Posts by Jellied Eel

Reg fashion: Here's what the well-dressed astronaut will wear on the Moon in 2025

Re: Why?

The Forever War, Joe Haldeman. The troops practising "cold manoeuvres" on Charon before deploying. An yes, oddly, your comment triggered the full memory of that, I didn't even have to look it up :-)

Aha! Triggered! It's fun the way our brains work. I got triggered by thinking about waking on alien surfaces, but didn't make the connection. But I'd been looking for my copy of that recently due to the way Haldeman's 1970s era, post-Vietnam experiences shaped a view of a future society that's eerily familiar now. Somehow, it's a book that probably won't be turned into a movie or TV show by Hollywood, Netflix, Amazon or Disney any time soon. I really must read it again.

(And next challenge.. The Steam release of Dwarf Fortress triggered my memory of the tale of Boatmurdered, and flaming elephants. Which made me remember a historical fantasy novel set in Roman Britain that involved evil sorceror/necromancers and demonic elephants. Can't remember if it was good, but certainly different enough to lodge in my brain. No idea what the title or author was other than being a fantasy novel, was part of a series. My search-fu has failed me finding that one.)

Re: Why?

Maritime Law. According to Captain Blondbeard that would make heisting boots an act of piracy.

Hmm.. so that's how the Freman got started.

Also, perhaps, a little risky for the victim.

I dunno. I think there are riskier activities. Crocs might be trendy, but inappropriate footwear to wear outdoors on the Moon. Unless you're into scarification and want to demonstrate your brand loyalty on your feet. Or a long time ago, I read another SF story that talked about why walking on frozen gas lakes might be a bad idea, especially if your soles transfer heat. Or you slip and fall so your radiator lands on the ice. Then, alien ice skating might not seem such a sublime idea.

Alternatively, there might be benefits. Like no need for odour eaters or trainer tamers. Just leave your boots outside the airlock in the shade, and they should be freshened up. Unless your foot bacteria somehow manage to colonise the new planet and turns into toe cheese.

Re: Why?

Maybe just how thick the soles are? As they're going to be on the side that Pink Floyd was singing about the floor is going to be a tad fresher than on the lit side, and I think that required a new approach to insulation

Fair point. Or it could just be they're covering the Yeezy logo until they find a new sponsor. Again I guess I'm curious how much you could learn from video, ie if the soles are made from Ultraboost(TM) or just plain'ol EVA or TPU. Or when we'll see the first Lunar citizens being mugged for their sneakers, and which legal system will apply. Creating something as 'simple' as a boot sole must be a fascinating challenge given the way Earth-standard materials like expanded or compressed plastics would behave very different in a vacuum and on lunar surface conditions.. And that's just one element that has to work a very long way from the nearest cobblers.

Re: Why?

We'll see it when it's in space, they don't want it leaking before and someone (cough) china copying it and using it first.

Hopefully they don't want it leaking at all, especially not when it's in space. Kinda curious what they think they're protecting given they've already got the contract to put US boots on the ground. Existing CDP laws would presumably prevent other media companies from producing unauthorised or unlicensed Moon landing news footage. So perhaps they're just being mean and trying to stop Adam Savage rocking one to a cosplay convention before it's official launch. Or it's because they haven't yet finalised or announced the sponsor's logos that will be on the official suits.

I am curious what aspects of the design rivals could copy just from a visual image.

Cosmic rays more likely to glitch out water-cooled computers

Indeed..

..equivalent to a 142-gram (5 oz) baseball travelling at about 28 m/s (100 km/h; 63 mph)

Proton Powah! I remember reading about that when it was published, along with other discussions about where it may have originated and how common these may be given it was observed by chance. Similar things were discussed in the DEC article, ie if the crater was caused by a fault, short or explosion from inside the chip, or external forces. I guess because the packaging was removed, it wasn't possible to demonstrate that by showing a teeny cosmic bullet hole.

2008? I'm sure I have read about this in a book dated eatluer than this.

In the late '80s, a DEC field engineer showed me a picture of a chip with an impact crater in it. The result of a bunch of DEC boffins trying to figure out what caused this processor to fail, then finally carefully removing the chip from it's packaging and studying it with an electron microscope. Then figuring out the crater was probably the result of a more energetic cosmic ray ploughing into it. For a while, I'd kept a copy of the journal they published their results in, but it helped spawn my fascination with cosmic rays and SEPs. It's also one of those fun things about the dangers of nuclear radiation spread by the Greens. We're constantly exposed to millions of particles of varying types and energys. Mostly, they blat right through us, sometimes we may feel an unexpected pinprick sensation or a flash in our vision, that may or may not be caused by particle impacts. Or we get really unlucky and it knocks off a bit of DNA, our bodies can't fix it and we end up with a cancer.

But as the component density inside our ICs increases, the odds of a particle twatting something important reduce. Luckily our boffins know about this so have also been developing more resistant packaging.

Here's a fun idea: Try to unlock and drive away in someone else's Tesla

Do not disturb

...most people opt for the phone. You're going to be taking that out with you come what may, obviating the need to carry around another item to lock the car.

I don't. I sometimes intentionally leave the phone at home because I don't want to be any more disturbed than I already am. Especially after phones expanded to dimensions that exceed most convenient pockets. Once you break the phone anxiety habit, you can relax more without having to check your phone every few minutes in case you missed a beep notifying you that there's an exciting new offer for something you don't want. Or, because for a lot of these unlock services to work, you have to keep location services on. So by the time you've been flooded with, and deleted all the special offers from businesses near you, your battery is flat and you can't unlock your car. Or house.

I guess with a house, there could be a market for adding weatherproof USB or wireless chargers to your door furniture. I guess it might be harder to accidently lock yourself out given the phone won't detect it's outside the threshold. Or it might use it's essential health monitoring functions to detect that you've left it home alone, and lock the door out of spite.

Tough luck, Brits: Binance suspends UK deposits and withdrawals

Re: Well certainly putting the "bin" in binance then

SVB fell because it invested in T-bills in a declining bond market.

Nope. It fell because people needed somewhere to store 1s and 0s. It didn't have enough of those. It did have enough assets, but at the time people demanded their non-binary money, the securities SVB had were worth less than the dollar value printed on them. Then the fix was to make a bunch of banks (indirectly) lend SVB >$42bn with a $25bn backstop. If SVB had been successful at raising finance earlier, the banks that have now been forced to bail it out might have prevented the bank failing. At least on that day. But then they'll probably make money picking over the carcass, providing they're not left with any of the debt SVB was forced to take on to cover the run.

Banking is weird like that.

So my point was that if you had a safe, reliable way to store cash, you wouldn't need to deposit it in a bank. I guess this is why art has become so expensive as a Picasso potentially offers more security and portability than a stack of T-Bills.

Re: Well certainly putting the "bin" in binance then

I'm not saying idiotic speculation on poorly designed software doesn't exist (e.g LUNA), but mocking and ignoring the entire space of distributed ledger technology because of a few very vocal gamblers is short-sighted, narrow-minded and unscientific.

So I have a ton of money. That'd be approximately $100m in $100 bills. So the SVB bank run done the old fashioned way would have needed 420 tons of paper re-distributed. Hmm.. isn't there some wealthy person who likes 420? Anyway.. $1bn in $100 bills is also approx 1129.2195m^3 so SVB would have needed 47,427m^3 in storage space. Or more, if customers wanted smaller bills. I guess this is why rich people like large vehicles. Or $42bn is-

100111000111011001010010010000000000

which is much easier to store, even when you add bits for currency code. Snag is SVB, being part of the fictional.. I mean fractional reserve banking system didn't have $42bn in either phsyical or virtual bits, especially when people wanted their bits NOW!. And the dollars it did have weren't worth the dollars it's customer's wanted.

Which has kinda got me warming to the idea of crypto. So I wander into a bank and say I'd like to open an account and I have $1bn to deposit. They'd say.. No you don't. Unless I had some trucks outside, or a wire facility with some other trusted(hah!) bank that says I do have that money. Which kinda forces me into relying on the banking system, even though events have shown that banking system can't always be trusted. Then again, nor can alternatives, like funny stories of rats chewing up and nesting in large bales of dirty money*.

