yggstyle

Thank you for reminding me to update my filters to include Elon. I keep meaning to and finally have.

Alright so expand on this:

nah, they were not empowered to put their hate in practice so much not so long ago, precisely because they couldnt be out in the fucking open without major backlash.

We're half way there. Why couldn't they do what they were doing before?

Edit: If you're going to drop an ambiguous nuh uh, because "reasons" ...and then be unable to expand on that after 5/6 hours - perhaps be clearer in your argument. At present it looks a lot like you're attempting to muddy a discussion with unverifiable nonsense.

Hateful people will find each other regardless of my or anyone else's views on free speech. Very ominous statement though.

With that said:

Forcing the discussion into the open is not where any hate group wants to be. It forces them to find proof and facts where there are none. It makes them look bad.

Very well put.

Hate speech is a favorite topic of people looking to derail a topic or trip someone up. It is a complex issue that is difficult if not impossible to prevent. Someone who wants to express hate will undoubtedly find a way to do so. That is why, in my opinion, the reaction to it matters so much. Discussion allows for a community to rally and support when needed - and teach or correct if the opportunity is presented.

@[email protected] correctly identifies this. Any ideals can be interpreted in bad faith to infer something that was not intended. If I said I prefer tea - someone would be more than happy to infer that I hate coffee.

My statement was a profession of what I believe to be correct. It is a brief summary of what I was taught and what I determined to be correct based on my experiences... and I stand by them. Admittedly I did bait a hook for a particular kind of person and am not displeased with the result. It appears to have yielded several great examples of what I was talking about.

Addressing your post despite the rather "loaded" opening which I imagine you know shouldn't warrant a response:

Hate speech doesn't exist until it is uttered. The damage is immediately done. It isn't - then it is. How do you propose stopping that? I'm genuinely curious. You appear to be holding my beliefs accountable for not employing precrime or espers... which admittedly, I don't factor in. They do, however, propose the solution: support the victim and admonish the person who was out of line. There are demonstrations of this, in action, in this thread.

People are social creatures: standing with someone is more powerful than simply removing an undesirable statement after the fact. It removes the isolation from the victim and provides support. It says: we, this group, will not stand for your actions. It isolates the perpetrator and makes them, consciously or not, aware that something is wrong. As I stated before: this may not change everyone but the net result is positive.

I'm happy to continue this discussion but it only seems fair that you expand on how you / your views would solve hate speech as it seems to be something you are passionate about... right?

First and foremost - Yes: Thank you. I noticed your comment initially when skimming before my big response... and thought "this person gets it."

I have nothing meaningful to add to what you said: you understood the importance of discussion - you had opinions and expressed them. You spoke up against something you perceived as incorrect.

Cheers. While it's self serving for me to say it: responses like yours give me hope.

It would appear we have a lot to unpack in the replies - but your post checks most of the boxes so here we go:

A-are you actually comparing Elvis conspiracies with racial supremacy? Sounds like your logic doesn’t go further than “freedom of speech = good”

First and foremost the stammer was a nice touch. It really gives that extra oomph to the feigned offense. I chuckled.

When I composed that list I was very specific about which items were being added to it. Are you familiar with a dog whistle? It does have several "topical" meanings but in this case lets use the one talking about "frequency of sound." Now most people cannot hear a dog whistle - but are able to discern that dogs do hear it when they start flicking their ears about and behaving oddly in the presence of it. A post is text so I cannot use sound... however (and I love this example for... reasons):

If I showed 3 dots that were green, red, red to a group who were colorblind - all they would see three similar dots. However someone who saw color would be confused as to why a dot was standing out and might react to it. This is, in effect, the dog whistle behavior I spoke about.

On to my point: for most people I listed three obviously ridiculous concepts that are meritless / easily disproven. For these people they might acknowledge my jab as amusing - but overall would not see anything but 3 of the same example. It wouldn't warrant a specific response... However - to someone who was looking to troll, disrupt, or perhaps even finds one of those topics to "not belong" in the silly notion category... they would jump all over it. Fight me Elvis fans. I'm ready.

Side note: What is so fantastic about this - is it got multiple hits and other people immediately identified the response to those hits. Its a demonstration of both the whistle and people seeing the result of the "unheard" whistle.

I have read your post completely and its pretty textbook; which I am certain you are aware of. I will do my best to cover your best shots though.

You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views... (moderation.)

