That’s an assumption, jumping to a conclusion. It is true for some people, since some people say it out loud, but it is not true for everybody, and calling it “unambiguous” is an unsupportable claim.
To the degree some non-voters say they don’t care, that’s still deeply complicated, enough that even taking someone’s word for it is a bad idea. Non-voters in the U.S. are not uniformly distributed, and thus there is evidence suggesting that not caring is already a function of class, race, education, gender, and age, among other things.
If you actually care about voting and about the truth, it does yourself a disservice to jump to a assumed conclusion that all non-voters are saying something unambiguous, that they’re all saying the same thing, that they all have informed choice, that they understand all the tradeoffs and implications, and that they really are fine with any outcome regardless of what they say.
After hearing Palmer Luckey's argument for the name change[0], I tend to think it's good change.
Some of his arguments:
It used to be called the department of war, and it had a better track record with regard to foreign conflict, under that name then it did under the DoD name.
Department of war is a more honest name, department of defense is a somewhat newspeak term, although "Department of Peace" would be worse.
It's harder to seek funding for "war", then it is to seek funding for "defense".
If you ask someone, "Do you want to spend money on education or war?", you will get a different answer asking, "Do you want to spend money on education or defense?".
> It used to be called the department of war, and it had a better track record with regard to foreign conflict, under that name then it did under the DoD name.
The problem with this argument is that the _original_ Department of War is now called the Department of the Army, which existed alongside the Department of the Navy. Besides, it’s a moot point unless Congress actually changes the name.
Regarding Luckey's other statements, I can almost assure you that the administration did not think as much about it as Luckey has. Insecure Pete just thought the title "Secretary of Defense" was too wussy so he wanted to be Secretary of War.
Also, I think people mainly have issue with the fact that Trump is just randomly and unilaterally renaming random stuff and demolishing buildings without congressional approval. If he had gone through the correct alleys then maybe people could ignore it. Maybe. We'd probably still have qualms about it, but at least we'd know that our representatives had a say.
It’s a good change in that it discourages unwarranted funding. Bad for the DoD’s budget, good for the country.
It’s analogous to why `React.__SECRET_INTERNALS_DO_NOT_USE_OR_YOU_WILL_BE_FIRED` is a pretty good name.
(But even if it's a decent name in isolation, it isn't actually the name of the department, and using it is a tacit submission to the power of the executive over congress. So… bad overall.)
Good point. Yeah it's an accurate description of the department; I'd want to rename a bunch of other departments to be more accurate too, since apparently names are arbitrary now!
That may be true but changing the department's name can only be done with an act of congress, which has not been done yet. Thus, the name is still officially and legally Dept of Defense.
Just because a name is more accurate doesn't mean that it's its new name. Otherwise we wouldn't be the United States of America (we are literally not united bc Hawaii and Alaska are not contiguous, and we are figuratively not united because... Well, you know)
As a recap, my reply to your reply was that DoD is the actual newspeak, and your reply to that evolution of the discussion is that you were not discussing newspeak.
In trying to understand if I'm missing something, I looked up what newspeak means. I (as well as probably a few other commenters based on the contents of their comments) was under the assumption it meant "new speak" meaning it's something new.
In case anyone else reading this was not aware of this, this is what I discovered.
It's a term from George Orwell's 1984, describing a language used to make thoughts unthinkable by removing words from the language. It has nothing to do with "age of the term."
Hence, Dept of Defense is indeed newspeak. Dept of War, while being a new name for the dept, is too literal to be newspeak.
Thanks for the opportunity for me to learn something!
Department of Defense has historically been a prime example of newspeak.
I think Department of War is also newspeak. Or at least, they didn't change the name just to get the name in line with the amount of war the department does.
They changed it because they wanted to do more even more war. The amount of war the department does under the name "Defense" has been status quo for a long time, and my take is they wanted us to think of them differently so they could do even more war, which they have since been doing.
The person you're responding to probably hasn't read the book and is just parroting the word. That's kinda where we're at right now in society. I see the comments by malfist and abustamam are similar. No idea what newspeak means, just parroting and saying "that's not its name".
The problem will get worse as we have a generation raised by LLMs.
I went to a military high school up until 2011 and never remember hearing it. My dad and grandpa were military for 20 years each and I've never heard either say it. It definitely hasn't been used broadly in the US for very long (maybe in very specific circles). Even my friends who work as engineers for defense contractors now have never called people "war fighters" around me.
