You shouldn't just shut up after identifying yourself either, you should explicitly state that you are exercising your 5th amendment rights and then shut up. Talking afterwards can be taken as rescinding your 5th amendment assertion.
Famously, a judge once ruled that saying "Yo, I want a lawyer, dawg" was actually not a 5th amendment assertion, and that the suspect was genuinely requesting a dog who practices law.
The proverbial lawyer dog, just be sure not to ask for him.
Oh come on now, you criticise me, but you're the one who thinks bloody murder is justified. You really are reprehensible.
Yeah, America would need to stop supporting it and its ongoing genocide for that to happen
Yes America is everything that matters in this situation. Grow the fuck up and step out of your basement.
a us judge ruled that Twitter owns the tweets
Link? If it wasn't the US Supreme Court, then the ruling is significantly limited. And even if it was, that only applies to the US. Beyond that, we'd be getting into the nitty gritty of copyright law in specific jurisdictions - so far we've been talking about overall principles of copyright and intellectual property.
Twitter's current terms seem very clear on the matter:
You retain ownership and rights to any of your Content you post or share, and you provide us with a broad, royalty-free license to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.
You own the content, Twitter has a licence. They also provide no definition for "Content", so it can easily be argued that the username is content, as it is provided by the user.
Twitter can update their policy as much as they like, but it would ultimately be decided in the courts. Until then nothing is certain, but David doesn't always lose to Goliath, and courts don't like it when a big player is clearly taking advantage of the little guy. $50,000 value would definitely be considered.
More likely though there probably will be no legal battle. Twitter is circling the drain, by the time anything is heard in court they'll be gone. However that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do things like this with no objections.
Hey, you did the visual thing first, mine was a late edit!
Anyone murdering civilians is sickening.
Imagine if Hamas had only targeted military installations in their attack, allowing almost everyone at the festival to flee and not raiding villages. Their incursion was incredibly effective - they could still have used drones to take out cell phone towers and prove that Netanyahu's early warning system was deeply flawed, and sniped the skeleton crew in the guard towers, then they could have focused their efforts on infrastructure damage to the military base or other legitimate targets. Hell, they probably even could have still taken a few hostages to use for actual negotiations - and in this scenario negotiations would be far more realistic to happen.
Exercising restraint would have presented a far better underdog for the world to get behind. It would have clearly shown that Israel's defence was weak. Instead, they allowed themselves to be riled up by their financial backers and went on a killing spree, putting the focus squarely on them, not Israel. Most people don't even know how they did it, just what they did when they got in, because what they did was so shocking. This played right into the hands of people who just wanted an excuse to expend some ordnance and kill them all.
There is a simple solution, but it would either require Israel to stop being an ethnostate or stop existing
It's simple to say that, but the practical application of doing that is anything but simple.
Grid forming typically refers to inverters connected to a large electricity network. What you're talking about is islanding, ie running a system separate to the grid when it would normally be grid following. The principles are similar, in that both involve using internal voltage measurements to control the generation output (rather than externally chasing the grid voltage), but the practical nature is different - grid forming systems have to deal with large fluctuations from the network, well beyond what you would see in a domestic system. The terminologies overlap a lot, but grid forming specifically refers to large scale systems and more complicated networks.
There is an active genocide happening, and I wish Israel would stop.
That doesn't mean I agree with the coordinated strike by Hamas on 7 October. Frankly, I don't think any reasonable person could see that as achieving any useful objective for the safety of Palestinian people. It was highly effective at killing Israelis, but the net result could only have been more suffering for Palestine.
There's definitely no easy solution - if there was the problem would have been solved by now. All anyone can say is that what's happening now is wrong. Meanwhile, there are many people profiting from the situation. Warmongers gotta monger some war.
My view is that Netanyahu wants to benefit from war, and that Hamas have been encouraged by people who want the same. 50 years isn't all that long ago to most people, but hardly anyone in Palestine is old enough to remember the last Yom Kippur war.
I didn't "both side" the genocide - that would be saying that both sides are justified in committing genocide. I'm saying anyone who commits genocide is wrong. Meanwhile, there are a bunch of people caught up in the middle of it all. You would apparently dehumanise one portion of these people, because you value the other portion more. That is reprehensible.
In any case, we're not talking about my justification, we're talking about hexbear moderators' justification - of which there apparently is none. Thus, my point stands: hexbear is a dumpster fire; and that implies that hexbear devotees are trashy.
Lol you caught me out, I skimmed over most of the article. I've also realised later down the thread that one of my main sources actually includes hydrogen for heating as a viable use case.
I still stand by my claim that most hydrogen consumption proposals are snake oil, which would be better served by using electricity directly (particularly in transport), but perhaps this could be good.
A lot of those “agnostic” sources are secretly working for the BEV companies.
The kind of agnostic sources I was referring to are like the one I provided - system operators, who don't really care what provides the generation or what uses it, but instead try to optimise the network.
Yes, there is misinformation out there. Just like your claim that FCEV's are more efficient - they're more efficient at the end stage of converting a fuel into motion, but the overall process including hydrogen production and getting the fuel cell ready to use is far, far less efficient. It's more efficient to pull oil out the ground, process it and then run a car on it than it is to run an FCEV. Spinning up renewable generation to charge a battery requires more energy than using current oil infrastructure, but is definitely more efficient than FCEV, even when accounting for the production and lifecycle of a current battery. Oil only wins on efficiency right now because the infrastructure is already there, and because the fuel was made over millions of years prior.
Yes, it would be cheaper to adapt current gas stations to hydrogen. My point was referring to the time before gas stations were built - back then, it would have been cheaper to stick with horses than to move to widespread adoption of the new technology. Models for adapting current gas stations to hydrogen also typically ignore the cost of green hydrogen, and instead assume it will continue to be as cheap as it is now while it is produced by fossil fuel processes.
Hydrogen is cheap right now because it is a byproduct of dirty fuel production. If we stop using dirty fuel, we will stop having cheap hydrogen, and then all the people who invested in hydrogen because it was cheap will be left holding the bag. This is why I referred to it as "snake oil" in my initial comment.
I realised you were on kbin, hence my edits :o) I did also contradict myself, but clarified my objection to hydrogen consumption. The edits probably didn't make it through to kbin that quickly, but they seem to be there now.
Excess green energy will likely flood the system. We will have an overabundance of all types of green energy, including hydrogen, in the long-run.
That's wild speculation, there. We need to focus on the big problem right now, not the long-run. Right now, we need to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible - trying to ease the transition with similar technologies (particularly ones focused on a byproduct of and reliant on current technology) will only slow things down by furthering demand for the existing infrastructure.
Thank you for the link, however pv-mag is a source I am very skeptical of. They're very focused on the growth of their industry, and generally give a marketeer's approach to things rather than an objective technical view. Hell, the first source link in that article is supposed to be about the Jülich Institute for Energy and Climate Research, but instead links to another one of their own articles that has little if anything to due with the institute or the topic of your article. pv-mag spew a lot of hyperbole, in my experience.
The source paper isn't so bad, though, and has been widely cited. I remain skeptical about the commercial viability of it (in particular, they seem to give no consideration to the risk of explosion when filling a cavern with hydrogen), but it still sounds like a cool technology.
Not only that, but it likely significantly stimulates the local economy. People with no money buy nothing, meanwhile people with an excess of money don't buy much extra.