I'm thinking you are hallucinating. I don't follow how your reply relates to the comment being replied to.

What a clickbait headline. First of all it's not the skin of the pig that turns blue, it's muscle and fat you can only see after it has been butchered. And they know exactly what caused it - it's because the rodenticide is covered in a powdered blue dye specifically for this purpose.

Pigs have been eating it, and it seems they are actually attracted to the rodenticide in this better article. Hunters have seen them eating it, and have also seen the blue dye in muscle and fat.

Finally, agricultural producers ARE allowed to use the poison in CA, hence why it's being used. It sounds like a simple solution is putting the poison in containers only the rodents can fit inside of to eat it, keeping the wild pigs from ingesting it.

I don't think Anthropic pirated that content, but if they did they should face a fine. $150k x 7 million would be ridiculous though. This is a nuisance lawsuit IMHO.

It's what the Pacific Islanders did. As part of a colonizing effort, or a survival kit if unintentionally stranded somewhere, they traveled with about a dozen or so plant species that provided sustenance and medicinals. Getting these into cultivation on a new island was a priority after landing.

Europeans did something similar during their colonization. Select a site to build, turn a few pigs loose in the area. Hell, sometimes they'd drop a few pigs on a promising location with plans to come back in a few years.

The book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" suggests no. A Pacific Islander population splintered, a group went off to colonize another yet-to-be-discovered island. They were successful and lost contact with the homeland. A very small number of generations later, three?, the group left behind discovered the colonized island. The people living on the island were peaceful and promptly conquered and enslaved by their still warlike relatives only a few generations apart.

And we saw this with the Pacific Islanders too.

Historically, the Pacific Islander migrations suggest the latter. Go some place else.

You were attempting to argue false straw men rather than the incident that actually occurred. Not to mention trying to manufacture a negative perception of the officer involved with a guilt by association fallacy.

Again, guilt by association fallacy. Nothing to do with what originally occurred, just you attempt to imply such things.

If you wish to argue the officer had a poor demeanor, is probably an a-hole, no problem. But that does no change the reasonable belief at facial recognition time, the and again at face-to-face contact time, etc.

Also there is no "stitch up" unless the person is in fact the suspect they are looking for. The officer not leaving you until you produce identification is not a "stitch up". And again, as soon as identification was show the officer seems to have left. Again, you are theorizing misconduct that never occurred. Attempting to manufacture a negative perception of the officer simply doing a job. "Go check to see if the person is [insert suspect name and picture here].

That's a more reasonable interpretation of the words than yours. You didn't get the joke. It happens. Its one of various reasons such jokes are bad form for police when interacting with the public.

"held", that sounds like something ordered by a judge. So it's still something initiated by the criminal justice system, not the medical care system. We need the latter to participate too.

You misunderstood. I was not saying we have an implemented solution, I was saying we have a solution on paper. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough. If you read what I wrote you will notice I pointed out problems with the current background check, it's not universal, it's not including mental health.

OK, you flat out misread. I said universal and mental health is missing. .

A voluntary psychiatric visit is not the only path to noting behavior that is potentially a harm to others or oneself.

Nope. That's the sort of list people who don't recognize the second amendment suggest. One where permission for ownership is requested. Given the second, where permission is the default state, something suggesting a potential harm to others or self must be established.

Can anyone back this up by posting a link to the contract between the homeowner and those operating the VPP? Why would anyone sign up if it meant the utility can take all the energy they want from homeowners? Energy they might need as a safety measure because someone in the house is in need of an oxygen generator or something.

I'll see people try to compare electricity to water, something we can do without for hours to days, than like air, which is something we can do without for only seconds, perhaps minutes, before very dangerous and expensive things happen.

I've read some things on how load shedding contracts work and so I'd expect a VPP contract to have many similar features. One is that nobody is forced into a contract, that means those that would not want to feed energy to the grid aren't forced to do so. Then should the homeowner want out temporarily because the load shedding means no air conditioning for hours on a hot summer day will have an option to opt out temporarily. I don't know if there's any kind of "punishment" for taking the temporary option other than not getting paid for solar power they consumed than put on the grid.

Only Funny?

But I hate having to tell you that bash.org is gone.