It is important that people see both the views and the response to those views. If they are allowed to speak and are admonished, publicly - they are defeated and have no recourse. If they are silenced - they are allowed a "martyrs death" through repression. This is a tool used by many groups (not just hate groups) to deepen the rift between "us and them." It reinforces loyalty - because out there "they" don't understand you. This is the additional benefit of airing the dirty laundry - so to speak: when people talk things out they may find something they both agree on.. and learning can happen. In the case of say our much reviled "Elvis fans" they may realize that even if the king faked his death ... he probably did die of old age... So seeing him now is obviously silly. Yes that goes both ways - but the result is far more favorable to the party with their head screwed on right.

You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers.

It does. I spoke to this above - but to expand using another example: using capital punishment during the witch trials made a very binary situation. You are or aren't a witch or witch supporter. And while there were no definite ways to test for a witch... ...people were incentivized to report friends and family out of fear that they might be associated with them. This is why absolute moderation is a bad thing. Many mods will simply delete a post leaving some to wonder wtf even happened. Banning someone while posting a response is better - but the best way yet for reasons I outlined above - is to give them an opportunity to respond to the charges before a decision is made. This shows that discussion can occur and allows outsiders to grasp both sides and form their opinions on the matter.

How does that pertain to echo chambers? Simple. We are social creatures - we learn largely through negative reinforcement (that awkward moment in highschool with free rent in your mind was actually a survival mechanism at one point.) This is apparent in nearly every online community in some form or another but anywhere there are "point based systems" the results are self evident. Downvotes both discourage posts against the grain and because they are visible to all - are a stark reminder to not fall out of line. If you cannot beat them - join them. Its simple human behavior. Now what is the end result of beating down other schools of thought and the championing of bandwagoning? Self evident.

...you’re actually trivializing historical persecution

You've already played the righteous indignation / offense card already. I'll answer you earnestly though: My statements, as a whole, were put together in a way that clearly says - "these are my viewpoints, and I welcome discussion on it." I believe the statement you cherry picked for outrage here was followed by "It is important to debate and not silence people." People can be surprisingly rational when presented with facts and left to form their own opinions? How do you think history would have been different had it been acceptable to have a difference of opinion and matters of science were discussed openly rather than obliterated by those in power at the time? I imagine we'd be better off than we are now, personally. That is my perspective and you are absolutely welcome to disagree with me on it.

we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down

I will quote @[email protected] because it is simple and to the point: You can fight for the legal right to be stupid and anti-social and still call someone out for being stupid and anti-social.

It sums it up nicely. If bob feels comfortable platforming his desire to burn down alice's home ... I imagine that would provide multiple people an opportunity to ... stop him. Wild concept - I'm aware.

it takes 0 effort to say “yggstyle hates people of color and that’s why they argue for people to have the freedom to say anything”

And yet I didn't get to lemmy today until not to long ago because of life stuff and wouldn't you know it: "But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong." I think those users covered it better than I could: simply by acting like rational people - and the result, in my opinion, is better than if I snubbed you myself.

I hope you can see why this rhetoric is bullshit and why people should not support anybody’s “freedom of speech” to debate people’s rights to exist.

And I hope that our exchange has taught you something.

My views are largely shaped by a psych professor whom I respect quite a bit: in his spare time he would find public rallies by hate groups and go to debate them. I was fortunate enough to be brought along a couple times... and I have to say some of the most satisfying things I have ever witnessed is watching hate groups get the platform they wanted and hang themselves with the rope he provided during the exchanges. He instilled in me the value of both hearing what your opponent says and presenting your views. In the end - you may agree to disagree... but frequently saner heads prevail.

Answering your post has been a blast - I welcome continuing it, should you be inclined... but hopefully I have cleared up any misconceptions you had.

edit: fixed a formatting faux pas

I'm going to preface this response with: I will be consolidating / paraphrasing your responses I quote - I do not intend to misrepresent anything you said - it will simply be to manage post length. I have read your post in its entirety and am responding as such.

Yes, that is one of the ludicrous arguments that I acknowledged OP is making.

Consider that OPs statement used a LOT of the same language and recommendations but was horribly off base. I was re-asserting the fault in his views to remind you that he was - without question - completely wrong. This doesn't mean that you are. It does mean that you shouldn't give him a pass because he expressed interest in a solution you support. If anything this is a teaching moment where you confirm that he, is in fact wrong, but this is how x works.

With regard to storage...

