For good reason, to be fair. Starlink is able to pay for itself, and doesn't need subsidies to provide service. Wireless ISPs are going to suck no matter what, and no amount of subsidization will make it not suck. If you want bang-for-the-buck, you want fiber, because that can keep being pushed to faster and faster limits as technology improves, without changing the fundamental medium. Right now, I think the state of the art over a single fiber is one terabit. So we have three orders of magnitude of growth potential without any changes other than to the hardware at the two ends of that fiber.

Contrast that with celluar technology, where pushing speeds to orders of magnitude more than we have now can only realistically be achieved by massively increasing the tower density and, as a result of having more towers, also massively increasing the cost of every future hardware upgrade going forwards.

Starlink is a neat party trick. It can help with a lot of things, like providing service where it isn't really feasible, providing service to your RV, providing cell service in the Mojave Desert, etc., but it can't realistically ever be the ISP for the entire country, because you can't realistically put that many birds in the sky.

So fiber is the only plausible solution that is forward-looking and provides room for future expansion. Everything else is just wasting money, frankly.

Meh. Part of the point of that program was to provide jobs with decent pay. That's not really so unreasonable, is it? The real question is why the cable companies aren't willing to spend the extra few bucks to hire union labor for running their cables, in exchange for government subsidies.

Actually, no, the real question is why local governments didn't put in bids to build out municipal fiber networks that they could lease in a nondiscriminatory fashion to the cable company, the phone company, a dozen mom-and-pop telcos, etc. to provide the actual service to customers. This approach works way better than letting large monopolies or oligopolies get more power.

And at that point, it's just corporate welfare, and serves no real purpose.

And yet that's literally the only thing the government legitimately should be spending money on in this space. Every attempt to do this through private business fails. Every single time. Municipal fiber works. If you do it right (read "underground"), fiber requires very little maintenance except when somebody digs up a line, and then they're on the hook for paying the repair cost.

No, that's not it at all. Lines underground, assuming they are correctly marked and are at an adequate depth, typically last for decades. Lines on poles get broken by ice, falling limbs, lightning strikes, etc. There's just a lot more maintenance when you hang wires on poles.

Pole rights is a trivially solvable problem. You just pass one touch make ready laws. The fact that you don't have these is prima facie evidence of regulatory capture, and you should elect better representatives next time around. But for the most part, unless you live on bedrock, putting lines on poles is probably the wrong thing to do, so it probably isn't worth bothering to fix it at this point.

A policy of setting goals for the industry and rating them based on how well they met those goals? Well, I can't say for sure whether it was working, but putting blinders on and saying things are going great sure can't work better than having actual data, that's for sure.

To a limited extent, sure. The problem is that as long as the FCC is a political football — as long as Republicans don't actually care whether the poor have access to acceptably fast Internet service — the industry will generally not care much what the rules are, believing that the next guy will just overturn them.

It would have been continued, were it not for the fact that the Republicans tend to pick people for the commission that are basically poster children for regulatory capture.

In this case, the policies amount to requiring broadband coverage to show that they cover every house in a region, not just the wealthy houses, and that they provide service that meets certain minimum criteria for speed to every house, not just the wealthy houses.

The industry doesn't like to do this. They'd rather spend upgrade money on wealthy households, where they can milk them for higher profit margins, and never upgrade the service to poorer areas, even if they're willing to pay the money, because not enough people in the poorer areas will pay extra for service.

And from a business perspective, that behavior is understandable. But from a public policy perspective, it is problematic, particularly when it results in poor neighborhoods being stuck with, for example, ADSL at five megabit while three blocks away, there's gigabit fiber for not a lot more money.

Actually, by putting down solar panels as covers over aqueducts used for the water supply, they can effectively make electricity and make more water (by reducing evaporation) at the same time.

This. Want to know why EV sales have died in California over the last year? Just look at the cost per kWh and compare it with gas prices. PG&E average yearly rates have doubled since 2022. Meanwhile, the cost of gasoline has gone down. It is now fiscally irresponsible to drive an EV unless either you have solar power or someone else is paying for your electricity (employer, unlimited supercharging, etc.). Hybrids are not only cheaper up front, but also likely cheaper to operate at this point.

California should have allower PG&E to go bankrupt a few years ago, bought it for pennies on the dollar, and begun operating it as a government-owned corporation. There's no excuse for the power rates that we're seeing when most other states are paying literally a quarter of what we do.

PG&E is bad for our pocketbooks and bad for the environment.

Pedantically, the fact that the 737 has under-wing engines makes it kind of a 737 issue. As far as I know, we didn't see MD-80s hoovering up rabbits.

But yes.

