I need this exact pin. You can save some money and make it without any moving parts.

the thing that’s different is that social media has demonstrative harm.

Is that actually a difference?

Rock and roll causes harm: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8580930/

TV causes harm: https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/too-much-tv-might-be-bad-for-your-brain

Video games cause harm: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2000/04/video-games

Pretty much everything kids do that their parents didn’t has been “proven” to cause harm. Radio, cinema, comic books, even newspapers were “proven” to harm young people.

Authoritarianism is a far bigger threat than any of these.

I didn’t see mayonnaise on either list?

Hybrid hard drive. Basically, a hard drive with a large solid state cache.

Actual shipping would vary depending on location, but sellers are padding the shipping charge so they can display a lower unit price.

Need to add shipping charges to the price…

Brb, working on a lava-powered gas guzzler.

No oil. Not worth the effort.

There’s room for batteries in the rail industry.

Diesel electrics rely primarily on dynamic braking. To save wear and tear on friction brakes, they convert kinetic energy to electrical, and then to heat in a giant resistor bank.

Add a couple battery cars, and dynamic braking becomes regenerative braking.

Theoretically, you could back feed the grid with that electrical energy, but if you do that, the train’s primary braking system is now dependent on a connection to the grid, and that doesn’t seem like a particularly good idea to me. All of the “stop” systems need to be far more reliable than the “go” systems.

I keep meaning to grift the SovCits, with new and exciting producta. For example, license plates with yellow fringe on them to indicate they are actually seagoing vessels portaging overland between navigable waters. You just have to drive them to a boat ramp and let their wheels touch the water from time to time, to make them subject to maritime law. This allows you to use them even for commerce without needing to register them with the DMV.

HR is there to protect the company from the lawsuit you’re going to file if they don’t unfuck themselves.

What are you even on about? One person could conceivably add CSAM to a torrent that you eventually download, and you could find yourself subject to a criminal investigation.

I’ve gone my entire adult life downloading copyrighted material without using a VPN

“I’ve been fucking multiple partners weekly my entire adult life. without protection, and I haven’t gotten AIDS yet.” <— That’s you. That’s what you sound like.

You are giving your ISP every thing that a rightsholder needs to harass you, with your understanding that laws and corporate policies currently protect you from that harassment. But you ignore that those policies can be changed, and those changes can apply to data you’ve previously given to your ISP. When rightsholders start arguing “think of the children” and pointing at such torrents, that’s the kind of thing that gets laws and policies changed.

Why give them the information in the first place? Why not keep that information away from your ISP? Why trust them to do the right thing when you can easily deny them the ability to do wrong?

That level of paranoia is a waste of energy.

I know I am paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?

Identifying and evaluating vulnerabilities is a critical component of any security plan. In a good one, any vulnerabilities will be well outside the scope of feasibility.

Why would some Hollywood studio plant CSAM in a torrent?

To cast FUD on piracy in general. To inextricably link “pirate” with “pedophile” in the mind of the general public. To convince the general public to treat copyright infringement as criminal rather than a civil matter.

That would implicate them as well.

They hire or extort someone to initially seed from some third world ISPs, and the swarm takes over from there. It never gets traced back to them.

It would cost them far more in legal fees to come after me than to just leave it alone.

You aren’t the objective, just the means. The purpose is to make piracy a truly objectionable practice in the eyes of the public.

None of this is a likely threat, but is any of it completely outside the realm of feasibility?

You don’t have any justification to be that condescending. Your security practices are reliant on the law, and the law is not a factor under your direct control. It has changed without your input before, and it will change without your input in the future. Meanwhile, your ISP is building a record of your non-compliance that it can provide to rightsholders just as soon as it likes.

Good security practice minimizes reliance on factors outside your control. You can’t control whether your ISP has your personally identifiable information, but you can deny them knowledge of your data transfers. You can’t control whether a VPN has knowledge of your data transfers, but you can deny them knowledge of your PII.

Also it definitely would cost them if they told me “we have not responded to this notice from the rightsholder” and then turned around and did exactly that. That would be a flat out lie to their client.

As of the time of their letter, they had not responded to that notice. They could respond tomorrow without ever having lied to you. You would not have grounds to sue.

Just out of curiosity, will your Canadian ISP and your (current) Canadian laws protect you when a rightsholder portrays you as a pedophile instead of a pirate? If they anonymously publish a torrent containing their movie and some hidden CSAM, are you fucked?

What incentive do they have to actually follow through on that claim?