Snag is we can't currently really trust crypto either, especially when it's value compared to traditional currencies floats like a paper boat down a storm drain. So I'm kinda liking the idea of a CBDC or even a 'BritCoin' where my $1 or £1 is worth what it says it is, there's a decentralised ledger, and for cash, I don't need a bank. Ish. Unless of course I'm a Candian trucker or maybe an extreme MAGA Republican and The Bank decides that my money is now their money. Other banks may not like the idea because it's kinda hard to do the fractional thing when you no longer have customer's deposits to gamble with.

*Research project for bored economists. Calculate the volume of a typical rats nest, and value if said nest is inside a cube of $100 bills. Then compare cost of rat's home to say, California or NY residential property prices. How comparable are the property values between both sets of rats?

Microsoft and GM deal means your next car might talk, lie, gaslight and manipulate you

I would not tolerate a car that had any kind of connectivity with the outside world/internet. That would have to be disabled! The car needs to be airgapped, and have no data logging capacity, nor any sensors that could capture information that is not needed for the immediate operation of the vehicle.

Sadly, we're running out of options on that front. The EU decided every car must have a 'black box' fitted so... it could be located in the event of an accident. Absolutely nothing to do with plans for road charging, 15min cities, or just general mass-surveillance. Oh look! A non-regulation banana!

A lot of cars nowadays are just like mobile telephones in that your whereabouts can be known at all times.

Not just location. I watched something that explained car seats now have weight sensors to detect passengers. So AIs now have more revenue generating potential selling the fact that the driver's weight has been steadily increasing. Expect raised insurance and medical premiums, and more spam for diet plans. It'll know it's the driver because cameras, mics and facial and voice recognition. It'll also know your passenger normally weights 62kg, and your previous passenger only weighed 55kg when you were parked at a hotel for 4hrs duing that offsite meeting you'd put in your calendar. Would you like us to schedule your wife an appointment with a divorce attorney? If no, please say 'Yes, I'd like to deposit 10 bitcoin in your designated account'.

Re: You should be so lucky

And the worst part is, all this is already being put into place in current cars. It ain't the future, it's here already.

We have detected an unauthorised modification to your vehicle. It is an offence to tamper with OEM equipment as installed. Your insurance coverage is now void. Your driver assist, air bags, brakes and seat belt tensioners and drive-by-wire steering are now disabled. Please wait while we recalibrate throttle response. Setting to 110% in 3..2..1 Have a nice day!

British industry calls for regulation of autonomous vehicles

No, they couldn't - there are no cross benches in the Commons. Cross benches are a Lords thing.

My bad. So just cross the aisle and go sit on the opposition benches. Bit of a silly tradition anyway, especially when the rabble has grown so there's not enough seats anyway.

There is no "currently" with what I'm suggesting, so I don't know what you're on about.

I think it's pretty clear one of us doesn't. Previously you said-

Someone that already didn't vote for someone obviously wants to vote them out - that's how recalls are abused

And a convoluted scheme that attempts to restrict recall votes to people who previously voted them into office. So first, you'd just need to identify those voters. Then you'd have to locate them. Then you'd have to exclude voters who'd moved away from the constituency and are thus no longer represented by the subject of the recall. You'd probably also want to exclude any voters who'd died, but dead people can still vote. In Pennsylvania, dead people can even be elected to state senates. As people have often said though, democracy is the least worst option. Then you'd also have to deal with potential voter intimidation by people hanging around polling stations muttering "we know where you live". It can be fun sometimes just convincing voters that the people hanging around polling stations collecting card numbers aren't up to no good, and just trying to see who's voted. Not how.

Alternatively, we have the Recall of MPs Act that makes the procedure simpler, mostly safer and is more democratic. If the MP's a wrong'un, the consituency runs a recall petition. If at least 10% of the electorate signs the petion, there's a recall election and every voter gets to participate in a democratic process. Well, no system is perfect. See Tower Hamlets for more info.

This could be done without human interaction, if it's a no-go otherwise

Currently I think it's taken pretty seriously, and does require human interaction. When I played this game, I learned that ballot papers are sealed back in boxes, taken away and hidden in salt mines or other secure storage locations. Can't remember how long they're kept for, but tampering should in theory be obvious. Problem is if we keep shifting to electronic voting because then it becomes a lot easier to do datamining and other shenanigans.

I've heard arguments that recall allows the opposition's supporters to mess with recall, but why is it not possible to only allow those that voted in an MP to withdraw their vote?

Most people don't understand the way the political game gets played. Politicians probably prefer to keep things that way. So back when I was a student, I thought it might be fun to explore this. Town had something like 50,000 registered Labour, 30,000 LibDems and about 500 Conservatives. So obviously it would be easier to 'influence' the local Tories, and the constiuencies do have some power. Even if that's only to vote 'Yes' on the candidate central office parachutes in. But if you can sign up enough new members, you can always vote 'No', and nominate your own. I think in a lot of places, it'd probably be easier to get a 'green' or independent MP elected if they just joined their local Conservative party. Once elected, they could always cross-bench, and if you control a majority in the local party, couldn't be recalled. Labour gets a bit more complicated given their block votes, but the joy of democracy is figuring out ways to abuse it, especially if they don't fall foul of electoral laws.

Personally, I think voting should be compulsory, and maybe a register of 'party members'. But the last bit would also have potentially large privacy complications, even though it could make our system a bit more democratic.

Re: UK standards - Leveraging minimalism is warehouses, shops and homes.

Pre-Brexit the UK often started work on standards, realised it would need to be a much large effort and promote it into the EU and ISO forums.

Yup. Plus any decent standard should really be set at the ISO-level, even though that process is a special circle of hell. But obviously creates problems when EU and ISO standards diverge. At least post-Brexit, the UK has more choice. We're also still a relatively large market for the EU, and still able to have some influence over their standards processes. As do other countries, ie Brussels isn't exactly short of US and other nationality's lobbyists.

... is to make preparations to start the first task.

Which is, of course, to make a mug of tea, or coffee..

Re: We do not want "British" regulations

How does it ring your doorbell?

As I understand it, it's currently app-based. Local Co-op and some other stores use it. So order online, choose delivery by Starship and it'll send a message to your smart phone when it arrives. Not checked if it expects an app for that, or just texts. But raises interesting possibilities for online tracking. Have a beer-bot that can home in on your current mobile location and deliver you essential supplies. I guess it could be possible to integrate into doorbells like Rings to ring remotely, but that would probably need Amazon to ok it, and they're currently competitors. Or future purchasers. Practically the phone system seems more sensible anyway.

For me, I guess the main downside would be it's load volume and maybe weight. So Starships look like they can carry a couple of shopping bags, but not a weekly family shop. Or I guess it'd be easy to set up a lil road-train of trundlebots and arrange packet delivery. Not sure if there's a weight limit, so if I could use them to summon me tins of stuff and I can just carry the light bits. I guess shoppers are also at the mercy of whoever packs them and how determined they are to pack in things like bread and eggs. Based on the number I see, they do seem to be getting more popular.

There's also some things I didn't expect to see. My usual walk to the shops takes me past a couple of schools, but haven't seen any kids bot-baiting. I guess they also create navigation hazards given there's usually a herd of moms with pushchairs that congregate outside a primary school, completely blocking the path. Then a secondary school where they'd have to navigate all the cars. They're far more a hazard to other pavement users than the bots have been. Or perhaps this is a future use-case. Make child sized Starships that can deliver kids to the primary school. Also kinda curious how congestion is managed at the store end.

Otherwise I guess there's some potential additions. A couple of times I've had pavement stand-offs where footpath crosses a road, so either waiting to let the bot go, or not being sure where it's going. They do have turn signals, and can play messages. I usually assume I'm more agile and better at collision avoidance and give them space. Not sure if design psychology plays a part there and people's attitudes would change if they looked more aggressive. But currently they seem like a good idea, challenge will be dealing with increased competition for pavement space. Or how practical they'd be in towns where pavements are narrower and there's a lot more pavement parking.

