By "every couple of months" you mean every time I recharge the car and it takes 20-30 mins instead of 3?

But you've already lost; you're NOT trying to persuading according to the compelling objective advantages, now you're just quoting sacred creed. "SHAME! SINNER! ECO-SHAME!"

"more important than the environment." You misspelled "virtue signaling".

....and have been able to for a while. :|

I believe I see where you are coming from but that can't be a long term strategy, putting security and safety above profit. That might work for a startup where there's no expectation of profit in the first year or two of operation, but at some point profit must come first or you are just going to run out of money. If this is funded by some investors then it might not be your own money you run out of, but it's put profit first at some point or there's no money to afford security and safety. Profit would come first, then safety second, security third. If profit isn't first then you are not going to stay in business for long to maintain security and safety. At best profit and safety are on equal footing, if safety is above profit then you can get into an unending spiral of seeking more and more measures to improve safety, each one costing more money, to a point that you'll never make a profit. At some point comes the decision that more safety measures only cuts into profits than provide any real return on that investment. It's on the people working there to take whatever safety risks are involved in order to have income so the business can sustain itself.

If you'd like a better argument on this then search for one of Mike Rowe's "safety third" videos. He made a lot of sense.

If you aren't making a profit then there's no means to afford security. Think on that for a bit.

Profit always comes first, that's something Mike Rowe from Dirty Jobs has pointed out in some of the YouTube videos he's posted before. If there is no profit then the business will be forced to close when the money runs out. With the business closed then just how much security is there on any data they collected? Maybe they thought to shred everything in the process of closing up shop. Or maybe they were so deep in debt that they didn't even have the money to buy a box of matches to burn all the papers and backup tapes.

Safety is second, maybe third or fourth. Profit comes first or your business will not be able to afford safety.

Who decided that? You? You just casually decided to genocide our cultures and mash us all together without asking us first? That is the soul of globalism. WE DO NOT CONSENT!

A quick search of the web tells me the last time they saw anything close to this level of flooding was in 1987, and even then it would have been something like a century or so ago when they saw anything worse. That's certainly enough time to pass to allow memories to fade and people lose some fear of flooding. It's just human nature.

They had an informal system of warning people by telephone which was believed to be sufficient. Also, I went over a number of ways for flood warnings to get to people besides sirens, the option I'd put at the top of that list would be the Emergency Alert System that is broadcast on AM, FM, TV, and weather radio frequencies. Did anyone at the camp have a radio? Your links did mention that there were shortcomings in any automated system for flood warnings, but also mentioned was some doubt that such automation would have been sufficient as this kind of flooding hasn't been seen before and so nobody could have known the danger until it was demonstrated with a flood like that seen on July 4th.

I believe I'm picking up what you are putting down, but there is still the matter that there hasn't been this kind of flooding in some time for this area and so without knowing how bad the flooding could get there's no telling that if they had the sirens that people would have been aware of just how much danger the flood posed. There's a good chance that people could have been warned, the people moved to higher ground, but by not knowing how bad the flood was they could have still been in danger because they didn't get high enough.

I think of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in 2011 as an example. Japan has protective barriers against tsunami along its coasts but the 2011 tsunami was on a level not seen for hundreds of years. I don't recall the exact numbers but it was something like they had a 14 meter high sea wall but the wave was 15 meters high. I realize that there were some people that pointed out the sea wall was likely not tall enough but when the records of anything that high was some stone monuments constructed something like 500 years ago and hidden from view by vegetation that covered them it's easy to be ignorant of the risk. After that tsunami these old monuments were rediscovered, and seen that they marked a similar high water level, there's certainly now a new standard on sea walls and other protections.

Maybe FEMA did have accurate flooding maps. Even then it sounded like FEMA didn't bar people from building anything in the flood plain, only that to build in that area they had to have flood insurance or meet some other standard.

My point is that until people saw the level of flooding, and how quickly it developed, there was no knowing that people's lives were at risk. There's no knowing if what was planned for new warning systems in 1987, 2016, or whenever this was last brought up, would have been sufficient.

I drive to Chicago from Mpls maybe twice every 3 months. Essentially 400 mi.

ABRT shows an EV makes a 6:30 drive over 8hr, almost 25% longer.

I even tried to rent an EV (Genesis GV60 from Avis, that was a clusterfuck) for a run last year and ended up just driving some shitty jeep because when I showed up they'd forgotten to plug the GV60 in and if I waited I'd have missed my meeting in Chicago.

That and I test drove a Volvo PHEV and a) it was kind of a shit ride, b) it has a 35-40 mi elec range* at best, c) despite them explaining when the electric would kick in, when I drove it around for 20 mins, IT NEVER DID...so what the fuck? Why would I pay for 2x powertrains and double the maintenance to (basically) drive an under-engined, overweight car?