Hence why it is less common. Rabbits: Ground only. Birds: mostly below 500 feet (*).

* Some birds can fly at up to 37,000 feet during their migration. Technically, I suppose, so can a rabbit, so long as it is onboard an aircraft.

First, someone had to place the rabbit onto the giant trebuchet...

But seriously, the engines are pretty close to the ground, so anything on the runway tends to get sucked into the engines. Apparently, this isn't even all that rare, happening four times last year alone. It's just way less common than bird ingestion.

No, it's more likely to be bird ingestion. Maintenance is second most likely. Design flaws from GE are third.

Considering you can pretty much take any low-end hardware and emulate a C64, or any other 8 bit system, probably the only real challenge is the keyboard. Ironically a suitable mechanical keyboard is by far the most expensive item, with the price ranging from $100-$200.

True, you can always have leaks, but hydrogen leaks seem to be way, way more common than leaks of other fuels as a percentage of launch attempts. The shuttle was scrubbed on average almost once per launch, and a large percentage of the scrubs were caused by hydrogen leaks (source).

And that's on top of the whole embrittlement problem, which can lead to catastrophic hardware failures if you're reusing parts over a long period of time, which is another reason why folks trying to do reusable rockets (e.g. SpaceX) tend to avoid it. And if you think embrittlement is a risk in something that gets used once, imagine the effect on fuel lines in cars that are pressurized for decades at a time.

It is a really, really nasty fuel, IMO. Mind you, hydrazine is worse in some ways, but that doesn't mean hydrogen isn't nasty. :-)

I've been using LO pretty much constantly for the last two years (even wrote a novel on it). Like any interface, it just takes time to become familiar. In fact, I like the way Writer organizes styles and style configuration far better than Word, and often, even for DOCX files, do initial style set up and layout in Writer and then move to Word if I have to (which is seldom enough).

LO is a damned good office system. Its default UI is older, but since I used MS-Edit and Word pretty extensively back in the 1990s, it feels familiar to me. There is a ribbon interface, but I've only tried it a few times before remembering why it is I actually don't like the Word ribbon.

One possible exception: Rental cars at airports. But only to a point.

You're grossly overestimating the required range for most of those things. School buses travel an average of just 63 miles per day. Mail trucks? 25 miles per day. Or were you planning to charge them only on weekends? :-)

Mind you, that's not the whole story for school buses, because they also have to be able to take the sports teams and bands to out-of-town games and competitions within a 200-mile radius or thereabouts, so for those long runs, you would need at least a 400-mile range to do a round trip, or else the driver would need to be able to take it to a Megacharger or similar close to the destination with a 200-mile range. But you could also keep a small number of diesel or gasoline buses for that purpose if you want, at least for the foreseeable future.

To be clear, I'm not saying it isn't the right choice for them. I'm just bothered by claims that they don't have a choice, as though this were forced, rather than a strategic decision to prioritize profits and simplicity of their billing architecture over inclusiveness.

Sure. That's common when technology is in its infancy. Those problems could be solved, given enough time and money. In theory, so could the leaks, though given that NASA tried to fix them for three decades and still had leak problems on Artemis, that remains a theory. :-D

Hydrogen has much bigger problems than filling time, freezes, or the occasional explosion from dispensing a gas at high pressure incorrectly. If those were the biggest problems, I'd be totally in favor of doing more with hydrogen and fuel cells, because those are manageable and/or fixable technical problems.

A much bigger problem is fact that almost all hydrogen comes from natural gas, which makes it anything but green. The dirty little secret is that your losses from leaks would make distributing it over oil pipeline infrastructure completely infeasible, so you'll end up distributing natural gas instead, and cracking it to make hydrogen. And now, you have all the CO2 emissions from burning natural gas, plus all the efficiency loss from cracking the natural gas ahead of time, and you're about as green as a forest fire.

And of course, if you get it through electrolysis instead, you're likely wasting considerably more than half the energy you put in, versus more like 1% loss when charging a battery, making it a huge drain on our power grid.

And the elephant in the room is the cost per mile. In California, current prices for hydrogen fueling are hovering around $36 per kg, or about 50 cents per mile in a typical hydrogen-powered car. This makes it almost an order of magnitude more expensive than BEVs, and there's no real reason to believe that this will improve at this point, given how long it has failed to improve. At best, the whole thing feels more like a glorified government subsidy capture scheme, rather than a serious means of powering cars.

Hydrogen is a terrible idea on multiple levels. The fact that ostensibly it could have been a short-term workaround to provide multiple means of getting energy into rural areas (gas pipelines and power grid) is nice in theory, but in practice, the losses are just way too high, and batteries just work way too well, so the benefits just don't hold up in practice.