Re: We do not want "British" regulations

...but that is no reason not to implement the national regulations before the technology hits the street.

Some of them already have. I have the lil Starship troopers trundling around near me. They're kinda fun to watch, and I've yet to see one on it's back or side, become a mugging victim or go all Maximum Overdrive on me. I've also managed to resist doing stuff like adding clown noses to them despite them being kinda cute.

Main challenge seems to be they do share the pavement, which is also shared by bicycles, mobility scooters, e-scooters, dog walkers with those annoying extending trip-wire leads.. hh, and pedestrians. But it seems manageable so far, although competition may increase. Like if there's a version that can carry a slab or three of beer, I may use them. Otherwise only fun I've had is either watching them navigate the chicane barriers on footpaths, and figuring out their prioritisation rules. From entirely accidental observations, it seems like they're set to give way to pedestrians, which I guess is as it should be on footpaths. Also wondered sometimes when they pause, if they're waiting for a human operator to take over and get them through those barriers.

US government says Silicon Valley Bank depositors can get their cash on Monday

Re: Fire sale to other banks?

That's exactly the concept behind "pocket banks" in Russia, Ukraine and India.

And it seems in the US. Only a short while ago, there was SBF and FTX, where client money seemed to be shuffled into personal accounts for their chosen few. Plus a very lavish lifestyle that turned out unsustainable. Now, there's SVB* who seemed to be doing much the same thing as the 'pocket' banks, but hopefully with less diversion.

But the article included this tweet, which is worth reading for some insight-

Silicon Valley Bank was the main bank for two of our companies, my personal savings, and my mortgage. This is how things unfolded for us:

And echoed in some other reports I saw. So get in bed with SVB, and all your accounts are belong to us. Guessing that must be legal, but seems to concentrate risk or be entirely ethical if that's conditional. But then 'ethical banking' has always been a bit of an oxymoron.

I also can't figure out if this is a bail-out or not. The 'fix' seems to be the Bank Term Funding Program and an existing facility called the 'Discount Window'. The first seems to be essentially a 1yr loan that values bonds at par, so kinda back to the other article about when $1 isn't $1. I can't quite see how taking on more debt is going to help an insolvent bank, especially as it also seems like it's being broken up and asset stripped to raise cash anyway. I guess as HSBC would say "I'll buy that for a dollar", although hopefully HSBC knows what it's buying.

It's also been interesting looking at the IT angle. Back in the day when bank runs were in B&W, it was more a bank shuffle. People would have to go to the bank, queue for a teller and wait. Now, thanks to online banking, huge sums of money were sucked out of SVB. This must make it FUN! for banks to figure out what the hell is going on. Are we solvent? Well, we were 300ms ago, now I'm not so sure. It also got me thinking more about Treasury functions. If you're say, Apple, you have collosal sums of cash to deposit.. somewhere. Preferably somewhere that's low risk and out of reach of tax authorities. So whether there's scope for an Eel (or Vulture?) bank that only takes deposits. For a modest fee. Not being a banker, I'm guessing it's not that easy, and would probably involve a lot of paperwork.

* I guess this means we really shouldn't trust TLAs?

Silicon Valley Bank seized by officials after imploding: How this happened and why

Re: Federal Spending > Inflation > Rising Interest Rates

In retaliation, the stock guys picked a vulnerable bank and told customers to pull their cash. It crashes and Now the fed gets a black eye.

I have no idea, other than it's helped boost popcorn futures. The more I read, the more I think it was inevitable given the bank's practices and rising inflation & interest rates. It's probably just the first big bubble to burst. I think it could have been helped along. There's been some stories about it's bigger rivals maybe helping it along by issuing notes that SVB was in trouble. They may have helped it along by not helping SVB raise capital. They may be sending a message that banks should get back to basics and focus on prudent financial management, and that the government should be focusing on the US economy.

People like Yelland have been ranting about climate change and ESG, not how the Fed's planning to get inflation back under control, and reduce the cost of living. SVB was the poster child (on recylable materials, natch) of ESG, throwing many lavish parties to celebrate this. Now they're (rightly or wrongly) the poster child for 'Get woke, go broke'. There's also been some other.. questionable activity, like execs selling shares and bonuses being paid just before everything imploded.

I think tomorrow's going to get interesting to see if there's signs of 'contagion', and also what the government's response may be, ie to bail-out an emblem of social(ist) policy, or let it burn. Not the kind of situation a sitting President hoping to start their election run on how strong they've made the US economy will probably want to be dealing with though. Also plenty of ammunition for his opponents, ie they're bailing out Ukraine, but not Ohio, or SVB's customers.

Re: Federal Spending > Inflation > Rising Interest Rates

It's now time to end the age of stupidity and deal with reality, all that excess cash needs to be purged from the system.

Or reallocated. If I had a large slab of cash, I'd have been studying the books and looking for distressed assets I could pick up on the cheap. Some of the companies SVB invested in probably have a bright and profitable future, others probably need to be taken off life support. But if I went full vulture (in the capitalism sense), there could be some value to unlock by liquidating those. Problem is I'd be well behind the investment pros who've been doing the same thing already and have been running those cold equations. A crisis can also be an opportunity.

But this story caught my eye-

https://nypost.com/2023/03/10/tech-ceo-with-at-least-10m-in-silicon-valley-bank-locked-out-of-account/

The CEO of a Boston-based health and wellness company said she has been unable to log into her Silicon Valley Bank account, where she has at least $10 million in deposits.

Ouch. But.. 'health and wellness'?

“We were going to raise a round a venture financing,” she said, noting that SVB “is one of the go-to banks” for that purpose... Tyrner told The Post that her company, which employs 63 people, generated $56 million in revenue last year.

Cool. Business must be good if they need more money.. Especially if the CEO has $10m in personal funds, although it doesn't say if that was generated from the business, or from previous ventures. But the business looks like it's thriving. Tell me more!

https://www.farmboxrx.com/how-it-works

We've partnered with healthcare providers across the country to offer qualified Medicare and Medicaid members the ability to order fresh produce, healthy cooking kits, and pantry essentials through their insurance or OTC member benefits.

Ah, so it's corporate welfare. Basically another one of those mystery box slingers that delivers overpriced stuff to people too lazy to go to the shops, but have also found a way to tap into fresh subsidies. Vaguely nice idea to encourage healthy eating, but I kinda question how sustainable they are. Online shopping's massively disrupted retail, and as they say-

the company quickly expanded to meet the demands of the millions of Americans living in food deserts who lack access to fresh fruits and vegetables.

If traditonal retailers close down due to online competition (or theft), then the number of people living in food deserts is only going to increase. Especially if transportation costs are also increasing due to competition and regulation. Or your produce costs due to misguided agricultural policies. So I kinda question if this is a 'good business', or one worth saving for the greater good. It's a sector that's managed to make a lot of money, but also seems rather vulnerable if customer's figure out they can get more choice and save money by, well, shopping the old fashioned way.

Also amusing to compare US vs UK advertising regulations. I doubt the UK's ASA would approve of the boxes overflowing with nature's bounty, but maybe this company's real value is their innovative and patented fruit & veg compression tech that shrinks the volume and leaves the produce looking perfect.. Now there's an idea.. same service, just use vacuum dried produce! Just add water and get more for your money.

Re: Re:SVB had about $209 billion in assets

If you were renting a house, $1m would mean you could buy one, and the rent you save would be your return on investment. That would likely outperform the 3.4%. Or if it means you could avoid getting a mortgage, that would be your return on investment.

Yup, but it's why I think it's a timing & circumstances issue rather than a simple binary rational/irrational choice. Plus we're humans, we don't always act rationally.

So suppose 30yrs ago, I was living in LA. I'd be starting my career. $1m now would let me buy a rather nice property with enough space to think about raising a family. I'd also probably have some money left over I could stash in savings as rainy day money, or seed capital for my future pension. I've never fully understood US, or especially Cali's property tax system, but I might also have locked in a low property tax assessement value.