Idk, it might've been used on stuff in the past. My point was that it wasn't a thing that normal people (even normal people in the military) would say. The person I'm responding to described it as "common use" for the last couple decades and that just doesn't match up with my experience at all.
No, they didn't. The name of the department at issue is “the Department of Defense” and of its head the “Secretary of Defense” — these are set in statute (the latter for slightly longer time than the former) and the relevant statutes has not been changed, since the office of the Secretary of Defense was created in 1947 and the Department of Defense was created in 1949. The executive branch has just decided to use a nickname for a government department (which is the historical name for a prior department which was split to form two of what are now the three main direct subordinate elements within that department.)
Well, I’m in the US and have been following politics closely for the entire time window you mention, and this year marks the first time I’ve heard it. It is very jarring and a notable rhetorical shift from the concept of “service”.
Oh good, I've always had respect for soldiers, but never the govt. I'm glad to hear that soldiers are not buying into this name BS.
Edit: not sure if you're talking about the term warfighters or dept of war. Either way, warfighters just sounds silly, regardless of how long its been in use, and dept of war also sounds silly. It's like what my 5 year old nephew would call his fictitious military agency.
Warfighter - it’s basically “oh we got a badass over here.” People who take things and themselves too seriously and chest pound about their service too much.
It’s exactly the kind of language people like Hegseth love.
Jellyfin supports it, but the resulting quality is noticeably poor compared to Intel QuickSync or software transcoding. Perhaps the newer chips are better, but if you're building a media server from scratch you'd probably build around an Intel CPU or ARC GPU anyway.
The biggest recording artist in the world right now had to re-record her early albums because she didn't own the copyright, imagine how many artists don't get that big and never have that opportunity.
That individual artists are still defending this system is baffling to me.
> The biggest recording artist in the world right now had to re-record her early albums because she didn't own the copyright, imagine how many artists don't get that big and never have that opportunity.
Not only that, but Taylor Swift only could do so because she wrote the songs herself, and therefore had the composition copyright to her songs.
Most artists that were put together by the label don't have such a luxury.
At least to some extent, the anti-ai folks don't care about ai assisted programming because they see programmers as the "techbro" boogieman pushing ai into their lives, not fellow creatives who are also at a crossroads.
> Anything grid-connected, you REALLY want a licensed electrician to plan and install.
Have you heard of balcony solar?
It's a solar panel, a microinverter, and a standard wall plug. It doesn't need an electrician to install any more than anything else, you just plug it in. Outlets work both ways.
LibreSolar doesn't seem to be working on any inverters, but a complete open source system like this would be great.
If that wikipedia article is right, then balcony solar is not legal where I live (in the US). Here, we require a hard-wired, permanently installed automatic transfer switch that disconnects the solar generation from the grid when the mains power goes out. This is to protect line workers when working on downed lines.
It's probably coming soon for you, 30 states have bills announced or introduced legalizing plug-in solar and one (Utah) has already passed. They should be fairly uncontroversial.
Also, there's no need for a transfer switch in any grid-tied system, whether plug-in or hard-wired. Grid-tied inverters shut off automatically if there's no grid frequency to sync to.
"Transfer switch" refers to a specific kind of switch that transfers load between two sources. There is only one source (the panels) and one load (the grid) on a grid-tied inverter, so what you're saying does not make sense.
There are more complicated solar setups that do involve transfer switches, but they are not applicable to the balcony solar use case and remain uncommon even for hardwired rooftop solar.
In grid tied inverters with batteries the transfer switch can be built in to the inverter or it can be an external switch that the inverter talks to. Similar to how you would use one with a generator setup.
And indeed these are uncommon, mostly because they tend to be more serious devices. Victron and formerly Xantrex make nice ones, but the inverter alone probably costs more than a complete balcony solar installation.
For the solar balcony and more common rooftop solar setups there is only a simple disconnect, but both a transfer switch and a disconnect are the same thing: a (usually beefy) relay, but the transfer switch variety switches your house between the inverter and the grid whereas the disconnect just physically disconnects the inverters output. The downside of that setup is that if there is no grid but you do have solar that you still have no power.
Most of these wouldn't be able to power anything but the smallest installations anyway (300 W or so, typically), and don't have a battery to store any excess (as if there would be any...).
As soon as you add a battery it makes good sense to use the transfer switch: you can disconnect from the grid but the inverter can keep running to power your house and if you're lucky the solar will replenish it fast enough during the day that you can hold over for a while.
