The oldest isn't able to help because he doesn't want to. He should be easily capable of helping and is choosing not to.

There is an easy fix. Its revenue sharing.

If you display the totality of content, you either pay for it or take it down.

Back in the print days, if I just plagiarized your article and printed it in my own magazine you could sue me. Why has this changed? Well, Google writes the laws now.

In video media there are fair use laws. You can only use X seconds of a video before it becomes theft. Reddit, Facebook, Google are all selling other peoples content. Imagine if web site runners could set DNS record indicating a rev share PPV price. If a piece of content receives over X views that price kicks in and the owner would be liable.

Until we make laws to protect journalism, we won't have it.

There is no money for journalism until social media companies pay for stealing content. This article here is being stolen, with its entire content copied into this thread.

How can we expect them to pay journalists if we also force them to give their content for free? Reddit should have to pay per view when it clips content.

This wasn't true in the beginning of social media. Think about Digg, Fark or the old Facebook. Facebook and Twitter used to he about who you followed and who you liked. Thats the only content you saw. If you wanted someones content, you has to opt-in.

Thats dead.

Now all social media feeds you what they want, rather than what you request. Its not new this year, but its new in the last decade.

Oh yea baby, lick my baguette.

ELI5: You can pretty easily tell if something is a book right? So you are looking for something to read. Pick it up. Is it a book? No. Toss it. Yes? Read it.

Search engines do the same with everything they process. Malware can't be embedded in a webpage, its a seperate executable downloaded by the page. So anytime the crawler reads something "is it a webpage?" No, toss it. Yes, process it, then find everything it links to, repeat.

Sure, its logical to not pay taxes, except its part of an increasingly common tax avoidance scheme.

Earn all money via stocks. Take out loans against those stocks. Never pay the loan back. Repeat the process and those that are uber rich never pay any taxes but have near infinite spending money.

So the rest of us give up 30% of our income and yet those who benefit from these buybacks pay 0.

This shows you how far blood money goes and just how much of that extra money we spend on gas ends up in the hands of mega-rich assholes.

You want to point a finger at someone for high gas prices, these clowns are a big part of the problem.

The issue isn't buybacks. The issue is our tax and wealth laws that allow the wealthy to accrue billions. A buyback is just a company spending their own money to buy their own stock, thats it.

Sure, its a negative flow, but think of the implication.

They spent nearly as much buying back stock as they spent running the fucking company. So where did that money go, well it went to shareholders. Ok, so who are shareholders. Well, a lot of us have small amounts but a lot of them have big amounts. Except in a buyback its not the shareholders are given payments in cash. No, instead shares are taken off market, so the singular share goes up in value? Whys it matter? Taxes. If your asset appreciated you don't pay taxes until you sell. If they just did a dividend, you would pay taxes now.

So ultimately this is a company making so much profit they can distributing it to their investors in a tax free way. Yet, their balance statements show a loss.

This happens for us when the sun shines on either sensor. Is that the case in your situation. For us its only in the winter months when we leave for work due to the low elevation of the morning sun. It does the exact thing you describe until you block the sensor with your shadow.

The government mandates a shit ton of things around gas tanks. They have to be located in a certain way, protected, vented, all sorts of things to ensure that your car isn't a literal bomb... as it used to be before regulations. Just like seat belts were fought by the industry for years.

Yet, with electric, "ehhhh do what you want."

Or... they just won't because they make more money this way, and money buys votes so.... democracy?

I don't buy it. Car companies don't want it to be modular because it doesn't benefit them. In Asia they have grab and go batteries in motorbikes all the time.

Why would Tesla or Toyota want to cooperate and build a modular battery so that a competitor could sell a battery for your car. They don't want duracell in the game.

Government could fix this, but won't because captured capitalism.

"Keep warming under 1.5c"...

Yea, we crossed that threshold already. Right now were on track for warming of 5c, and we refuse to endure any pain switching off fossil fuel.

That time long sailed. If we dealt with emissions are Al Gore showed us the hockey stick we coulda done this without pain.

Now, its too late. We have to drastically cut and that means giving things up. We need carbon taxes, gas taxes and extreme taxes on anything emission based.

The other issue is I've yet to see an example where batteries are good at the industrial level. They are generally too expensive and short lived to overcome the expense as opposed to battery-like technology like pumping water uphill when you have excess and letting it run turbines on the way down.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2021-07-26/pumped-hydro

So building infrastructure which helps the grid during peak use times is bad then, eh?

Some people just gotta bitch about everything.

Industrial solar doesn't use batteries. For storing the size of energy necessary at industrial scale, it's massively impractical and expensive. Industrial energy storage is done largely using pumps and water. Pump water up-hill with overflow energy, let it generate hydro downhill during energy demand.

There isn't a shortage for wind or hydro or nuclear. Its really just a solar and battery problem but industrial scale solar doesn't use a lot of batteries.

Yea this headline is horseshit in so many ways. First solar is always cheaper... because its free. The cost is upfront vs gas which is both upfront and fuel based. Therefore its intellectually bankrupt to compare cost of generation if you don't include equipment cost.

Second, if solar was cheaper, gas prices will fall, keeping the two in rough equilibrium. Some places can extract gas as cheaply as 20$ a barrel so solar per kw and gas per kw will peg to each other as mpre goes electric.

Right... but think that through. If all far right people become more entrenched it means they also aren't shifting leftward.

That means unless all sides are equally targeted, they are not, then one side will win out overtime because they don't "lose" people while the other does.

I think you misread. The AI trained on data, but played against real humans in real online leagues. In those leagues it performed well.

Ok... thats fucking bonkers. The sheer amount of ways that can go wrong. The insane strength and stability of a 53 year old to do that effortlessly. The precision of the drivers. The crazy sob that came up with this.

Humanities wild sometimes.

Or this is late at night in a creepy warehouse and he's the only person he expects to be there. I know when I'm at the office late I'll be good until I get the creeps and then its over... I just am constantly looking around while at my desk. Time to go home.

This story is dumb. The guy mixed the drink, in the stands, in the public crowd and then handed it to him, again, in full view of thousands.

There wasn't a damn thing "secret" about this. Its like if I went to starbucks and ordered a coffee and the media was like "ooohhh DragoonXNucleon ordered a secret peformance enhancing drink from his voodoo doctor!"