If it was today, $1m might get me a 1-bed apartment with a massive tax liability, and the high probability of ending up with negative equity. Sure, when I sold, it'd still be free money, but it's kind of the reverse choice. I may gamble that in 30yrs time when the $2m is due, property prices may have fallen and I could use the money to buy a nice retirement property and take up golf. Especially as I'd probably be downsizing anyway because hopefully any kids have left home.

I've kind of been in this situation before looking at 'luxury apartments' to cut commuting time. So a £650k apartment near the train station. It was.. nice, but it's still a fairly small 2-bed apartment in Slough. It just wasn't worth £650k to me, especially given the usual apartment taxes, ie being expected to pay £1k+ a month in 'service charges'. Never really understood that one when you rarely actually get anything close to £1k in services, and you end up effectively paying rent to the property 'management' company for a property you barely own given they're also leasehold. Nice business for developers though, if you can get financing and fiind enough suckers to rent yuppie flats. Especially when the developer discovers the era of free money's ending, there's a massive oversupply in 'luxury apartments' and the banks want their money back. It's rather sad that despite going through one housing bubble, we ignored those lessons and allowed it to repeat. Greed is good I guess.

I think other interventionist policies have also highlighted the challenges. The US (and to a lesser extent, UK) did various welfare and stimmy schemes. Have some free money! Some invested that money, others blew it on $2000 trainers that probably cost <$5 to make. A nice revenue boost for purveyors of massively overpriced aspirational tat, but that bubble's ended and the spending's dried up. No idea if goverments can track where the money ended up, eg who put their stimmy checks into 401Ks, and who just blew it, but I suspect the answer is probably a lot of it got wasted. Then again, governments seem to prioritise spending vs savings, even though spending is obviously inflationary.

Re: Re:SVB had about $209 billion in assets

It is not irrational, because your personal cost of capital is likely higher than 3.4%, and there is also counterparty risk to consider. Will you still be alive and able to deliver on the agreement in 20/40 years time?

I think it's also based on personal circumstances. I'd go for the indexed $2m so I could have a happy retirement bonus.. But that assumes I'm in a position where I don't need (or want) that $1m now. The only way I'd really gain by taking it now is if I were confident that my investment could outperform the guaranteed $2m. Which should in theory be possible, just riskier. After all, 30yrs ago, I'd never have imagined that economists would think QE and NIRP was sound monetary policy. Problem with economists is they often tend to assume perfect markets, where none exist.

Re: Re:SVB had about $209 billion in assets

First off, inflation is about costs, not value.

Kind of agree and disagree. Inflation obviously impacts costs, and because economic policies have driven those up, inflation has obviously increased. That has more impact in some areas that others, eg it probably costs more now to buy plywood for shuttering than it does for the concrete. One's price has inflated far faster than the other, even if the actual costs haven't. $1 wiill still be the same now as in 10yrs, it's just what you can do with it that changes, ie the purchasing power or value, and that's driven by inflation.

Historically, productivity should grow by 2% annually. So, if you wait 10 years, you *should* get a basket products equal to the +20% that labour can produce in 2033.

I guess that depends how you err.. value productivity. So the political thinking that it should be a target to raise inflation by 2% annually, rather than decrease costs or those productivity gains. So I make widgets. With my 2% annualised productivity gains, in 10yrs time, I can either be producing 20% more widgets, or produce the same number for 20% less cost. Then I could reduce the price because I'm producing more volume, or because I'm making more margin and still make more money if I just cut the price 10%.

Problem is that doesn't happen. Prices just get raised 2% annually, because that's traditional, and well, inflation! Businesses are obligated to maximise shareholder value, so if you can get away with raising prices faster than your costs increase (or decrease), you go for it. Arguably there have been no productivity increases because prices increase constantly. Even when products are also shrinking. Obviously that all leads to inflation, costs spiralling out of control and customer's suddenly stop spending.

Oops.

Kind of why I keep banging on about our insane energy policies because energy is an input cost to just about everything, and is the main reason why our inflation rate has been soaring. And entirely policy driven. Also ironically aided and abetted by 'socially' minded companies like SVB, who constantly bang on about climate change, ESG and mostly irrelevant stuff like keeping both the bank and your customers afloat. Their risk manager certainly seemed to have his attention on the wrong balls. Inflation rises, costs increase, customer's need more money and.. the cheap money's gone. And so is the bank. Or it's customers.

You *could* settle for exactly the amount of stuff made in 2023 and locked in a box for 10 years, but why would you?

I guess that depends on your needs, greed or appetite for risk. But with gilts, the traditional thinking was you trade yield for security. That security seems to be vanishing, and so might the appetite for gilts. Hence why interest rates go up when customers lose confidence in their government, which is a problem especially when governments rely on debt. Also potentially a huge problem, if de-dollarisation continues or accelerates, which again is a policy problem. In other news, this just happened-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-64906996

Middle East regional rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia have agreed to restore diplomatic relations, seven years after severing them in a bitter row.

The unexpected announcement came after four days of talks between officials from both sides in China.

Probably not that unexpected given State was hopefully aware of it, just powerless to do anything about it. The Bbc neglects to mention part of that deal was oil priced in Yuan, and next steps will probably be KSA and Iran joining BRICS.

Oh dear.

Suddenly, a fairly large part of the world won't need as many dollars. More inflation, fewer customers for dollars, and inflation is going to rocket even faster. So I still think inflation is the problem, not interest rates given those are just a crude policy lever to try and manage that problem. Reducing costs is arguably more effective, but goes against existing policy. Which kind of goes back to bondage. If I've got $1bn @ 4%, and inflation's running at 2%, I'm still in the money. If it's 4% and 4%, at least I get my money back. If inflation > interest rate, well, then I'm losing money. Which I guess is also katrina's point. That value is based on market conditions and sentiment. Sure, if there are bonds @4%, mine @0.5% are going to be less attractive, but $1bn is still $1bn, unless again that's inflated away.

Re: Assets? What kind of assets?

SVB were “all in” speculatively on artificially high bond prices supported by artificially low interest rates. When the hedge fund’s bet failed, so did the hedge fund. The regulator needs to look at it definitions.

Yeh, I thought that was a little strange, plus their exposure to start-ups. I thought regulators tried to limit risk by segregating banking activities, but it's looking like that didn't go far enough.

Re: Re:SVB had about $209 billion in assets

$1bn in 10 years time is worth $951,110.13 at 0.5%, but only $664,832.64 at 4%

I.. disagree.

So

$1bn @ 0.5% gives me $5m a year or $50m over the term

$1bn @ 4% gives me $40m a year or $400m over the term

So at after 10yrs, I've got $1,005m or $1,400m. So the question is still how much $1bn is 'worth' in 10 year's time, and how much the interest payments are worth every year. So the value is driven mostly by inflation, not interest rates. I did once dabble in bonds when I realised I could buy $1 of debt for maybe 20c, on an 8% bond.. but that assumed the bond would ever become redeemable. So that fun game of gambling on 'distressed' assets. Sometimes on the assumption that conversion of that $1 to equity might just yield a bit of cash and possibly more once the equity got sold. Made a bit of money, but all seemed rather risky, especially in sectors I didn't really understand.

So I guess it's a question of timing, and maturity dates. So inflation is high now, but if I'm say 2yrs into a 10yr bond and inflation drops back to 2-3% next year, it's less painful. So back to your example, the value of my investment seems correct, if you assume 4% inflation rather than interest rates. I know the pro bond traders factor all that into their investment decisions, but the problem seems to be valuing a security at a point in time. But then figuring out what the future value might be gets a lot more complex, and riskier.

Then of course it seems to be the problem of what caused this run on SVB, like was it rival banks spreading FUD, and causing the collapse of a competitor? Especially if they could help that along by making it difficult for SVB to raise additional capital? I just get the feeling that we haven't really learned much from 2008 after all.

Re: Re:SVB had about $209 billion in assets

... to park $91bn of its deposits in long-dated securities such as mortgage bonds and US Treasuries, which were deemed safe but are now worth $15bn less than when SVB purchased them after the Federal Reserve aggressively raised interest rates.

