Don't expect that to last. £1 per kWh = £1000 per MWh. Even when things went crazy as sanctions kicked in and Russia were attempting Blitzkrieg in Ukraine the wholesale prices never hit £1000 per MWh.
They say £1/kWh is a Beta price, that makes sense as a way to burn investor money to get people interested. Their real price is TBD. Would you take 25p per kWh with a £5 per month guarantee ? That could be at least in the ballpark of working.
Well it's just a bonus on top, I'm not counting on it. Storing solar and backup is the primary reason for the battery. On June 24 at 19:00, agile octopus prices were about £0.85/kWh, there isn't a single simple price for electricity.
It's true that there isn't a "single simple price" but the only way you're getting more for your power than a wholesaler can sell it for is that they're paying far more than it's worth. Stability services aren't free, but we're not talking about a 10% premium here, closer to 10x
Be careful with these kind of long term sell back agreements.
In the USA lots of early adopters of solar did so under net metering agreements where excess electricity is sold back at full price. After a number of years it was costing the utility companies too much money. So they updated the terms such that residents with solar buy electricity at retail prices (~$0.25) but sell it back at wholesale (~$0.04).
Yes, I think the key thing here to to not guarantee that pricing like they did in California over decades. Yes, the benefit will eventually be reduced. But that is considered success is it not?
well, California currently is guaranteeing that benefit to nem 1 people for twenty years. I would much rather penalize those people than make everyone else pay a subsidy to them, as we are currently doing. They should bare the risk of their investment and get paid market rate.
My issue today is .. I cannot be paid market rate for giving back to the grid, even in hours when California needs the power.
I don't see the point in panels without a battery, so I'm looking at a DIY system. RCBO for new circuit = £20, 5.12kWh battery = £700, ~3kW hybrid inverter from eBay ~=£400, Panels ~= £100 each. I'm not the including cost of a registered electrician for a new circuit in my case.
The plug in "balcony panels" are usually limited to 800W here in Europe, so having them without a battery can make sense because you're probably going to use that power on the spot most of the time.
It's interesting to imagine how the world would be different, if internet advertising giants were partially liable for scams/malware that they facilitate.
I recall a articale I read "somewhere" that reported the Facebook makes big profit (Billions) from scams. So they have no ( or no strong motive) motive to shut such scams down
An example is courtcase against Meta for using a Australians mining billionares likeness to promote a crypo investment scam.
I'm surprised legitimate companies don't pressure Facebook on this though. There are enough scams on Facebook that I now refuse to believe anything there, even though some of the things look useful and probably are not scams (and also are things I didn't know existed without an ad - thus filling one of the legitimate values of advertisements: informing me of things that would make my life better but I don't know exist).
Anyone making a Kickstarter knows that within days if not hours all your images, pictures, renderings will be harvested and dozens of "copycat" sites will be "selling" your product now, regardless of whether its a real thing or not yet, and they'll be advertising it on FB and IG.
I say those words in quotes - they have no intention of shipping you anything, just skimming low-hanging fruit from someone's ideas.
This is why Section 230 is fundamentally wrong. Because the core concept of it assumes reasonable behavior without monetary incentives. Which is great if you're legislating someone's personal forum about their hobby. But Section 230 applied to the ad industry is incredibly, incredibly broken, because advertising companies do not have any incentive to act in good faith.
As soon as a dollar of profit is involved in a content moderation decision, a business should be fully liable for the decisions around content on their platform. If I report an ad to Facebook and Facebook decides to keep it they should be accepting legal responsibility for that ad.
You want to stop scams online, you make the platforms liable and then grant them the ability to recover the losses by going after the advertisers.
Section 230 is fine but people keep misapplying it. It says Facebook didn't publish the ads, the ads publisher did. It doesn't say Facebook doesn't have to take them down. It doesn't say Facebook can't be ordered to reveal who the ad publisher is so they can go to jail.
Your first assertion is obviously untrue. And fake celebrity endorsements pre-date the existence of the Internet, let alone Meta. There were lawsuits back in the 1800s on this topic. This is hardly a new problem unique to Meta.
There's nothing obvious about it. Meta makes money on ads, period. Scams work and get clicks. Therefore, meta makes money on scams running rampant on their platform.
But when they turn off ad-block, to "see what it's like", they are not getting an accurate view. It's usually all crypto and other scammy/vices type ads.