I'm glad we see eye to eye on its presence in a working solution. Please understand that this has largely been the contentious point throughout the thread so this is where I focused when you asserted that OP wasn't wrong in (even a particular) capacity. It needs to be clear so information isn't misrepresented.

With regard to Demand shaping ...

This is my view coupled with some basic knowledge of how things work - with a healthy dose of extrapolation: that is to say this response is opinion and not an area of expertise for me... but is where things logically ended up with this particular subject.

I understand the focus you are taking with demand shaping - but from my perspective I do not think the net result will be as great as you believe it to be... but for tangentially related reasons. Before I get into the meat of that - yes, I wholeheartedly agree that optimizations in any form are a good thing. Many gains in the field of energy generation and storage are measured in small steps so ~2-5% still matters.

With that said:

Generally speaking price/kWh is determined by usage overall at that time... Now factor in that these industrial factories you are moving are contributing to the current price (at their current time slot) - which is lower than where you want to move them.

A couple things to consider:

• Assuming their usage is significant enough to move the needle: (at scale) most factories would then have their workers on a standard workday as well. Remember that 2nd/3rd shift workers are probably sleeping through at least 1 of the "peak usage" periods which in its own way is also offsetting demand. This in all probability would be a dampening effect on the shift that would be expected from the primary "move."

• Assuming no major effect from the workers changing schedule (which based on my understanding would not be the case) - and indeed a sizable move from the factories proper... you'd still need the factories to be willing to take on the increased energy costs associated with moving into the more expensive energy window. While this is the "ideal" you are looking for: This feels... unlikely. (see utopia comment)

With regard to peaks and troughs:

I believe we both agree that storage is a necessary component of most solar / wind installations. Presently (to my knowledge) most battery systems are used primarily as a "smoothing" buffer for incoming energy as neither sun nor wind are constant resulting in variable returns. Secondarily, they function as a substitute during extended periods on non-generation (nighttime.) Now these battery systems are going to exist regardless what usage is occurring when - they exist to make the solar/wind systems reliable and efficient.

Lets factor in our constants:

• Energy generation: The sunlight isn't changing nor is the solar installation's size. Daytime generation + nighttime generation should not change functionally at all here as (to my knowledge.)

• Daily energy: this should not change - the factories continue to use "roughly" the same energy as before.

Functionally this solution isn't changing how much energy is in the system, nor is it changing energy consumed. It may be changing how much the batteries are cycling... which, sure, would be an environmental impact... but not production. To resurrect my rain example: we haven't changed the barrel size, the rain amount, or the plants that require said water. We're just changing when we water them.

Dude. We are already doing exactly that.

(This is loosely referenced knowledge - but it passes the sniff test:)

Making the change you and OP are referring to works in a bubble but not in the way you are envisioning it. Presently at least. A grid, as you observed, is a series of power stations working together to provide the sum of energy required. The grid, as I asserted earlier, is very exacting in its requirements to function (pressure system example.) It stands to reason that the intermittent producer be locked to a rate they can "safely" achieve based on averages and their storage capacities. They will not be the first pick nor the lions share of "reactive energy" provided. We can't produce more "sunlight" without robbing Peter to pay Paul - a battery dump during the day to assist with reactive energy results in less energy to provide at night. This system is optimized and sized for a set "average" generation during the day with an expected offload at night. (rain example again)

So who picks up the slack for the move to prime hours? You provided that answer:

But ultimately, the solar, nuclear/coal, storage, and steel plants are all on the same grid.

So yes, the shaping could move demand into the peak hours - and then would re-apply stress to the exact producers that the mills were moved originally to relieve. This feels like a non-starter to me: Task failed successfully ...at least in our current conditions - which leads us to:

Again: Storage is important, yes. But, demand shifting is far more important.

Absolutely using solar to offset steel mill energy consumption is an outstanding concept - but it requires build outs, regulation changes, and a lot of different parties to agree to make that change. I may have been hyperbolic in my utopia / teleporter examples but the point is: those changes are neither quick nor easy and may as well be the stuff of science fiction for now. I agree its important to phase out legacy producers like coal / oil - I firmly believe nuclear is here to stay until it is replaced by the next "big" producer. Will renewables eventually be our primary source of power? We see examples of it working - so sure. Its possible. But renewables will continue to be a package deal with storage. The technology may change but the storage requirement will remain constant. (This part is, again, aimed at op- not you.)