The big rooftop inverter that I have has a built in transfer switch but I'm not using it right now simply because I don't have a good way to route the wiring to and from the inverter. It is stuck in my garage with the main distribution panel on the other side of the house. In my old house in Canada that was all designed from scratch and there we had the house entirely off-grid with the transfer switch hooked to a genset if the power was out for longer than the battery could sustain us (48 KWh so that usually was good for a couple of days).
IIUC plug-in balcony solar is subtly different. It's basically aimed at grid-tie operation, connected by backfeeding through a standard 120V 15/20A branch circuit. On its own that's unsafe as you could have downstream loads drawing more than the 15/20A circuit ampacity, but I think the idea is still at the pinky-swear-it's-a-dedicated-receptacle-and-cross-your-fingers stage.
The units likely have "protected outlets" too that likely use an internal transfer relay to disconnect from the grid side, but at 15/20A it doesn't have to be terribly beefy.
Yes, they're an interesting little loophole device. They are likely not going to be legal in the long run because of the overload potential, even though in practice you'd have to work at that to make it happen. After all, these are typically no more than 300 to 500 W and angled in a very unfortunate way so likely not making full power. The wiring connecting them to the distribution panel is not going to sweat handling - again, potentially - that much more power over the 16A typical limit, that's just 2A more and you are more than likely not going to have that much consumption going on on that same circuit.
I have a similar situation here but at much higher power levels, a single underground cable from my garage to the house carrying 16A tri-phase and a whole raft of consumers in the garage itself. There too there is the potential for overload with both consumers and producers on the same cable. The solution there was to have a secondary distribution panel, breakers on both sides of the cables, for the consumers and for the inverter guaranteeing that none of the wiring in the panel or to the house or the consumers ever exceeds its rating.
This was by far the most cost effective solution, saved adding another ground cable and relieves the main distribution panel of a lot of current going in and out of the garage.
Just plug several units into a power strip ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Just curious - are you exporting power or zero export with a current monitor upstream of the main panel? Also same question regarding off-grid operation and a transfer switch ahead of the main panel.
I don't know what tri-phase breakers cost in NL but the second panel and feed-in breaker sound like the straightforward solution in the US too. Our wires cost considerably more, and we don't even have RCD in the breakers you'd use for that.
> Just plug several units into a power strip ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Hehe, ok. I think that's your insurance company calling on the other line.
> are you exporting power
Exporting 12 MWh / year or thereabouts.
> or zero export with a current monitor upstream of the main panel?
There is a current monitor (a Shelly tri-phase one), right now it is still economically viable to do so (though the utility companies are trying what they can to dissuade you by changing the deal through politics). If it is no longer then I will just install a battery and disconnect from the grid for the summer months.
And I'm not using a transfer switch because I don't have a battery to stabilize the system.
Well, technically those breakers are a manual transfer switch, only it is broken up into two halves and I can just disconnect the mains feed and run in island mode but I would still need to install a battery and a charger. House mains breaker off, solar on would be the house running entirely off the local stuff, I just don't trust that inverter without a battery behind it to be able to react quickly enough to load changes and by default it is set up to disconnect if the grid goes off, so you'd have to manually override that. The main issue with it being two halves is that you can not guarantee that the house net is in-sync with the grid at the moment you make the switch and that's a bad idea with a system this powerful, so I'd definitely get a proper automated one if I intended to do this for real, otherwise you might cause a load spike which could trip breakers and annoy the neighbors.
Right now I can't switch that on or off under load anyway because the large inverter would simply disconnect as well.
Tri phase breaker of the right amperage was about 150 bucks.
If I were to do this I would probably get a complete set from Victron, their stuff is amazingly well engineered, but if these open source people are going to make an inverter/charger combo then I might go for that and add a another manufacturers automated transfer switch.
An inverter is, complexity wise, not that much harder than a large switching power supply, there is some more instrumentation and some more rules but it isn't super difficult. It is much harder to make one that is commercially viable because those guys all cut corners to stay competitive. Ironically a proper case is probably the hardest part, there are also some larger inductors that might be tricky to source. And if you were to design one you should probably make the low voltage stuff (UI, CPU) on a completely separate board from the line voltage stuff and go for tri-phase right away because it is so much cleaner. Bonus points for modularity of the output stage.