This is the strange element. If I buy $1bn in Treasuries or Gilts, they're always going to be 'worth' exactly $1bn at maturity. That's why they're safe asset classes. But if I buy $1bn of 10yr Gilts at 0.5%, they're 'worth' less than $1bn at 4%. So the asset gets valued lower, even though they're both 'worth' $1bn, give or take the coupon. I should still have a safe $1bn in security.

So problem to me seems to be inflation rather than interest rates, ie with high inflation, my $1bn is going to be 'worth' a lot less in 10yrs time. I guess the issue for liquidity is liabilities are increasing, then my $1bn isn't going to cover or be 'worth' $1bn next year with inflation at 10%+

I guess this is one of those Fed/Central Bank vs bank challenges. With high inflation, when it comes time to redeem bonds, the dollar you pay back is worth less than when the debt was issued, so there's a bit of a perverse incentive to inflate away national debt.

Re: I'm affected - no pay today

Would that held deposit be covering $250k per month, or overall per year?

Per account. So then it's a question of how many months of payroll does $250k cover? I'm curious how or if payroll services are regulated. So if they're like lawyer's client accounts where monies have to be kept seperate, or if payroll companies can co-mingle their client's funds. Hopefully they can't, but for a business, relying on hope isn't often good financial planning.

Re: I'm affected - no pay today

A reasonable assumption. But the bank employees except for a few high level suits that will have been replaced by state bureaucrats still have a job (this week anyway). And the $250,000 comes from a real insurance operation -- the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that has some experience dealing with this sort of thing. The problem will be when the $250,000 per account has been burned through. That's a probably matter hours for larger operations, days for medium sized. A few of the smallest and newest might last a few weeks or even months.

Yup. I think this is perhaps the wider structural or risk management issue. So according to latest news, FDIC says protected funds should be accessable Monday. What happens next would seem to depend on how CFOs or Treasurers managed risk. Or how service companies used by businesses managed risk. One of the biggest losers seems to be Roku, with $500m or 25% of it's cash with SVB, Losing that has got to hurt, but it's still got 75% left. Other companies may be less lucky/well managed and be more exposed.

I'm curious if it'll affect business thinking as well, so the payroll outsourcing as an example. With my own businesses, I'd been pressured to sign up for various payroll services, but that was kept in-house. They''d never had enough employees to exceed $250k, but I generally had payroll from a dedicated account with enough in it to cover 3-6 months payroll expenses. Helped to ensure we could make payroll, and generally covered by insurance schemes like FDIC. In fact when I had some US staff, that was one of the concerns, ie how much would be protected? Especially after 2008..

But it was always a concern of mine. Mostly my businesses were normal banking, but occasionally needed credit for design/build projects were we had to buy tin before it was sold on to clients. It was easier to get a revolver from our bank because we had the relationship, although that concentrated risk. Same with 'offshore' banking, so having US or Euro accounts to run projects in those countries. Most jobs weren't large enough to need or justify going outside our own traditonal bank, or need any fancy hedging or securitisation. Cash was still split though.

I also think I'm lucky enough to have grown up when interest rates were 8%+ so that and inflation have always been at the back of my mind. As others have said, if businesses are living hand-to-mouth and can't survive relatively small interest rate moves, then they're perhaps not meant to survive. Then again, that's always been the challenge for start-ups, and valuing those businesses.

Re: I'm affected - no pay today

Ouch.. I read a few payroll companies were doing the same thing. As I understand it, providing there really is a seperate SVB account for each PayrollTime client, then $250K should be protected. Challenge it seems will be getting access to it now the bank's been seized. It sounds like a lot of people are going to be in the same position. If your company has offered to pay by check or make a deposit though, I suspect a lawyer will tell you they have made a good faith attempt to make payroll obligations though.

Re: Waiting to find out how much vicarious exposure they had innovative cleptocurrencies.

I think it might be the opposite problem.

I'd never heard of SVB until today, but I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more about them. Huge problem seems to be they were a tech darling, and there's been a stream of announcements from startups and established companies about their exposure. So a lot of tech and biotech businesses who had cash stashed with SVB, relied on them for banking services like payroll and apparently did deals to tie execs personal banking to SVB as well. As for the cleptocurrencies, it seems like a few of the exchanges and assorted shysters held large cash deposits there.. So if those are gone, I'm assuming that means they're going to be having their own liquidity crisis as well because they're going to be short on security for their funny money.

But doesn't look good for what seems to be a large number of start-ups who relied on SVB.

Catholic clergy surveillance org 'outs gay priests'

Re: Prigs

Look at the person most hypocritical in the general area... bishops, cardinals, large families with 'traditional roots' that are also of said religion, etc etc etc...

Nothing necessarily strange about that. As Monty Python explained, every sperm is sacred. Sex is for procreation only, because that way you can grow your flock. Or sell indulgences for impure thoughts or acts. Ok, so they eventually banned that one, and it's just a few Hail Marys. Plus because procreation only, birth control is also banned. So Catholic families tend to end up large, despite any problems that might cause. So that's kind of up to the Pope to change, or other versions of Christianity are available. Fundamentally though, it's not our job to judge each other, that's up to the Big Guy and is true for many religions. Perhaps these outraged outers will meet their makers, get reminded about throwing stones, and discover their souls now weigh somewhat more than a feather.

China's semiconductor and IC imports have slumped. Why on Earth could that be?

Re: The Continental Blockade

**Note, please do not sent this wiki link to Brexiteer’s !!! !!! That’s just a different ballpark of stupidity.** ;-)

Nope. Stupidity would be assuming the EU has, or ever had the UK's interests at heart. Stupidity would be imposing sanctions and expecting any difference in outcome from Napoleonic times.

Microsoft to snatch Visio app away from iOS users this summer

Re: Functionality creep.

Another place where Visio with added “fizz” would be of benefit is in rack cabinet configuration and maintenance.

Tried that, but had fun with scaling objects to neatly fit in racks. Instead went with a simpler approach, like a generalised rack build. Then got small digital cameras for field engineers and had taking before and after photos of the racks they're working on every visit. Was easier to just add comments in paintbrush. Was sometimes fun with more secure datacentres that didn't want photos or recording devices in the halls. Or as technology marched on, could take good pics with a mobile phone, but more places banned mobile phones than cameras.

Those policies also kinda got fun. No phone, so no ability to contact the NOC. Except we're the phone company. Just add a VoIP port to the management switch and a TA so the field engineer had a hotline to the NOC. Took a bit of datamining to demonstrate how the ability for FE's to run voice or video calls from the rack was a lot more resource efficient than expecting them to leave the rack, trudge to wherever the phone was permitted, and trudge back again. Especially as the parts needed were typically <$50, so a pretty good deal compared to an FE's time cost, or SLA penalties.

Re: Functionality creep.

...so Cisco et al thanks for the stencils but beyond basic “PowerPoint”presentation usage little real value.

Yep, those were what gave me the idea. Looking through the stencils, realising you could actually slot cards into chassis and create proper as-builts. Then that Visio supported VB or VB script. Then figuring out how to combine those two features to create an ability to automate diagram production. Then discovering there's a ton of stuff about VB online, but not much about how to use that inside Visio, or integrate it with other Telecomms essential OSS like Excel so it could generate stuff from spreadsheets, and even export to a spreadsheet.

Probably would be easier if I were a decent programmer, but I kludged something together in the end. But that became another of those reasons why I'm glad I'm semi-retired. Every VPN must have a diagram. The pre-sales function must populate and maintain the diagram. Configuration and address assignments is a provisioning activity, and pre-sales in telcos generally don't have access to internal address assignments to avoid assigning dupe addresses. The generic cloud in a VPN must show the 'routing table', yet the routing table is generated by the routers, which you don't want everyone having access to. You can, however query the routing table, and you already have a config backup system (well, sometimes they did) that exports configs to text files.

So those telcos seemed to think it was a really good use of resources to have a lot of manual processes to generate something that rarely got used, or could be trusted. But ISO says we must have a process for everything, and the process says diagram! And people wonder why a lot of ISPs and Telcos went bust..

Re: Functionality creep.

