I agree with one thing, if the EU would be 'dealing' with the middle east on its own, things would be much better ! Without the US constantly fucking things up there, that is.

So in your mind EU laws should apply to EU companies, but not to US companies operating in the EU ? Right ? Do you even listen to yourself ?!?

How would you even know it went to him in particular ? Instead you can be sure it went to farmers who voted for Trump in the first place and got shafted by his shenanigans with tariffs... And looking at the deficit he's digging with a backhoe, you are not at the end of your complains...

Or better, tax trades under 1s at 90%. Under a day at 50%. Under a month at 20% and over 20 years at 0% (or something similar). Trades are meant to be a way to finance company growth, they are *not* meant to be some gambling game.

What part of "8 years" did you skip ? It means that after that there won't be much ice left and the flow of water will go down. So just the time left and they will be useless. In reality the water that feed the dams is seasonal: the winter snow that melts in spring and the autumn/spring rains; melting old glacier ice is a drop in the bucket compared to that. In the Alps in the last few years they've actually been removing more dams than building new ones: mainly small unproductive ones, but also in order to have fish come back to the rivers.

I've used ChatGPT to write code and Gemini to debug it. If you pass the feedback back and forth, it takes a couple iterations but they'll eventually agree that it's all good and I find that's about 90-95% of the way to where I need it to be. Earlier today I took a 6kb script that had been used as something fast and dirty for years - written by someone long gone from the company - and completely revamped it into something much more powerful, robust, and polished in both its code and its output. Script grew to about 20kb, but it's 10x better and I only had to make minor tweaks. Between the two, they found all sorts of hidden bugs and problems with it.

> We can argue over the number

No, I will not argue over objective facts. Sorry not sorry, your talking point are out of date.

> and why wouldn't you include taxes as that's what is paying for Energiewende?

Because taxes are policy and obscures the underlying true cost of the energy. Same is true for government subsidies, such as the ones France's nuclear power gets (which are also paid with taxes, but not taxes on the electricity, so it's even more hidden).
=Smidge=

> A reminder that Germany has spent over half a trillion Euros on Energiewende and still has one of the filthiest grids in Europe (>400g/kWh) and has among the highest electricity costs in the world

Your talking points are out of date. Germany's CO2 emissions have fallen to ~320g/kwh as of last year and not even *close* to the highest costs in the world. They're not even the highest cost in Europe until you include taxes... which are used to help fund the renewable buildout that's bringing emissions and overall costs down.

=Smidge=

I lived in the US in the past, and I still come for vacation and to climb in Yosemite and Utah every once in a while, but you can bet your ass I won't show up if I have to give my passwords and prove I did not disparage 'Dear Leader'. Indeed, I'll even say it here for the record: Trump is a piece of shit, a pedo, a conman, a rapist, a felon; and his entire administration is corrupt to the bone. Here.

Nah, using Firefox on Android, with uBlock and a DNS with zero ads. There's also an accessibility setting for min font size, but it doesn't work very well.

It should be easier to change the font and font size on a website. Yeah, I know you can force a custom CSS and shit, but it's complicated and often doesn't work. It doesn't really matter on desktop, but it pisses me off on phone browsers when characters are so tiny you can't read them and can't enlarge them.

> The far more sensible way to view things when living in an infinite thermal bath of energy separated from absolute zero by a high value resistance is exergy defined as the available energy to do useful work.

We do not live in an infinite thermal bath of energy. It is, in fact, very very finite.

Exergy is based on the environment; Specifically, if you take some environment and bring the energy to equilibrium. This will be important in a bit, because you say a very dumb thing...

> Say the Carnot efficiency was maximized at 100C over room temperature of 300k, that would be 25% or 1-(300/400) because it penalizes you for the heat you got for free, the 300C

And there is the dumb thing.

You definitionally can not use any of the energy at 300C because that's your rejection temperature. You're not "using 100% of the heat energy you paid for" not only because you did not pay for the ambient heat, you have no mechanism in this scenario to move it to a lower temperature reservoir (and extract work from it) because it's already the lowest temperature in your system - by definition.

So yeah I guess "If you change the reality of the situation you can get different results" is technically true, but means nothing. You threw out the word 'exergy' (as if it was wholly unrelated to Carnot efficiency?!) and then quietly completely changed the parameters of the problem to do some bogus math. Exergy is about bringing a system's environment to equilibrium, and you tried to redefine the environment from a realistic and practical "Earth's surface" to a hypothetical "The entire universe."

> The earth has about 400k volts stored between its upper atmosphere and the ground where we live, with a net charge against true neutral of only a few volts making the surface voltage 200,000 or so. Your absolute electric car efficiency therefore goes from 200,800 volts to 200,000 volts never using the remaining potential to true neutrality.

For someone who claims to have a master's degree in mechanical engineering, I'd hope you'd have a better understanding that the Carnot Theorem only applies to heat engines and thermal gradients, not electromagnetic gradients.

Understanding that all voltages are relative, and that it makes no sense to use the average voltage between the ionosphere and the Earth's surface when evaluating anything other than discussing the voltage between the ionosphere and the Earths surface, is also something one should expect from someone with an advanced engineering degree.

> But thatâ(TM)s stupid because the current never flows to true neutral and canâ(TM)t flow to true neutral because of the giant resistor in the sky

It's stupid because even if it could flow from whatever the fuck "True neutral" is supposed to mean (midway point that is arbitrarily significant?), you're still dealing with a gradient that's tens of miles long but your car is only several feet high. Even if you created a conductive path to discharge the ionophere through your car, you'd still only get a fraction of a volt.

None of that is relevant here though, because you' don't use Carnot efficiency to describe something not operating with the flow of heat energy.

> So saying a thermodynamic process is effectively described in absolute terms by Carnot is just as silly as saying electric cars are less than 1% efficient.

Well no, because Carnot efficiency is a well established principle of thermodynamics - a direct consequence of the second law - that actually works in both theory and practice, and the electric car thing is some delusional bullshit you came up with. Big difference.
=Smidge=

Sometimes you can prove it was a bit flip [caused by cosmic ray, local radioactivity or a glitch in the Matrix], you just need to find the exact bit. A friend of that managed to do exactly that after an error in his monthly accounting software. He proved you could only get the resulting sum if you flipped bit Nth of a certain value during the summation. It took him a while and he had written the software himself.

Ha, brings back identical memories of that time period. At one point the teacher was out of his field and I kept pointing out errors. He held the chalk to me and said un-sarcastically: "come here and finish the course for us"...

> Porches aren't really daily driver cars
> Cayenne, Macan, Panamera, Taycan, 911, and the 718 Cayman and Boxster.

Four of the seven models listed are literally marketed as "daily drivers" and/or family cars.
=Smidge=