Perhaps I'm in the wrong thread but there is no part of me that wants to DIY my own power electronics design. I've designed a few bucks and boosts professionally and chasing down those failure modes was a headache. Victron = solid hardware, openly-documented protocols, no cloud? Fahgettaboudit.
(then again maybe someday I'll hit some wall with off the shelf MPPTs and find myself wanting to go down that rabbit hole lolol. but honestly AC coupling seems cleaner in terms of things like fault protection on longer runs - fault on a stiff mains circuit -> breaker will trip. Fault on a circuit where the current/power is intrinsically limited to what the solar panels can supply -> ???)
I asked about the transfer switch / monitoring because I've looked at the same problem here, first with a generator now with solar. Incoming power service is on the complete opposite side of the house from where I really want the power handling gear. The manual two breaker thing is practical (for a generator at least), but not code compliant here (no positive lockout).
I would think Victron would have an option for a remote transfer (/disconnect) switch, but I haven't really looked into it yet. It would still have to get the grid phase timing somehow to line them up before connecting, so something more than merely a dumb contactor.
> Incoming power service is on the complete opposite side of the house from where I really want the power handling gear.
Same in my house.
> It would still have to get the grid phase timing somehow to line them up before connecting, so something more than merely a dumb contactor.
Then you'll want a synchronous one. They match phase before making the switch, which is one reason why it's nice if you use one tied to your inverter, which already has the capability to steer its phase to match the grid.
Are synchronous transfer switches a common thing, especially for residential / light commercial? The only references I could find are for data centers and the like with massive diesel generators. There's also the question of how an independent transfer switch would steer the phase, but nudging a Victron inverter like one phase-nudges a conventional generator would probably work.
But really an independent transfer switch wouldn't actually fully solve the problem - power at the main incoming service panel would still have to blip off-on for the downstream Victron to see the grid loss, disconnect from grid with the external transfer switch, disable anti-islanding, and then re-close the relay to backfeed up its own AC-IN. And even that would be a bit dodgy relative to proper certification for anti-islanding.
What one really needs for this topology is to move both the contactor and the current sense normally in the Victron, to the location of the incoming service panel. Which is why I was wondering aloud if they had a solution to do this, and coordinate with the inverter to maintain export rules, phase matching, etc.
I'm guessing the common answer is just run two sets of wires, as with generators.
A disconnect and a transfer switch are not a same thing, "transfer switch" refers to a specific type of switch in a specific role as I have described. Conflating the two is incorrect and benefits nobody.
> the transfer switch variety switches your house between the inverter and the grid whereas the disconnect just physically disconnects the inverters output
> That simply is a transfer switch that is built in.
Then in this comment:
> but both a transfer switch and a disconnect are the same thing
These statements are false, and the fact that the second one was written even after being corrected once makes me think they still do not understand.
This user appears to blast paragraphs upon paragraphs of irrelevant noise at anyone who responds to them so that either the comment has internal conflicts (as you noticed) or any criticism seems nitpicky.
We require transfer switches, but they do not have to be automatic transfer switches.
In the United States, you are one small piece of sheet metal[1] away from any number of interesting power set ups on your side of the utility.
This means a combination of two circuit breakers is now your transfer switch. This is legal with all utilities and NEC compliant, etc.
If you are willing to sacrifice perfectly uninterrupted power, you can dramatically simplify your grid tie - and open up many other possibilities on your side of the physical interlock.
Exactly. The main application of a transfer switch is that it is not going to cause your genset to backfeed into the grid. But for many solar installations that's exactly what you want anyway, so the disconnect logic for an islanding capable inverter is very much the same as for one that is exclusively grid connected, the big difference is that the islanding one will happily generate it's own phase clock if the grid is not present, but for that to work it has to keep its own system running and connected to the house distribution panel while the grid connection is down.
This is much easier to do if it is all integrated into the inverter itself, but that makes for an awkward bunch of wiring, because the inverters are typically not situated right next to the entry point for the grid connection. I'd have to rewire my distribution hookup completely for that kind of functionality, or to have a remote controlled disconnect while the inverter keeps feeding the distribution panel.
A transfer switch is much more applicable to emergency power or ship/shore power situations where you only use one power source at the time. For solar it is normally all on or all off or solar+battery(+wind) on all the time and backfeeding into the grid when it is available and grid power when solar+wind+battery are not available.
This can get complex in a hurry, fortunately there are a number of companies that make excellent components for these applications that you can just order and hook up and call it a day, without ever having to worry if your fancy setup has the right break-before-make order and whether or not it is code compliant. And they're not expensive compared to the rest of the gear you'll need.