Go look at your mom's browser. Her Google ads are going to be clothes, tissues, and cookware.
Nigerian prince scams cannot outbid Kleenex without breaking the economics of the scam. But they can get loaded when Kleenex no-bids because they don't know who the viewer is.
Trust me, ad-tech is far far beyond 2004 when ad block showed up.
(I'll add that of course there are other less legitimate ad networks, and I'm not counting "snake oil" products, which are essentially scams but customers still swear by them)
But after that you would get dialed in and stop seeing them.
Google's core mission is to figure out what you are going to buy before you buy it so they can have you click through them to make the purchase.
They generally have negative interest in serving scams/malware ads because people generally don't want to buy those things. On the same token though it's a very hard problem to 100% solve, and the people impacted are usually the lowest value users anyway.
Presumably they would only have to show they're doing some simple due diligence. At minimum KYC and a reporting process that works. Neither of which Google et el do currently.
Imagine how world would be different if the actual scammers and malware creators would be prosecuted and not insteead demanded that internet giants play a privatized police force.
Aren't the giants closer to the mob than a police force? I suppose those things are not terribly different in practice, but Google, Facebook, et al make money from leaving the scams on their ad networks.
Either way works - I'd still prefer the scammers to be liable and persecuted for their scamming than demanding that platforms enact censorship and policeing control.
3. Serves the scam to the consumer, ensuring they see it
4. Takes a cut of the action when the scam is successful
5. Tells the scammer how to optimize their campaign
6. Continues working with scammers after they're reported
The scammer has a fairly small part in the overall operation. The platform is doing almost all of the actual work perpetrating the scam. They're not remotely innocent here.
Disney is able to jackboot anyone violating their IP because the DMCA imposes liability on big tech companies if they do not comply with a valid request. The comment you initially replied to proposes imposing such liability for fraud also, which you appear to be adamantly opposed to.
Care to venture some opinions on how "we" could actually prosecute criminals running scam farms in Myanmar? There's always going to be another criminal, and many of them deliberately operate outside the reach of western law.
For what it's worth, I wasn't demanding anything. I was solely pointing out that the platforms aren't neutral here. They're active participants in perpetuating these scams.
Normally, if there is sufficient evidence, both the mob boss and the ground level gangster are liable and criminally responsible for their crimes. You are free to disagree, but I don't see any reason why big tech companies should be completely immune from any and all responsibility for facilitating and taking a cut of the criminal activity taken on their territory.
You are also free to call it censorship, but I am not aware of any jurisdiction where fraud is considered protected speech, so as far as I'm concerned, censor away baby.
Same with land registry UK, it takes me several tries even though I know I should be looking for the .gov version. Last time I only realised I got the ad version because it asked me to pay for something that's free on the gov version.
True, but in this case with SQLite, there's unlikely to be much of a difference because there isn't the spare time available when waiting for a separate database server. I don't know what providers are good for a $10/month instance these days.
How are you spending any non-negligible time reading from SQLite at 12 requests per second though? That would mean you’re spending something like 50 ms per request on reading from SQLite.
OK, so we've done animal_vehicle, how about new SVG ideas each time? I just tried "make an SVG of a man sitting in a chair at a computer behind a desk" which gives more interesting results than the animalVehicle test.
I got shingles after the covid vaccine, which is a rare but statistically highly significant risk: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35470920/ . Both covid and shingles sucked, luckily it was years ago now.
Maybe an ESL thing? "Potatoes" are literally called "earth apples" in some languages (e.g. pommes de terre in French; Erdäpfel in some German dialects.)
I came to appreciate typos, slightly ungrammatical sentences, and creative plays on common phrases. They are completely absent in LLM output without a specialized prompt (and they seem to struggle to make believable language mistakes even when prompted), so they can serve as a signal when judging whether the text I'm reading was written by a human.
As an aside, I observed my stance on proper English use changing in real time over the past 2-3 years. I used to be proud of writing clinically correct prose, and found mistakes in grammar and vocabulary grating. Now, I kind of welcome them and have stopped caring at all about committing such language crimes. I used to cringe when someone didn't capitalize the first words in their sentences - not anymore. I think we're years away from LLMs convincingly faking human-like mistakes (since all the work currently goes into avoiding them), so it's going to remain a useful signal for a while.
Clicking "Try Aske for free" takes you straight to it, no sign up! I usually avoid clicking these buttons because they usually take you to a sign up form.
