case: someone takes private nude photographs of your wife and then uploads them without her consent to social media. Is that "free speech" or sexual assault?
I'm pretty close to free speech absolutism, but there are some things that go beyond just being speech or opinions. Libel and defamation (whose scope is very narrow), shouting fire and it leading to injury or death, influencing or instructing someone to kill another person, spreading non-consentual sexual imagery, etc.
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that when an order is given, it has other properties, aside from "being a form of speech", and those are the properties that make it bad to give an order to do a harmful thing. The simple fact that it is uttered, is not what's problematic about the order.
It is therefore not valid to say that "you believe speech can harm people", any more than "you believe breathing can harm people" (since breathing is a prerequisite to being alive, which is a prerequisite to giving an order).
Okay, so speech should be banned, in contradiction to the first amendment, if it has certain properties you don't like? The first amendment says there are no properties of speech which entitle Congress to ban it.
> Okay, so speech should be banned, in contradiction to the first amendment, if it has certain properties you don't like?
No.
What I am saying is very simple and I find it very hard to believe that it could be misunderstood in good faith. But I will try one last time to make it as absolutely clear as possible before ignoring you.
Giving an order is an action. The action has properties. One of those properties is that it is speech. Another property is that exercises power, to compels someone else to do something. Because the action is compelled, the order-giver can be held responsible for it.
But these are both properties of the order. The speech, itself, does not have the property of exercising power. Words used for other purposes cannot compel an action. When an action is compelled, it's because an order was given, not because words were spoken.
There is a mountain of precedent for this in US law, too. In general, the fact that doing a wrong thing required speaking does not constitute a defense against the wrong thing. If you call emergency services and knowingly make a fradulent claim about an emergency — for example, "swatting", or making a nuisance 911 call — then you commit a crime, and the fact that the crime was put into effect by the act of uttering words will not defend you in a court of law. Penalizing these crimes does not in any way constitute a ban on any form of speech.
The same is true of "time, place and manner" restrictions. For example, if you cause hearing damage to someone else through inappropriate use of a loudspeaker, you may still be found guilty of a crime; the question of whether you spoke into the loudspeaker or used some other sound source is irrelevant.
Your original claim, in the flagged and killed comment, does not hold water. Hitler used his power to compel his subordinates to kill Jews (and others). To exercise this power, he communicated in natural language (specifically, German). This does not constitute "speech" harming people. It constitutes the use of that power harming people.
That's correct - speaking is an action. Nonetheless, the founding fathers decided that speaking is a type of action which should never be restricted, no matter which other properties it may also have.
You may argue for restrictions on the form of speech such as yelling into someone's ear with a megaphone, but that doesn't apply here since ordering someone to kill someone is a matter of content, not form.
Unconstitutional precedent does not become constitutional simply because it's precedent.
Do you think the same thing about "give me liberty or give me death?"
"...cost of unfortunately..." Is that not clear? The context was he was responding about a question about the 2nd amendment. clearly the first order thinking would make it clear it's not the rule, it's the purpose of the rule that's important.
The purpose is so you don't get arrested for some social media comment or other rights, like what is happening in the UK right now.
I thought he did a great job.
I'd love to hear what others that have seen both think since I'll want to put aside some time to watch this one after all the holiday hustle and bustle are done.
I think it's a great model based on what Nick's tour showed.
reply