I pay my ISP $600/yr. If a third party with a bug up their ass creates $601 worth of trouble for my ISP, why wouldn’t they throw me under the bus?

No ISP is deserving of the kind of trust you describe. It costs them nothing to put those words in a letter.

I don’t particularly trust a VPN provider either, for much the same reason. But, the VPN provider wants to know as little about me as possible, while the ISP needs to know everything.

On the public wifi, the operator of that wifi can see any data you pass through their network. They can likely see what sites you visit, but probably can’t see what data you send to and from those sites, due to encryption. Unless they have an account with you, or you provide your information in clearext, they can link your data to your devices, but not to you directly, at least not from your use of the AP. They can potentially link your data to your image on their cameras, and thus your identity.

Your ISP has the same access to your data, but they also have a payment account linked to you, and they regularly cooperate with rights holders and law enforcement.

A VPN can do the same thing as an ISP: they know what sites you visit, but probably don’t know what data you are sending and receiving, and they can link it to your payment account. However, they generally do not cooperate with rights holders, and may or may not cooperate with law enforcement in their jurisdiction. While you are using a VPN, your ISP knows you are using them, but doesn’t know what you are sending back and forth, due to encryption.

If you want to remain as anonymous as possible, use a burner device with no accounts on public wifi.

If you want to avoid harassment by rights holders while you engage in piracy, a VPN is sufficient.

I mean, long term, nuclear should probably go away, but that’s a distant objective. I’m talking about the next few years, not the next century.

The next major stage is to reorient the grid away from the traditional, supply-shaping “baseload + peaker” model that benefits from increased overnight demand. That model is replaced with a demand-shaping, “use it when it’s easiest to produce” model.

To get from here to there, we need to reverse the incentives that drive overnight consumption. This in turn lowers overnight demand. That reduction in overnight demand calls for a reduction in baseload supply, which reduces baseload generation at night and during the day as well. A reduction of baseload during the day means less surplus power is dumped, and more is sold.

The “places with different weather conditions” are across the equator. Everyone in the northern hemisphere has summer at the same time. The best we can do with interconnects up here is shift the problem around by a couple hours.

Now, if we convert that excess power into cryogenic hydrogen, load it aboard a tanker, and drive that tanker to the end of the earth currently experiencing winter, they can then burn it in gas turbine generators.

Hell, we can put such generators on ships and move them back and forth every 6 months.

wouldn’t be surprised if grids ended up using solar primarily for day time production consumption and short time storage (evening consumption time) and then used nuclear as the primary producer for power consumption over night,

Exactly. Nuclear carries us overnight, renewables meet our needs during the day.

Negative rates aren’t caused by excess solar. Negative rates are caused by excess overnight demand. Overnight demand is too high, necessitating the continuous nuclear output to be set too high. The sum of the continuous nuclear and the daytime solar exceeds daytime demand; rates go negative to correct.

The solution is to remove nighttime demand. Now the continuous nuclear output can be reduced. This is exactly opposite of what the grid needed before renewables, but it is the only viable approach moving forward. The other half of the solution is to add daytime demand, perhaps the same demand we removed from overnight; perhaps an entirely new way to turn power into profit.

(Nuclear plants won’t actually reduce their output. Coal plants will go offline, and nuclear will take over their customers.)

I don’t know why you’re framing this as solely a demand problem,

That is a very good question that has a very simple answer:

The supply shaping solutions to excess solar and wind power are to figure out how to store power, or to stop building renewables. Both of those approaches absolutely suck. We need more renewables, not less, and grid scale storage isn’t sufficiently scalable to meet our needs.

Demand Shaping offers a wide variety of potential solutions compatible with increased renewable adoption, and without massive infrastructure projects.

low or even negative prices can induce producers to curtail production

Until 100% of our demand is continuously met by renewable generation, curtailment is not a solution. Curtailment is what you do when you can’t find a solution.

And negative prices therefore take the place of disposal:

Disposal is not a solution. Disposal is what happens when you can’t find a solution.

Until 100% of our power needs are met by renewables, curtailment and disposal both suck.

Demand Shaping is a solution. Demand Shaping moves subtracts load from when it can only be met with non-renewables, and adds load when it can be met with renewables. Demand Shaping makes non-renewables less profitable and renewables more profitable.

Demand Shaping fixes the problem in such a way that encourages renewable growth. Curtailment and disposal makes renewable less profitable. Curtailment and disposal resolves the problem in such a way that discourages renewable growth.