• 0 Posts
  • 71 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 24th, 2023

help-circle



  • Correct, but that also comes to the main reason why paying people for roof solar isn’t sustainable in the long term.

    As solar panels keeps getting cheaper, more and more people will put solar on their roof. Since they get paid / reimbursed for feeding power back into the grid. And they don’t need a battery because they can just draw from the grid. This causes two problems:

    • During the day far more power is produced than needed, since everyone has solar on the roofs
    • During the night there is a lot of power draw from the grid, which cannot come from all the available roof solar.

    Paying people for their roof solar is a good strategy short-term, but as more and more people have solar on the roof you cannot really keep doing that.


  • Where in Europe is this? Europe isn’t a monolith, after all.
    Here in the Netherlands we (currently) still have the “salderingsregeling” which is used to reimburse people for the solar they feed back into the grid, though that will eventually go away.

    Paying people for solar on the roof is a bit tricky in general, and probably not sustainable long term:

    • The money to maintain the grid has to come from somewhere, and if a lot of people have a bill of zero euros or a negative amount, that system kind of breaks down.
    • The grid has a maximum capacity (especially in residential neighbourhoods) so you cannot pump an infinite amount of power back into the grid. If many houses in a neighbourhood have solar the grid simply cannot cope.

  • My read on this is not as much of a cynical one. I believe the point of surveillance is simply to protect the institution of the state.

    The goal of the state is ultimately the continued existence of that state. Otherwise there really is not that much purpose to the state. Surveillance is a tool to suppress actors (read: terrorists) who might want to undermine that institution.

    In order to determine who benefits from the continued existence of the state, it mostly depends which state you are talking about.
    A state like China exists almost solely to benefit those in power, and thus the surveillance state is used to suppress the citizenry. But a Western democracy, while it also to a certain extent protects money and power, also exists to to benefit the general population.





  • So I’m not overly familiar, but I can try to summarize what I know.

    Steven van de Velde is a Dutchman who went to the UK and raped a 12 year-old. He was sentenced to four years in prison for this by a UK court. Later he was extradited to the Netherlands, so he could sit out his sentence in the NL. However in the Netherlands, unlike the UK, sex with a minor is not automatically considered rape and needs to be proven in court. (Note: That is my understanding of the difference in interpretation) Because of this his conviction was reduced to “ontucht”, meaning sexual misconduct. (Even though what he did would probably also be considered rape in Dutch court).
    As a result, he was out of prison after 13 months.

    Now, Dutch attitude to these kinds of things, in my experience, is generally (but not always) that if you have paid your time, and have shown remorse for your actions, then it should probably not affect your future career prospects. The justice system is supposed to rehabilitate after all. (That is my experience though, and my experience may be biased, so don’t take this as gospel)

    Hart van Nederland did a survey, and apparently only 27% of respondents think he should not be allowed to compete. 63% of respondents think he should be allowed to compete, and 10% don’t have an opinion either way. (Note that Hart van Nederland is not the most reliable of sources, but it gives an indication)

    From what I have seen in Dutch circles this controversy is a lot less pronounced than it is in other countries. That’s not to say it is entirely uncontroversial, but it’s not quite to the same degree as I’m seeing internationally.

    Personal opinion:

    I don’t think his sentence should have been lowered to “ontucht”. I think what he did is morally reprehensible, and he should have sat out the full sentence for raping a minor. That is a failure on behalf of the justice system though, and van de Velde is not personally to blame for that.

    That said, given that he has shown remorse for his actions, and has finished the sentence that the legal system imposed on him, I don’t think he should have been barred from competing in the Olympics on behalf of the Dutch team.

    Edit: As Flying Squid mentioned I might be mistaken that he has shown genuine remorse.
    If he hasn’t that changes my opinion on the matter.







  • That is assuming that those data centers are necessary. If the data center is doing something that is not really needed then it is in effect wasting power that could have been used for other purposes. (e.g. using surplus power to make steel or aluminium for instance)

    While I do think that AI-tools can be increadibly useful, the current hype surrounding it very much looks like a bubble akin to the DotCom bubble to me. Companies left and right are jumping on the AI bandwagon for the sake of using the buzzword “AI” in their marketing speech.

    I don’t consider that kind of use of datacenters to be necessary.


  • Sadly it’s tricky to separate the two.

    Say if hypothethically we have a data center that is not connected to the grid, and is entirely running on solar power and battery storage.
    If the grid still generates (part of) its electricity need using fossil fuels, those same solar panels and batteries could instead have been used to (further) decarbonize the grid.

    While using solar power is good, increasing the overall unnecessary electricity consumption is still not great.