Final thoughts: I spent far longer on this than I anticipated - but I think your post warranted it. You provided facts to the best of your knowledge and clearly were compelled to state the case for something you believe in. Ultimately - I wouldn't say we disagree: I think we are both looking at different time horizons. Currently, in the here and now, your solution isn't readily available nor easily achieved. That said- it is clear that at least some people are seeking what you presented as an eventuality. ~10 years from now it may well be reality. I still believe that you shouldn't have defended OP's position as you did. A partial affirmation likely will be received as "Oh, see! I was right- mostly..." and they will carry on; learning nothing.

This is just factually ridiculous.

Filling a reservoir during the day to run a steel mill overnight is a complete waste of a reservoir: move the steel mill to daytime hours and you don't need the reservoir.

This isn't a logical comparison. Here's an apples to apples: It's the rainy season - my plants have water ... I take excess water and keep it in a rain barrel. An unexpected dry spell occurs: My plants have water.

We'll return to this in a moment.

And yet, we are doing this now: We are driving consumption to overnight hours that can't possibly be met by solar.

Being night I'd imagine that's a tough fight for solar... I'll give you that. 🙄

...But, those same incentives are killing solar/wind efficiency and artificially increasing the need for storage.

No.

Storage - or a buffer if you will - is simply a requirement of many systems. Electricity is no different. Renewables benefit substantially by having it and would be horribly inefficient without it.

...Shifting demand to time of production (demand shaping) is much more efficient than shifting production to time of demand (storage).

Demand shaping when we're taking about the grid is largely the result of seasons, the availability of light, and our day to day actions. We turn lights on at night, the heat on when we are cold, and the air on when we are hot. We cook meals before and after work. Demand shaping on the scale that is being suggested requires a positively insane amount of change and has an infinitesimally small chance of occuring.

Now: we have solar during the day and turbines for when it's windy. This is your production. You cannot shift it. It is raining - my plants are getting water. How then, do you water your plants when it is dry? This answers itself.

OP's position is rather ludicrous for a number of reasons, but they are not wrong on this particular point.

Op believes that energy storage shouldn't be necessary. At all. They have clearly stated elsewhere that their opinion is not based on research and it shows. A grid requires a buffer - or a series of fast acting production which effectively simulates one. Solar / wind without that buffer would be nearly unusuable.

Op is misguided at best and while technically not completely wrong: for them to be right we'd need to live in some utopia with vastly different technologies that we have presently. I like sci-fi too... but I'm not going to lobby congress to get rid of planes in favor of teleporters.

Within reason.

The line is very clear: You have those rights ... so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others.

If someone wants to say there is a master race, the earth is the center of the universe, Elvis is still alive, etc... Sure: they're free to say it. But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong. Like it or not we are better for it having the discussion. Recall that at some point people were put to death for expressing beliefs that opposed the norm in science and religion. It is important to debate and not silence people - repression breeds hate and promotes an us vs them mentality. It results in echo chambers.

Are there people that simply cannot be reasoned with? Yes. But it's important to engage with them and be a dissenting voice. It's important to demonstrate clearly that someone opposes their viewpoint. Important to the unreasonable person? Probably not. Important to those who are listening? Yes. If you do not engage- all those who are listening hear is the viewpoint of the ignorant and the apparent silence of the indifferent.

Moderates fuck this up frequently... and I'm saying this as someone who, in many cases, considers myself a moderate.

Edit:

It's been a busy day but I finally have time to sit and read through the rest of the comments in this thread. What an interesting result.... genuinely. Lots of people expressing their own beliefs and their interpretation of things I said. Not everything lined up and not everyone agreed... but this right here is what we need more of. Good stuff 🍻

Thank you boys. Thank you.

OP is... trying his best, I guess.

I commend your faith in ... ehm.. the human spirit we'll say.

PS Gravity, except pumped water, is hilariously bad.

Keenly aware. I got a good laugh out of it when I saw it mentioned.

Practical Engineering is great. He does a fantastic job of explaining things simply and frequently provides models to demonstrate things.

100% on the combination of things statement. Many different storage mediums have different advantages and disadvantages. The right tool for the right job. Flawed though it is I always loved reading about molten salt... It just seemed like such a metal way to store energy. 😂

Realistically - I don't mind people being incorrect or even just leaning into their particular beliefs or preferences... but OP emphatically stating incorrect information and then arguing as people corrected him was irritating.

Read that and was like... fuck me why am I debating the guy when I coulda just asked that. Cheers.