I'd also like to point out that the underlying model may well be unsustainable in the way that it is offered at the start. Who benefits when a for-profit company operates at a loss? We, the customers, do. We get low prices and customer-friendly practices that are genuinely enjoyable. That business can't operate in that way indefinitely, as the early investors are not funding it as an act of charity.

Eventually, the bill comes due. The shareholders have funded the company on the premise that, after losing lots of money on customer acquisition, it can restructure and monetize those customers and recoup their investment, hopefully with a lucrative return when they decide to capitalize their holdings and find a new company with which to repeat the process.

There is absolutely no reason not to enjoy the perks of the early stage of the customer acquisition process; the shareholders are subsidizing your product at no cost to you. But we shouldn't be surprised when the shareholders stop subsidizing and start squeezing their formerly pampered customers in the hopes of getting their money back (and more, of course).

This doesn't excuse unethical or abusive practices, but it does mean that, even without them, the experience of those early days probably wasn't going to last forever.

Is this it?

First, find a rock.

For anyone who feels this way after waking up from what should have been "enough" sleep, consider getting a home sleep test. Going from moderate sleep apnea to none was life-changing. If this is how you feel regularly, it doesn't necessarily have to be this way.

Because crystallography and solid state chemistry is the foundation of every modern convenience?

But it's also beautiful. If they've never heard of Bravais-Friedel-Donnay-Harker, then you can't really blame them for not knowing.

Is that the symbol for bleem?

Plenty of trees could be planted with $500 billion, but the timeframe to sequester the carbon the biosphere would be greatly extended. The reason that the author of the article discounts tree planting as a strategy for sequestration is that, as you may have noticed, trees release much of their carbon back into the biosphere in winter when they drop their leaves onto the ground. These leaves are then converted back into CO2 by the many fungi, bacteria, and detrivores on the forest floor.

As a result, there is more disruption caused by climate change. I think planting trees is an excellent idea, and that we should definitely do it, but it's not an atmospheric carbon mitigation strategy.

If you are interested in this, look into carbon sequestration rates of switchgrass and elephant grass.

HCP FTW.

Same here. I've come to the conclusion that, if I was unwilling to accept anyone that wasn't of the calibre of Carl Sagan to fill his shoes, I was probably going to wait a long time. I think Degrasse Tyson's advocacy for black scientists is admirable, as is his willingness to promote religious reconciliation. These weren't areas of focus for Sagan, but that's ok. They can be different people, even imperfect people, and maybe that's good.

Yeah, if that's what Johnny Cash was talking about, then what was Trent Reznor talking about?

It can be challenging to pick it out, but, if you read the article, the problem is "Transmission Capacity". This does not mean that energy supply is the problem, rather, that the power grid has a finite, limiting ability to transmit the power generated in one place to another place, far away.

It would be nice if this were not the case, as the construction of remote gigawatt-scale power plants would, as you suggest, solve this problem. However, adding more supply won't change the transmission capacity of the grid serving the utility, especially if the power generation is tens or hundreds of miles away from the demand centers.

One way to relieve the inevitable shortages is to upgrade the power lines and grid infrastructure. The core problems with this are that 1) it's expensive and 2) there's no good way to recoup the costs, as there would be with a plant. Accordingly, few people are eager to dump billions dollars into new grid infrastructure.

An alternative way is to provide power is to accelerate residential solar arrays. Residential PV generates large amounts of excess power that can be metered back into the grid immediately adjacent to neighbors who may not have solar power, but might need power for things like air conditioning during hot days. Crucially, the power for these consumers is being generated immediately adjacent to them, without encumbering the "transmission capacity" of the grid that the distant thermal plant needs to get their energy to the consumer.

Also, residential PV is purchased, installed, and insured by a private home owner at their own expense. Liability for loss or damage to the residential PV array is held by the homeowner, not the utility. As a result, the residential PV array is allowing the utility to sell more power to their customers without requiring that same utility to pay for an upgraded grid.

Residential PV should be viewed as a godsend for the thermal plants generating power that their grids can't transmit.

The first lines from Neuromancer by William Gibson. What a pleasant surprise.