*which sales admitted during MN winter coldest months would be more like 20-30 tops...I couldn't even GET TO WORK on that.

Look, I absolutely think eventually EVs will dominate. Right now they're for people who functionally could probably get by with a golf cart instead, virtue signalers, and religious zealots.

I'd trust the local idiots that live in the state to keep the electrical grid stable more than the idiots that live in DC for something like 10 months of the year.

There's no telling if being connected to an interstate grid would have saved the grid from going down. With solar PV panels covered in snow as a contributing factor would being subject to federal rules that come with an interstate grid really have made a difference? What of the problems of natural gas lines getting plugged up inside because moisture in the fuel froze? Is there some federal law that covered that problem? Maybe with federal rules on wind power connected to an interstate grid there may have been a requirement for lubricating oil heaters or something to keep the windmills from freezing up. I recall there were coal power plants and a single nuclear power reactor that were forced offline because the cooling water was freezing and/or because overhead power lines were downed from accumulated ice and snow.

I've lived most of my life in the Midwest USA where there's an interstate electrical grid, which means it is under federal jurisdiction on varied requirements, and I'd see the power go out on occasion due to a winter storm. The power tends to be restored fairly quickly. I recall someone pointing out that the Midwest is better equipped for this because the outages are more common, the weak points that develop with time then fail because of the weight of ice and snow are fixed regularly. In places like Oklahoma and Texas where they see ice and snow less often will see these weak points fail all at once in the same rare storm. Periodic inspections and maintenance will catch some of these weak points but that's not nearly as effective in finding weak points than a real deal ice storm.

I can't be too hard on Texas for their grid failure because I've lived in Texas for a while and I have some idea on how rare such weather is there. They just don't get the same kind of wind and freezing rain like we do further to the north. I suspect most of their power outages would be from summer heat, a combination of sun and increased air conditioning load that would cause failures from overheating. Now that they saw what freezing temperatures can do to the electrical grid they will certainly make adjustments to their standards to prevent a repeat event from happening, that is until their memory fades of this event and they get lazy on protecting the grid from winter storms again.

I think it's rsilvergun likes to lurk as AC
If you look, almost every one of my posts has this shit attached to it. Even if it isn't faintly political.

I have two sons and I can guarantee that "the system isn't skewed against you, look your older brother isn't a failure like you are" wouldn't exactly hit the way you probably intend.

In my mind the failure in the system wasn't in the lack of warning sirens of an impending flash flood, it was allowing the construction of structures meant for housing sleeping children in an area known for flash floods.

There's some responsibility of the loss of life on any government agency that allowed for habitable structures in a flood plain. Then there is some responsibility on those that did the construction, both the people that laid out the buildings at the camp and those that did the construction.

There's means to alert people of an oncoming flood besides sirens. There's cell phone alerts, but apparently this camp didn't have reliable cell phone service. There's weather radio, which I suspect was in place as the National Weather Service appears to do a decent job of having transmitter sites that will cover the USA. Did they have a landline phone? I would hope so as I'd believe it irresponsible to not have some means to contact the camp, or for the camp to contact others, should there be any kind of emergency.

Many times in remote locations, where sirens would be impractical, there's plans for police patrol cars (and potentially other first responder vehicles like firetrucks and ambulances) to drive to known locations of weather warnings to warn people by sirens and public announcement speakers. The problem with that idea is just how remote this camp was and the size of the area at risk, there was simply not enough first responder staff and vehicles to warn everyone in time.

I grew up on a dairy farm where we'd not be able to hear a weather warning siren. In such cases it was on us to track the weather by listening to the radio or watching TV. I don't recall if weather radio was an option at the time but I do know that we could receive a number of AM, FM, and TV stations. As remote as this summer camp might be I suspect that they were in range of some AM radio station that would provide a weather alert, and it is because of how well AM radio stations blanket the nation with EAS coverage that Congress decided to mandate all new cars to have an AM radio reciever. Again the NWS weather radio network likely covers the area, and there's radios that will listen for the alerts on all NWS weather frequencies and will sound an alarm even when "off" (as in powered but not providing the audible weather announcement) which are readily available and not all that expensive. I have such a weather alert radio in the form of a bedside clock radio.

Last but not least is satellite internet and phone service, including the text only satellite cellular service that's been advertised for newer Apple and Android phones, which should be able to provide a link to most anywhere on the planet to get weather alerts.