99.9% of all inverters currently being sold has this functionality built in. That 0.1% remaining you will find in the second hand market and the bargain bin of Amazon.
Musk is leading the build of the biggest objects we have ever sent to space. It does give him some sort of aura that is hard to dismantle, let's be honest.
He can do and say a lot of shit because he will still be viewed as real-life Iron Man, because in some ways he kind of is.
Elon Musk would put Apple's money sloshing about over the years to better uses than failing to build one battery electric vehicle costing $1 billion a year over many years.
He doesn't have a RDF but has Kardashev Scale Intent (KSI).
The lobbyists in the political fray are out to steal his value for money lunch despite his demonstrated effectiveness, over and over again.
Jobs couldn't even engage the politicians to give away or at discount the Apple ][ to education.
Somehow Tim Cook's many year's position that the lightening port was very important to Apple vs USB-C, fell flat as a parsec wide pancake.
(It didn't help that they couldn't point to a single user facing feature.)
Or that the App Store lock in is for our safety. When anyone who wanted that particular safety, could choose to continue using there store exclusively.
Etc.
He just does not have it. No field. No spiraling eyes. Perhaps he should grow a beard and wave around a tobacco pipe. Works for some.
If a newspaper publishes a false story about a business and someone takes it upon themselves to attack the business, it's partially the newspaper's fault.
If a newspaper publishes a story about a business and someone takes it upon themselves to attack the business, the attacker is at fault, regardless of the veracity of the newspapers claims.
I am in Canada, but I think it is the same in the US? A newspaper can be responsible here. For example, if they say "people should riot" and a riot happens, the newspaper could be responsible for all actions that resulted the same as if they were the ones doing the crime.
Same with if they become aware of defamation and fail to retract and make a statement. But newspapers will generally also thoroughly investigate themselves to make sure what they are publishing is true.
It is not the same in the U.S. (And, to be honest, I'm quite doubtful this is true in Canada, though I could be persuaded through legal citations that it is.)
"Under the Criminal Code of Canada (Section 21), you can be charged as a "party" to an offence if you were involved in planning, "encouraging", or aiding in its commission" Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
"21(1) Parties to Offence: Anyone who actually commits the offense, aids in committing it, or abets (encourages) someone in committing it is a party to the offense."
I work in a law firm but NAL. I could probably find some cases if I had time. Most of the responses from people saying defamation is not very successful and "good luck" in the us because of 1A seem strange to me also.
Whom are you quoting here? Looks a lot like LLM slop.
I’m not sure you got the law right. “Abetting” does not mean encouragement. And the code itself does not have “(encourages)” in parentheses in it. The text of the code is right here: https://www.statutes.ca/r-s-c-1985-c-c-46/21
Since you work in a law firm, maybe you should ask your colleagues.
1
: to actively second and encourage (something, such as an activity or plan)
abet the commission of a crime
2
: to assist or support (someone) in the achievement of a purpose
The singer was abetted by a skillful accompanist.
especially : to assist, encourage, instigate, or support with criminal intent in attempting or carrying out a crime —often used in the phrase aid and abet
accused of aiding and abetting a criminal
Who Is Considered a Party to an Offence?
Under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code, you may be considered a party to an offence if you:
Section 21(1)(a) Committed the crime yourself (the principal);
Section 21(1)(b) Assisted someone else in committing it (aided);
Section 21(1)(c) Encouraged or promoted its commission (abetted).
> I added the quotes, it clearly was not taken directly word for word and it was written in plain English for clarity.
You mean you had an LLM write it. This is the second time you’ve done that in this conversation. Please stop. It’s giving you incorrect or misleading information. Bona fide lawyers are finding themselves subject to disciplinary action for relying on LLMs, which have been found to falsify law and cases: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-appeals-court-or...
Please, I beg you, go talk to
your colleagues instead of armchair lawyering here. The law does not always adhere to dictionary definitions. It has been interpreted over the centuries and courts follow those interpretations. Besides, “Encourages” is a different word than “abets,” and merely offering support in the verbal or spiritual sense is very unlikely to lead to prosecution and conviction. If you can find a single case in Canada where this has happened, show us the proof.
I’m not “trolling,” I am a lawyer myself with 3 years of formal training, a Bar license, and decades of continuing education.
If you give me the number of your law firm, I will gladly call them myself.
reply