Or is this just another example of MS breaking links with the past just to force 365 subscription take up…

It couldn't possibly be. Sadly, Visio became pretty much the industry standard in telecomms. It used to be easy to just download a copy of Visio Viewer to check a diagram on a device that didn't have a Visio licence on it. But that's too easy. So now there'll be network engineers working on faults that might want to check a diagram. But can't because the fault is the Internet is down. Or Microsoft is down.

Yey! Progress!

But despite some of it's.. quirks, it had some nice features. Like you could create models of optical devices that were modular, then add in attributes for Tx/Rx optics, fibre characteristics and it made it quick and easy to run through link budgets and designs. Or just click on a router and it'd show you config details from the last time the diagram was updated. It always amazed me that so many allegdly tech-savvy telecomms businesses insisted every 'network' had a diagram. Cloud, lines, router icons. Box ticked! Then insist that those diagrams be manually updated, even when by automated change request systems that network engineers had no access to. No problem, we'll add an email notification so you can copy & paste from Outlook into your Visio diagram. Once you've figured out how to shuffle everything around so any new data fits, and wrestled with MS's pseudo-integrated font & style matching. Obviously it makes sense for an IPv6 address to be written in WingDings on your network diagram.

Rant over. Despite Visio having had the ability to add metadata, and even pull it from networks for years, I've yet to find a telecomms company that actually does this. Got close a few times, but kinda gave up after sending many diagrams to clients. Then hearing them ask 'Where are the IP addresses?".. Just click on the router..

Swedish datacenter operator wants to go nuclear

Re: And ...

...if your company goes bust, the up keep and decommissioning will fall to????

Probably whoever leased it to you. I somehow doubt that datacentre staff will be allowed to poke the reator. I worked with enough to know that's probably a bad idea. Plus one of the beauties about SMRs is they're small enough that the cores can be picked up and put on a truck, rail car, or barge. So all you'd need to do is shut it down, wait until it's cooled down enough to move and take it away to reuse, refurb or recycle.

Or you could just encouarge very large datacentres to be built by the coast. Like by international cable landing stations. One of which already occupies a picturesque chunk of Thorpness, which used to be a nuclear test site in the past. Ish. But potential to move stuff in & out by sea, easy access to cooling water, high capacity fibre connnectons and beaches to laze on whilst waiting for someone to answer your TAC call. Much nicer than sunbathing on the roof of Telehouse, and less likely to upset security guards.

Atomic energy body proposes fusion framework to manage British energy grids

Re: Nice

Lots sat at Sellafield!

And further afield-

https://www2.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/exploration/potential/home.html

Starting in the 1950s the Atomic Energy Division of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority conducted exploration for uranium in Britain. The work included acquisition of airborne geophysical data over south–west England and detailed ground investigations at many localities, mainly in Scotland and south–west England as is described in the Exploration Guide.

They found some, but as is often the case, probably not currently economically viable to extract it. Especially when it's (currently) abundant elsewhere in the world so we don't have to deal with the inevitable angry luddites protesting both mining and nuclear. But there's also Thorium, and that stuff is everywhere. Especially in existing 'waste' heaps from previous mineral extraction. But extracting that would probably require a collosal amount of paperwork, because although it's 'green' waste recycling, it's nuclear. We might need to mandate construction of nuclear reactor halls so workers have a safe space to shelter from the lethal radiation outside..

As to who blew up nordstream... pretty sure you can rule out the ruskies for once.

That one's getting really weird given the latest 'news' suggest it might have been Ukraine, or Ukrainians attacking NATO. I kinda pointed out at the time the depth was simple enough for commercial or even leisure mixed-gas or technical divers to operate, and it didn't need any super-sneaky sophisticated (and very expensive) state actors to do the job. There are still apparently two undetonated charges that were recovered and would hint at the level of clue behind the operation. Plus how practical it would be to fit all that plus divers, gas supplies etc etc onto the yacht that was allegedly hired.

Strangest part is despite being one of those 'anoymous sources say..' stories, the MSM is running with this one, but pointedly ignored Hersh's theory.

Re: Nice

We know very well how the currents and the wind streams work around the earth.

So what you're saying is we knew that depending on wind (again) was both utterly futile, and predictable?

The problem was the amount of people needed to sail those ships and that is hardly the problem with windmills producing electricity to day, rather the very opposite.

But.. but.. I thought the 'Green' energy revolution was going to create thousands of jobs? Also, keep up with the tech. Modern sailing vessels have a lot more automation for sail furling/unfurling. At least till they jump the rails and get stuck.

I would guess quite a few kindergarten aged kids now that too.

Sadly it seems they're all working for the Government, but probably know that now is spelled with a 'k' now, or at least since the Middle Ages. Which was probably around the last time that relying on wind made any sense given the modern alternatives, like nuclear or supercritical coal. Even St Greta, who actually skipped school now knows that nuclear is actually a pretty good low carbon energy source.

Re: when people's EV batteries are used to service the typical household's peak energy usage

I'm expecting the EV owner to see the benefit of shifting their own grid usage to off-peak to reduce their own bills. Why pay 43p / unit when you can pay 2p / unit? The net result however will be to reduce peak energy usage and balance usage to mediate the evening surges.

Sadly, it doesn't work like that, and our politicians aren't that smart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_7

Houses using the Economy 7 tariff require a special electricity meter which provides two different readings - one for electricity used during the day, priced higher, and the other for the night, priced lower. The night (off-peak) period lasts for a total of seven hours, hence the name; however it may not be a continuous period,[citation needed] as it may alternate between the two prices during the night.

The term was coined by Jon Marshall. The first mention of Economy 7 is in 1978

A new off-peak tariff known as the 'Economy 7' tariff was introduced in October [1978]. It featured a seven-hour night rate some 20 per cent cheaper than most night-time tariffs, made possible by economies in the night-time operation of the system.

In more recent years the difference between day and night rates has become larger, with a reduction of about 33%[2] (though dependent on the supplier). The Economy 7 tariff results in either or both of an increased standing (fixed) charge or increased daytime rate.

And it was introduced for much the same reason. We were going nuclear, so wanted some method to incentivise demand-shifting to sink off-peak generation. It's an extremely simple system with a simple radio teleswitch that controls stuff like storage and water heaters. If 'smart' meters were really smart, it could be extended to control devices that aren't on dedicated circuits as well. Despite this already existing, and already performing the function of moving energy demand to off-peak.. Our idiotic politicians don't recognise the benefits and offer incentives for more people to switch to this tariff style. Instead, there are actually disincentives because Economy 7 tariffs are regulated differently and customers are screwed by the suppliers.

In theory, as well as being exactly the kind of technology to meet official government decarbonisation policies, it can also work out a lot cheaper for consumers. Main challenge is the installation cost and space required for hot water tanks and storage heaters. But the technology is also extremely simple and cheap. Well insulated hot water tank with a cheap resistive heating element is a lot cheaper to install and maintain than a modern gas combi boiler. Oh dear, the boiler's broken. Oh, it's £20 for a new heating element. It's much the same with storage heaters given they're also heat elements warming a pile of bricks, or some other thermal mass to act as a heat store.

Far, far cheaper and more effective than heat pumps, especially if you need to sacrifice more space to fit larger radiators for those anyway.

Re: What?

Different generators need different notice periods to generate.

How much notice do wind and sun farmers need to generate? And could this be the root cause of the complexity, and problem(s) the ESO is trying to manage?

There are different sorts of data networks involved

Which is a complication in itself. Luckily Berkshire is well connected, even if consolidation means just managing the networks and resilience becomes a significant problem to manage. Or try to. Especially when the ESO's telecomms suppliers need cheap, reliable power to provide and maintain those networks. Or just supply power to the kettles to network designers so they're sufficiently caffeinated while trying to explain to ex-double glazing sales types that..

1) Yes, your home xDSL connection is cheap.

2) It's not available in the middle of most fields.

3) It's even less likely to be available in anything that closely approximates fully diverse, resilient or high availability.

4) Doing it properly is going to cost you more than free installation and £20/month.

5) Even if we can convince you that running a telecomms duct while you're doing the civils for your power cables could save you an awful lot of money.

