Misspelledusernme

If I remember correctly from when the regulation was originally discussed, there are a lot of restrictions on the natural gas plant before it's considered green. Its only green if it replaces an existing coal plant, and if the new plant is not larger than the one it replaces, and if it has very low emissions.

Edit. Found a source:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/698935/EPRS_BRI(2022)698935_EN.pdf

Conditions for natural gas to be classified as green.

life-cycle emissions are below 100 g CO2 e/kWh; or

until 2030 (date of approval of construction permit), and where renewables are not available at sufficient scale, direct emissions are below 270 g CO2 e/kWh or, for the activity of electricity generation, their annual direct GHG emissions must not exceed an average of 550 kg CO2 e/kW of the facility's capacity over 20 years. In this case, the activity must meet a set of cumulative conditions: e.g. it replaces a facility using solid or liquid fossil fuels; the replacement leads to a reduction in GHG emissions of at least 55 % over the lifetime of the newly installed production capacity; the newly installed production capacity does not exceed the capacity of the replaced facility by more than 15 %; the refurbishment of the facility does not increase the production capacity for co-generation of heat/cooling and power from fossil gaseous fuels; the activity takes place on the territory of a Member State which has committed to phasing out the use of energy generation from coal; the activity ensures a full switch to renewable or low-carbon gases by 2035; and a regular independent verification of compliance with the criteria is carried out.

This is all so bizarre to me. Surely, it can't be true that they keep coming back with the same legislation, through different countries presidencies, all because they don't understand why people are rejecting it?

The cited article shows that there is no difference in the death rate of donors between opt-in an opt-out countries.

But it does not support the claim that most countries are opt-out. They only look at OECD countries, where opt-in is in the majority (18 opt-in vs 17 opt-out).

Is this satire?

Edit. Dumb question. Of course it is. But I wasn't sure until I saw it cross posted to the onion.

Wizards of the Coast PR released a brief and uncredited statement defending the announcement of the new controversy.

“We know you piggies will swarm like the swine you are around the trough once we put this shit up for sale. We could put a little turd in each booster pack and as long as we said 1 in 4 turds had bits of foil in it they’d sell out immediately because no piggie can resist a bucket of sweet sweet slop.”

I'm surprised it isn't already illegal to install software on someone's phone without their consent or knowledge. Sounds like a form of property damage.

Are there any rules about the legitimacy of the results when not enough people vote? 300x8 ballots is not nearly enough for a city like NoLA.

I love both movies. But I've never thought of the two like this. I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis.

As a side note. I'll make a man out of you is my favorite Disney song.

I've listened to Jordan Peterson a lot in long form conversations. This is my generous interpretation of his views.

Peterson believes that all humans have a hierarchy of values and desires.

Eg you go to work in order to get money in order to get food in order to live in order to play tennis in order to enjoy yourself....

At the top of this hierarchy is the thing that you're ultimately after in life. Jordan defines this thing as "god" and defines the pursuit of it "worship". Therefore, everyone has a god and everyone worships.

He also believes that the past doesn't really exist, as much as our societal memory of it. He would say that the story of Cain and Abel in the Bible is "True", because it is the archetypal brotherly rivalry that we all embody in some sense.

Putting this together. The Bible is "True". Everyone has a "God" they have a personal relationship with and that they "worship".

He is essentially defining things such that everyone is a Christian. Then he says that people just don't understand what Christianity really is.

Maybe im just dumb. But when I read "shrink the economy", I thought it meant negative GDP growth. But they actually mean a 0.06%-pnt reduction in the positive GDP growth. i think they should have used a better word.

I don't see the political charge. How do you mean?

Someone secretly recorded their private conversation and leaked it? How does that happen?

Im not in the loop about what people are expecting of ai or what state of the art models can do. But here's my review.

Ive found chatgpt useful for code snippets, rewording paragraphs, writing emails, fun images. It saves time, but I still need to adjust things. I also use an llm for code suggestions, which I love.

I can not use it for things I don't already understand well. Whenever I try to diagnose issues in my Linux computer, i feel like I get dragged down tangents and I get confused and after many messages it completely forgets what we're doing. I would need to already know how things work to be able to navigate this.

It doesn't do well with niche information. I haven't been able to have it make me a functional EDH-deck. I have not been able to get basic information about my not-so-niche field of research. It gets things wrong too often for me to trust it as a source of information.

Overall ive found it very useful for the things I've found it useful. I understand why it fails at the other tasks. But I assume that someone better equipped than me could prompt-engineer, or adjust the model somehow, to make it useful for those tasks as well.

But ive also heard of really impressive uses, like alphago and alphafold. Im sure there are more recent examples.

But I honestly don't understand what people are envisioning that these ai are supposed to do. Im probably just ignorant about the state of the art, but it seems absurd to me that an ai could tell you how to make government efficient by just throwing existing data at it, to use a topical example.