JasSmith

While I agree that energy-intensive business should always be pushed onto flexible-pricinv contracts, as a private consumer, uniform pricing is an advantage imo. You don’t need to think about whether running the washing machine will cost you 0.2¤ or 0.6¤ or whether there’s a price surge, and it’s even more expensive.

Fixed pricing happens in Europe too. The retailer prices the volatility into a fixed pricing plan. It still ends up much cheaper than how the UK has structured their grid, which ensures electricity companies are making massive piles of money.

UK’s uniform pricing is intended to ensure renewables are artificially profitable, incentivising more production. In most other countries, suppliers charge competitive rates, and brokers buy on an open market. This allows demand-based generators (like gas) to charge more during high demand periods (when wind isn’t blowing and sun isn’t shining). The flip side of this is that prices crater during high wind and sun periods. This leads to volatility which can be smoothed with futures contracts. The net effect is that renewables become less profitable, but consumers pay a lot less for electricity.

The UK needs to restructure their energy market to better align with the rest of Europe. It would significantly reduce prices for everyone.

IMDB rating: 4.2.

It’s hilarious that literally minutes after your comment someone replied with, “BUT MY NEIGHBOR REALLY IS THE ENEMY!”

I've had exactly the same experience. Lemmy has been far more hostile than I ever experienced on Reddit. Any opinions which aren't far left are called "Nazi," and users are very quick to justify violence against "Nazis."

That's coherent. Unfortunately most people who use it today literally mean "someone who disagrees with me." It really muddies the water because it's often accompanied by threats of violence. The net effect is raising the temperature in the room on both sides, because it's effectively dehumanising others who have perfectly valid political disagreements, and calling for their death.

The “tolerance paradox” is a handy tool with which to justify violence by those on both sides. If I’m just fighting intolerance, then my actions are justified. It’s a common rally cry used by authoritarians to stamp out diversity and democracy. To really hammer the point home, the Nazis were the first to employ it. By blaming their issues on the “intolerance” of foreign states, they justified a global war. It is obviously the inspiration for Popper’s 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Russia is currently using this fallacy to justify the war in Ukraine, claiming that the West is “intolerant” of Russia, and they need to defend themselves against this intolerance.

Here is a full quote from Popper on the subject if anyone is interested.

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Popper’s argument is laid bare here. Tolerate up to the point of violence. That is, if one physically attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence, suppresion, and censorship against disagreement, and that is clearly not his argument.

disagree, if political discourse can’t survive public debate, then it isn’t a very good political ideology.

They made it clear they're talking about spaces and topics not about politics. People who feel entitled and compelled to make everything a political culture war are insufferable. Made worse when they call everyone who disagrees with them a Nazi. The word has lost all meaning now.

You’re right but apparently that audience isn’t there anymore.

I can explain the delta. The article is referring to capacity. It’s a trick used by activists to overrepresent the contribution of renewables to the grid. Renewables are of course highly volatile and their peak capacity is much higher than trough. Grids require reliable base load generation, so little of the renewable peak capacity is actually useful or consumed. What’s important to measure is actual consumption, which your report measures.

This movie was a perfect storm of stupidity, narcissism, incompetence, and Hollywood. Maybe now we can have normal movies again written with nuanced women like Ripley, Sarah Connor, Beatrix Kiddo, and Trinity, instead of this atrocious Mary Sue slop.