My point is that there's far more to the loss of life than just a lack of sirens. The buildings should not have been in an area known to flood, and there's plenty of options for people at the camp to have a connection to the outside world to receive weather warnings. I'm thinking at a minimum they had to have a landline phone or some kind of radio for the summer camp to receive warnings in time to get children at the camp to higher ground.

If this is a matter of insufficient funds to the local government then attracting businesses with some kind of loan, tax break, or subsidy would not only payback whatever funds were used to get the business in the area but also provide funds long term in the form of property taxes and more jobs in the area for income taxes to pay for infrastructure projects like weather sirens or whatever to better warn people of severe weather. I doubt any local or state government would provide these sweet deals in the form of government funds if they could not expect a return on that investment long term, doing otherwise is just bad accounting.

I realize that was a rather long post but I wanted to cover all the ways that the summer camps in Texas should have been able to get a warning on the incoming flood besides sirens with enough time to get to higher ground.

If you had something substantive to say by now you would have said it.

This doesn't make much sense. Logical qbits are the things quantum algorithms actually use. They are idealized abstractions on top of error rich physical quantum bits and error correction fanouts.

If a quantum computer has sufficient number of logical qbits to actually break existing crypto in a useful amount of time today it has already demonstrated the sort of scaling of logical qbits to rapidly close the gap tomorrow. The more logical qbits the faster shor's algorithm runs.

It was your statement. I'm asking you to explain what you were trying to say because I don't understand your point. Do you not even know what your own statement means?

Aren't these companies building large data centers paying for the increased infrastructure expenses? I've seen news of Microsoft funding the restart of a recently shut down nuclear power plant, the Crane Clean Energy Center. There's more reports like it, often investments in nuclear fission or nuclear fusion as they need power 24/7, not just when the sun shines or the wind blows.

I also recall something about a data center being built right next door to some large power plant to avoid the costs of long transmission lines, trying to cut out the utility middleman in the process as it would have been wires the data center paid for. This did not sit well with the local utility as they would want a cut of that revenue, so this became some kind of court case or something.

Even if there isn't some prior agreement in place the data centers will be funding new infrastructure and generating capacity with what they pay utilities for the electricity provided, and in the taxes paid to the state and local government. I would assume the local government that is issuing any building permits, and the utility that is running the wires, would know how much electricity would be consumed and so that would be part of the site selection, permits, and so on.

I recall that a new natural gas power plant can be built in 18 months. For the parts of the USA where the ground freezes this means they break ground as soon as the ground thaws in spring, they keep building through the winter by having some kind of structure before the snow falls, then when the spring comes again they can finish any work that needs done outside through the next summer, and by the next snowfall they are sending power to the grid.

If there's anything that could slow this down it is likely the lead time on getting distribution transformers. A quick search of the web tells me that the current lead time on those is about two years. That could still work for staying ahead on power demand from new data centers as there's going to be construction time for the data center, and again if I recall correctly that the build time on a natural gas power plant is 18 months, then it's a fairly trivial matter of timing the lead on these critical parts to when the permits are issued, ground is broken, and so forth so people aren't sitting with a half finished power plant and waiting for the parts to complete the work.

The natural gas power plants aren't the best option for greenhouse gas emissions but until we see the NRC get their act together on permits and inspections on new nuclear power plants that's likely the only option for affordable and reliable electricity. There's no reason we can't see nuclear power plants built in 18 months other than the NRC dragging their feet on permits and such. A natural gas power plant will last about 30 to 40 years, so by the time they need replacement I'd hope we'd have affordable, reliable, safe, quick to construct, low CO2 emitting nuclear power plants. Then we can expect any new nuclear power plants to remain operational for at least 80 years.

Oh, and with the development of thermal energy storage we can expect next generation nuclear power plants to be able to load follow just as well as any natural gas power plant. I'd expect someone to comment on the inability of nuclear power to load follow if I had not pointed that out.

Globalists - who are of course out of their GDed minds.

That is who let this happen. It all stems from the same anti-nationalist mentality that emerged after the second world war and was allowed to take over western academia.

The thinking goes if everyone depends on everyone else nobody will fight any more. Of course reality is not all dependence is created equal. Leaders like Xi understand depending on a consumer market is different then depending on supplier. Sure if they decided to start WWIII we'd quit buying, all those factors can focus on making weapons until the smoke clears, on the other hand no matter how much you want to use the defense production act, you are not getting any shells or aircraft produced in those Glodman Sachs office, McDonalds restaurants, or CVS pharmacies.

National security is a game to these people. Oh the US governemnt contract says everyone has to be a citizen with a clearance or directly supervised by one. Never mind why the rule exists or what it was supposed to accomplish, Microsoft upper management knows perfectly well in this case the latter practice can't be very effective, they just don't give a F*** they can win the bid, that is all they care about.