6) But not necessarily that much because grid transmission and data transmission sites are often not co-located,

But designing decent SCADA networks has always had it's own set of challenges. Fun though when the client has both clue and budget. Also why there was sense in HMG buying into OneWeb given VSAT's always been a handy diversity option. Except some challenges with the environment. I still remember one of the best product demos I've ever seen. Took place in a power station with a vendor demonstrating industrial Ethernet switches vs Cisco. Demo was rigged up with a video stream playing through both. We were told to keep watching the steam while an engineer pulled a big breaker. I was watching the Cisco and wondering why it was smoking a little. Guess that explained why we were told to leave all our electronic devices in the office.

Re: Nice

Utter BS. Fossil fuel subsidies are immense, both locally and internationally.

I guess you didn't notice that the link I provided earlier used the same sources as yours, yet provided more of a breakdown regarding what, exactly those 'subsidies' are. Do you really think charging 5% VAT on gas (or electricity) instead of 20% is really a subsidy? Especially when that VAT is being charged after adding fuel duties and other subsidies to our bills? And the government wonders why we have record inflation..

You have argued repeatedly that renewables are making prices higher. So lets address the issue, and break the link between the price of renewables and marginal generation on the day. Free market economics doesn't like that sort of thing, because "socialist", oo-errr scary Stalin shit. Which is bollocks as well of course.

Errm.. No. You appear to have this exactly bass-ackwards. Here's wiki-

In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority. Proponents of the free market as a normative ideal contrast it with a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand by means of various methods such as taxes or regulations. In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants.

So I agree, we should have more of a free market. Instead, we have a very heavily regulated and mismanaged market that's been ruthlessly exploited for profit by lobbying and regulatory capture. Save the planet, build a windmill. Save the planet, rip out your gas boiler and fit a heat pump.. Even though those don't work very well <5C and require more electricity. Which we can't produce because there's a blocking high pressure weather system and the windmills are sucking power for de-icing.

The 'renewables' lobby certainly hates the idea of a free market though, because the heavily regulated one is the only thing that's keeping them in business and champagne. Nobody sane would willingly buy electricity for £140-£160/MWh when they could pay £40-80/MWh for gas, coal or nuclear. Or even less, because for some odd reason nuclear isn't considered 'low carbon', even though it generates virtually zero CO2. Both energy producers and energy consumers have to pay collosal subsidies to the 'renewables' scumbags, and parasitic operators like the 'National Grid'.

And we wonder why our bills rise ever faster. Our politicians wonder why inflation is rising fast, and why we're back to the good'ol days strike action to demand more pay because their energy policies have massively increased our cost of living, and reduced our quality of living.

But that also extends to the whole ecosystem that's sprung up to take money out of our economy and pockets. Because 'renewables' are useless, we 'need' complex management systems to try and manage the mess the 'renewables' scumbags have created. That will generate profits for the peddlers of those systems. Radical idea. Simplify the system so it's easier to manage instead. Much cheaper, much more reliable, and much safer, especially when applied to critical national infrastructure.

Coal is dead and not coming back. Gas is compromised in terms of supply chain; unless you want to go haemorraging yet more cash to hostile states. HFO or Oil is out of the question for worse reasons than coal. Nuke is hopelessly expensive, election losing NIMBY fodder.

Coal is by no means dead, and is experiencing something of a boom in developing countries. Again we could have easily met the Climate Change Act's 30% CO2 reduction goals by simply replacing our 1960's vintage coal generation with supercritical designs.. Even without burdening them with pointless stuff like CCS. Snag is the CCA fixated on carbon rather than CO2, and it's 'legally binding'. Which is a bit strange because I thought the goverment was the legislature and had the ability to repeal past or current legislation. Blair's government even made that easier to do.

And you're right about gas and dependency on hostile states. Earlier I mentioned Orsted's special pleading and demands for a massive bailout. Orsted's majority owned by the Danish government. The Danish government were complicit in the destruction of NordStream, either directly or indirectly enabling an attack on a NATO member's critical infrastructure. Either way, it's the 'renewables' policy that increased our dependence on gas, and thus our vulnerability to any supply disruptions, accidental or intentional. Yet the UK can be largely self-sufficient wrt energy production given we have our own oil, gas and coal. Nuclear's even easier given we have some uranium deposits, or can just buy that from 'hostile' states like Canada, Australia or even the US.. Except I think the Clintons sold much of their Uranium production to Russia.

See South Africa for examples of what happens when that approach is taken.

We don't need to look that far because it's already happening here, and the situation is only going to get worse.

Re: Nice

We have thousands of miles of canals with the potential to give a large storage solution with perhaps 150mm of 'storage'. With a central non profit body, this could all be planned with adequate capacity

It.. doesn't really work like that. Using water for energy storage either needs horizontal or vertical flows. Canals aren't renowned for either, although I guess you could do something on a very small scale with lock gates. Pumped hydro really needs solutions like Dinorwig, or dams. The UK doesn't have a great many locations for either. And locals would no doubt object to planners wandering around going "What a beautiful valley, let's flood it!". Plus there are similar problems as with megabatteries, namely it can take a long time to charge them, and not very long to discharge. Then again, it's an area where windmills could actually prove useful, ie using them as plain'ol water pumps. Still a sensible idea for getting water out of aquifers in off-grid locations. Problem is you'd need a lot of them to lift a lot of water up a mountain against gravity. And it's that pesky weather again. You need the store to discharge when there's no wind to spin windmills, so how do you refill your reservoir?

Much like current proposals, all it'd do is make the current 'renewables' problem even more expensive when there are far cheaper alternatives like nuclear, or even modern supercritical coal power stations.

Re: Nice

At the time of commenting it is 53% gas. 24% renewable which includes Drax!

Burning forests is fine, when you're doing it for massive profits. I mean to save the planet.. Also helps when you had one of your execs 'advising' government via John Gummer's (aka 'lord' Deben) Climate Change Committee.

It all has to be paid for, you cannot have cheap renewables that are intermittent and then ignore what happens with the wind does not blow.

Therein lay the problem. We knew exactly what would happen because we've been there before. Hence why I keep referring to wind turbines as windmills because we've been there, done that and know exactly what the problems are. It's also why sailing ships eventually gave way to steam ships, especially after those out competed the magnificent Clipper ships.

So we knew what would happen when the wind didn't blow, and our economy was in the doldrums. Here it is again-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64879044

Two old coal-fired power plants have begun generating again as the UK expects to see its coldest night of the year so far.

... National Grid blames the cold weather, a shortage of wind and solar power generation, and a lack of electricity available through interconnectors from France due to strike action in the country.

Who could possibly have guessed that high pressure weather systems and it being, well, winter would lead to a reduction in insolation. light winds and cold temperatures.. Other than anyone who's lived in the UK for more than a couple of years and knows it's pretty normal for March. It's just weather, not climate. We have extensive records from weather stations showing this is all normal, and expected.. Although the Met Office has pointed out that average wind speeds have been declining over the last decade.

Yet the ignoranuses in government just.. couldn't see the connection between weather, weather dependent generation and the economic impact fsking everything up in such a spectacular fashion would have. Well, they kinda, sorta knew. So 'investing' in wind also meant 'investing' in stand-by capacity, generally gas. So CCGT ran at around £40/MWh, wind £80-120/MWh. For pretty much every GW of wind, we'd need 1GW of CCGT. Add in solar and it gets even worse because we know.. it gets dark at night. Especially during those long, winter nights when it also gets colder. Funny how that works, and how.. unpredictable it seems to politicians.

Few people stopped to ask why the stand-by capacity is so much cheaper than the primary, and if that made any economic sense at all.

But Ed Milliband got the 'Climate Change Act' written for him by Friends of the Earth. Bryony Worthington got made a Baroness for services rendered to destroying our economy and increasing energy poverty. And the UK became far more dependent on gas.. And then having become dependent, decided to stop buying cheap Russian gas. That'll teach those commies! Of course we still have our own oil and gas fields. We also still have a lot of coal. We could have met the 'legally binding' committments in the CCA by building modern coal power stations instead of paying to keep the 1960's ones we're relying on now running.

