I randomly watched a scene from it on YouTube based on this comment, and in the background was a poster I never saw before that said "Trust Your Technolust", and just like that, I have my new life motto LOL
This reminds me of a detail from the plot of the original Deus Ex. Part way through the game, there is an optional dialogue with a benevolent AI. If you question it enough, it reveals that it is the rejected prototype for an anti-corruption/terrorism AI which was turned off for being too effective: eventually classifying its own masters as a criminal organisation.
man this thread makes me want to replay the game again.
It's in the original game and it was the MJ12 Daedalus AI, although I'm not quite sure where the player picks that piece of backstory up. It might be in the dialogue with the prototype in the Everett house.
Yeah it's Daedalus. I Googled it and I'm factually correct but I must have the conversations mixed up in my head... It might be one of the human characters who tells the player about it.
I think I got the conversation wrong... But it's definitely revealed at some point. My memory has gotten fuzzy! Definitely time to give it another play through.
Yup,that's called legal insurance and is often quite an affordable backstop, at least in the EU. Pro-tip is to get yours at another supplier than your regular insurance to best align incentives. In things like consumer conflicts I've never had to use my legal insurance, just announcing that you'll get them involved usually is met with some kind of compromise.
Absolutely second the benefits of legal insurance. It clearly shows others you are not afraid to fight this out as the costs are covered.
The free legal counseling hotline my insurance provides helps me at least twice a year with the right approach to tackle problems. And they have such a large network of lawyers that I'm always speaking to a specialist in my problem's area.
The combination of legal counseling and the simple fact that I had legal insurance helped me compromising in my favor or outright win all legal disputes I had since buying the insurance without actually using it.
Legal insurance is also probably a very lucrative insurance model. They avoid a lot of cases for their customers by their pure display of power and can advise their clients about which battles are worth fighting for in the first place. Furthermore (afaik) the losing side pays most of the legal fees of both parties.
That's not the same. What you are talking about is an 'insurance' where you, when you get into legal trouble, are reimbursed for (some of) your legal costs. That's not what the GP meant.
What the GP meant is literally quite strange. You get reimbursed re conditions of the contract, period. If the insurer doesn't pay it's either a legally correct action or not. If legally correct you get what you paid for. If incorrect you need legal recourse. The only type of insurance possible against an insurer not paying is legal insurance. Otherwise you are asking for an insurance for you not understanding the terms and conditions. That's typical.
> Otherwise you are asking for an insurance for you not understanding the terms and conditions.
Is this an unreasonable request? :)
Whenever I get insurances through work I rarely get terms and conditions? If I do, I rarely get something specific, it's very ambiguous.. and contains unqualified conditions.
I find that agents can rarely answer questions I have, how was I suppose to understand things?
> However, saying that renewables are the cause of this is the same as saying that nuclear is the cause of Chernobyl. Nuclear plants don't inherently melt down if they are properly designed and operated and renewables don't inherently cause load-shedding if they are integrated to a properly planned and operated bulk power system.
Isn't this just juggling semantics? Nuclear is very much a necessary condition for nuclear meltdown. Removing nuclear power is a foolproof option to avoid nuclear meltdown.
Likewise displacing dispatchable generation with renewables enables the conditions where we can get these super high spot prices. To guarantee supply during peak load you need a lot of redundant dispatchable generation sitting around gathering dust until the $14500 day. On that day it needs to pay for itself, hence $14500 per megawatt hour.
EDIT: Oh wait, I'm a dummy who didn't read your post correctly. I agree with your comments about the market needing to correctly price reliability of supply. In WA we have a capacity market for this reason.
There are a lot of economic scenarios for a 'peaker' plant that don't necessarily involve it having to recover its full capital cost in just a few days of operation. Often these are plants that have been retired from the energy market due to high operating costs, but can still start up and run for a few hours well below the $1000/MWh level because the owner has already recovered their cap-ex over many years of operation. They may have other revenue streams that cover their operating costs, like black-start services, and operating reserve is just the cherry on top.
This works well for the current 30 minute market. At 5 minutes there are no non-battery plants, other than hydro, which can start up fast enough to provide power to the market.
True for cold start, but gas plants can ramp in the 5 minute window if they are already running. But the market conditions would have to such that it makes economic sense for them to be in that operating condition.
Right and it takes them five minutes to ramp down, and the price market window will be 5 minutes. Which means they will have to bet on the price being high the next windiw too. Which means higher prices sustained longer because gas units won't be quick enough any more.
If they're ramping as part of a system reliability service, then should be doing it under automatic generation control, not betting on the energy market, and they would have committed a certain amount of up and down regulation some hours in advance. The cost question is whether it makes sense for them to bid for that reliability service to begin with.
Which goes back to my argument that this is to a large extent about market design and not technology.
Failure of a meshed power system cannot be attributed to the failure of any single sub-system. Rather it must be a combination of factors including those you just mentioned.
The dependence of the power system on renewables (specifically wind farms)contributed in two ways to the blackout:
1. The majority of wind turbines provide little or no system inertia. By displacing synchronous generation with wind generation, system inertia is reduced which results in greater ROCOF during an event where there is a change in active power demand/supply. In the SA blackout, fast ROCOF overwhelmed the system's last line of defence- under frequency load shedding.
2. Some wind turbines contained a fault ride-through setting which AEMO was apparently not aware of prior to the blackout. Specifically, the setting caused the turbines to disconnect after experiencing a sequence of voltage excursions within a set time period. The disconnection caused a loss of active power supply to the grid which contributed to the drop in frequency and eventual collapse.
> I'm writing from Canada. Mother and/or father can share up to 35 weeks of paid leave under the national insurance program. This maxes out at, I think, approx $500 per week. It's not a lot. But it helps.
This. I'm writing from Australia- it looks like we only get $622.10 for 18 weeks, but it seems like a nice middle ground to support new parents. At that low price I would probably agree that 35 weeks is reasonable.
I get confused when people argue strongly against the middle ground position. I don't even want to have kids but I don't begrudge the use of public money in this way- it's a direct investment in the future of society which shields both parents and businesses from undue financial stress without being profligate or forcing too much ideology on the rest of us.
> How can you say this with a straight face?! It's a fact that (some) women need to stay off work (bed-ridden before birth, in hospital after birth). It's also a fact that men don't need to.
You're referring to a timescale of days which a woman will likely need to spend in hospital. I believe
jschwartzi is referring to the weeks/months of maternity/paternity leave following the initial birth. There isn't a hard biological reason not to evenly share the load after the immediate medical concerns are completed.