Sure we do. Universal background checks for all transfers. Check that included criminal and mental health issues, the latter is currently lacking. As is the universal part. The system already exists, providing near real-time info to dealers (a YES/NO to proceed with transfer). Then have required safety training, as we do with hunting licenses. Again, the system exists, state approved instructors and curriculum exist, hunter safety training is mostly general firearms safety training. Drop the hunting bit and you have a general purpose class. These classes include safe handling and safe storage.

Now end the war on drugs, which drives most of the gun violence in the USA.

The "problem" would be pretty much solved.

Nope. Some have proper criminal and mental health background checks. Required safety instruction. Required safe storage. And they have a better social safety net to help with those undergoing a mental or other crisis. And functioning K-12 schools that actually educate kids. Oh, and no war on drugs. And the result, guns not a problem. Even the scary semiautomatic ones. One such country is in liberal Europe no less.

Assault rifles have been outlawed since the 1920s. You meant "assault weapon" which is a political term based on cosmetic features. The US Dept of Justice had said the assault weapon ban of the 1990s had no measurable impact. That perfect substitutes existed throughout the ban, weapons that nearly lacked the cosmetic features of the banned weapons. Otherwise identical with respect to semiautomatic nature, same ammunition, etc.

Some police departments have chosen military looking, so called assault weapons, for swat teams. And a perfect substitute that looked like grandpa's farm/ranch rifle for regular uniformed patrol officers. Why? These departments didn't want the military look for regular officers, but they did want the military look for SWAT. It was all about visual intimidation. Nothing else. Both officers, SWAT with AR-15 and patrol officer with ranch rifle, had the exact same firepower. "Assault Weapon" is about cosmetics, visual intimidation.

Not it doesn't. It means that children cannot have access. Again, safe storage. If a minor "has" a firearm somehow, it should be locked away under parental control only.

Those with a Tesla solar+storage system and a VPP contract will be getting paid for providing this service and for the energy they provide to the grid. That means "the people" will be footing the bill in some manner, they don't get a VPP for nothing.

One distinction between battery energy storage and the use of synchronous generation like hydro and nuclear is battery energy storage often lacks inertial response. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

I can expect someone to point out that battery energy storage has two forms if I don't bring it up first, those two forms are load following and load forming. The distinction being that load forming battery energy storage would provide inertial response while those that are load following kind of takes some of that away. Does anyone have any evidence that the residential grade Tesla systems are load forming? If not then I believe the systems are load following as that is simpler and cheaper.

While I expect someone to dispute this there's a pile of evidence that the lack of inertial response in the solar+storage heavy Portuguese electric grid was the cause of the recent large power outage on the Iberian Peninsula. Was that the only cause? Not likely. Can we prove the lack of inertial response contributed to the outage? There's always going to be some doubt but there's a lot of subject matter experts giving their educated opinion that if there was more synchronous power generation, such as hydro, nuclear fission, or load forming storage, that the outage could have been avoided.

I don't know how California and Portugal compare on how much load following solar and battery storage they have but I have a bad feeling that California is on the path to a repeat of what happened in Portugal.

I'm not expecting this virtual power plant, or any future added VPP capacity, to make power outages history in California. Maybe it helps reduce the size and frequency of outages, or maybe it makes it worse. I'd have doubts until there's more information on how this VPP is managed and what capabilities the Tesla battery energy storage have.

That is factually incorrect. Those are both situations where firearms can be taken away. As is a temporary mental crisis.

You seem to be conflating the difficulty in establishing a mental illness. Yes, HIPPA laws have an unintended consequence where reporting a person unfit to possess firearms can be difficult. That can be fixed. As criminal convictions are reported to the government for firearms background check purposes, so to could such a determination by a medical professional. Not a description of the illness, just that a person is considered mentally unfit. A person could challenge that before a judge if they wish to. Severe penalties, including loss of medical license, should exist for reports made in bad faith. The current gov't system, which only has the criminal conviction info (would that included mental commitments ordered by a judge?) is available to fun dealers and yields a near-real time YES/NO to the dealer with regard to whether the sale can proceed of they wish to. The system exists, it just needs a way for doctors to contribute.