And no doubt our new budget will announce 'record investments' in yet more of this garbage. Meanwhile, actual energy industry experts (ie not the 'renewables' lobbyists.. or me) point out that this is only just the beginning, and meeting our 'Net Zero' ambitions is going to get horrifically more expensive, if we're to 'decarbonise' UK heating and transport.. Which will make absolutely no noticeable difference to global temperatures, or global warming. Especially as countries like China and India aren't following us off the cliff and are instead building cheap, reliable energy infrastructure.

Re: Nice

Wind, without subsidy, is cheaper per kWh than Nuke, Gas, Coal or Solar.

That's excellent news. UK has it's budget coming up, so it can announce it's removing all wind's subsidies! Alternatively, see the comment I made about Orsted's special pleading. It bid £37, it's now discovered it can't supply at that price. Yet that price has been used to support bogus claims that wind is cheap.

Reality is it's just a marketing trick. Wind still cannot, and never will be able to provide reliable power because it's at the mercy of the weather. So once you add in all the costs to turn wind power into reliable power, like grid control and stabilisation stuff like the software mentioned here, it gets massively expensive in comparison to alternatives that don't need all that extra expense. It's a bit like saying Tesla is the cheapest car on the road (batteries not included).

Gas is the marginal generation fuel of choice, and by design, the retail market prices ALL generation at the retail price of the last dispatched generator.

It's not the retail cartel.. I mean market. It's the wholesale market that's the problem due to having been designed to subsidise wind, both by prioritising 'renewable' supply, and setting price based on most expensive supply. Obviously that's entirely contrary to business (non-renewable) and consumer interests, but guaranteed top price for wind. Then governments decided to ban gas, that became expensive and the benchmark, and 'renewables' operators generated massive windfalls even though their input costs were unaffected. Plus there's the little detail that effective lobbying by the 'renewables' scumbags increased dependency on gas, eg CCGT on stand-by to spin up as wind speeds drop. Then by relegating gas to a stand-by for wind & solar, it increased the costs of gas-generated electricity as well.

But again the solution is simple. Let the wind lobby put their money where there mouth is. If you're right, they no longer need subsidies, and our electricity bills should fall rapidly. Strangely enough, the more we've been 'investing' in 'renewables', the higher our bills have risen..

Re: Nice

Also, nobody is trying to find the optimum uses for those intermittent power inputs

They are, kind of. It's one of the drivers for the whole Hydrogen bubble. Or in a more extreme example, dear'ol Dale Vince came up with a cunning plan to turn wind into diamonds. He hasn't quite gone full circle and created a completely sustainable carbon cycle by usng the diamonds for fuel though. Problem is most chemical and industrial processes require reliable, constant energy. So 'greening' industries like steel production or bioplastic injection molding would have.. problems if windspeeds drop and their liquids solidify.

I guess one option would be simple resistive heating, eg build greenhouses next to windfarms and nuclear plants. Then 'waste' heat or other energy could be used to grow crops. Nuclear tomatoes might be a hard sell though. The 'renewable' industry prefers more profitable 'solutions' though, like convincing our ignoranus politicians to build massive piles of batteries. That way, they can sell energy to charge the batteries, sell it at a huge markup when there's high demand and limited supply, and of course provide 'inertia' or grid stabilisation services to 'fix' the problem they're responsible for creating.

Re: Nice

Good to note, however, that fossil fuel energy is also artificially cheap due to (a) gigantic subsidies given through production grants, tax breaks etc* and most especially (b) not having to clean their own shit up (renewables have very little shit to clean up especially if infrastructure components can be recycles, while nuclear is forced to 'clean its shit up' to such a ridiculous extent that it has to leave radiation levels *below* background levels in some places)

The fossil fuel industry isn't really very highly subsidised. Article here-

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/07/25/fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-the-uk/

The tied oil scheme essentially applies to oils which are not to be used for fuel, for instance lubrication. This cannot be regarded as a subsidy for fossil fuel, as it merely applies the same tax treatment as alternative products, such as synthetic oils.

Reduced rate of VAT mainly applies to the rate of 5% which is charged to domestic users of gas and power. Again, this is not a fossil fuel subsidy, or even taxation foregone, as it applies to all sources of power including renewables. There is no law or precedent that says energy should be taxed at the full rate of 20%, and many other goods are zero rated, as energy used to be.

North Sea oil tax breaks are not subsidies either – they simply define what expenses are allowable and when they can be claimed against corporation tax. Such breaks are common across many industries, and even after allowing for them, overall corporation tax rates on oil and gas producers remains substantially higher than other businesses.

Which covers the main points of the alleged subsidies. Tied oil is a fun one, eg agriculture and construction uses a lot of energy, so can use 'red' diesel, which has reduced fuel duty. There's no equivalent (AFAIK) for 'red' electricity, so assuming electric agricultural and construction equipment ever becomes practical, costs are going to increase, and so will inflation. A lower VAT rate is claimed as a 'subsidy', yet the 'renewables' lobbyists conveniently ignore fuel duty, which is a massive tax on consumption. Also a problem with 'Net Zero', because-

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/fuel-duties/#:~:text=Fuel%20duties%20are%20levied%20on%20purchases%20of%20petrol%2C,household%20and%201.0%20per%20cent%20of%20national%20income.

...They represent a significant source of revenue for government. In 2022-23, we expect fuel duties to raise £25.0 billion. That would represent 2.8 per cent of all receipts and is equivalent to around £900 per household and 1.0 per cent of national income.

Governments can't really afford to lose that gravy, especially as they're also forcing the electrification of transport. Currently, it's a reasonably 'fair' system of taxing based on consumption, so already a distance charging scheme. Drive more miles, use more fuel, pay more tax. No equivalent mechanism currently exists for EVs, which are already subsidised in other ways. But this is probably why there are new rules about fitting dedicated electricity 'smart' meters to EV charging points so an electric fuel duty can be applied. Otherwise electricity bills are going to increase faster than they already have been. There's also some subsidies already imposed on electricity users in both the 'standing charge' and unit rates to pay for EV expansion, hooking up windmills etc etc.

And of course oil companies have to lease exploration and production fields, pay royalties on any production and have a higher CT rate than other businesses, Scammers also claim 'environmental costs' should be charged to the oil industry, so the usual carbon scams. Claim the industry has caused £x billion in environmental damage which the industry hasn't compensated Gaia for and call that a 'subsidy'.

By contrast, for the last year or more 'renewables' companies have been generating colossal windfalls because gas prices have increased. Windmills don't run on methane, but the energy market was rigged to set 'market' prices based on the highest generation cost to subsidise the 'renewables' industry. There are also environmental costs from wind, so they're wildlife killers. Or when wind or solar farms go titsup.com, they leave behind scrap metal, carbon fibre, and massive amounts of concrete that's used in foundations. Those are generally not removed, either because the SPV's conveniently gone bankrupt or because they can be handy ways to convert greenfield->brownfield->residential. If the operator's gone bankrupt though, landowners or councils have been stuck with the remediation costs. Some have tried to make remediation escrow accounts part of planning consents, but the 'renewables' blob naturally objects to anything that may harm their future profits.

Elon Musk yearns for AI devs to build 'anti-woke' rival ChatGPT bot

Re: What happens when we disagree with OpenAI?

But really, if you hear 'I oppose racism' as 'why are they being mean to Republicans?', you might, just possibly, be more racist than Republican

Wow, that's a lot of straw.

So here's the deal-

Popular vote 81,283,501 74,223,975

Percentage 51.3% 46.8%

Which shows that at least 74.2m or 46.8% of Americans who voted in the last election didn't support Biden, the Southern Democrats and are obviously racists. They're probably nascent terrorists as well, and should be added to assorted watch lists. Alternatively-

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-giving-eulogy-kkk-recruiter-robert-byrd-resurfaces-after-trump-doesnt-condemn-white-1535776

Five years later during the senator's eulogy, Biden described Byrd as "fiercely devoted to his principles," a "friend," "mentor" and a "guide"—comments which have brought Biden fresh criticism as he enters the final stretch of his campaign for president.

Sadly, the Democrats have been on the wrong side of history in most of America's racial politics, and are now engaged in classic projection to 'heal the political divide'.