To me (where English is a second language), Allowlist and denylist seem unclearer. Is it a block list, a exclude list, or a permission list? Allow/deny would lead me to the last one, as in authenticate users who has some permissions but not others.
Blacklist and whitelist would be closer to include/exclude, so the replacement would be a includelist and excludelist, or include/exclude as shorthand.
I feel like a permission list is kind of a superset of a block list and an exclude list. Or they're all different perspectives/solutions to the same kind of problem, that a permission list is the more generalizable solution for.
Or it's a way of framing the problem that doesn't embed the "exclusion" idea in the naming.
And it kinda bridges over to the idea of Access Control Lists a bit better?
Society went through the necessary lessons with DNA and fingerprints. Putting people in jail because the computer produce a match is a terrible idea, especially when its done by an proprietary dark box that no one really understand why it claims there is a match. It can be used as a tool of investigations to give the investigators an hint to find real more substantial clues, but using it like in fiction where the computer can act as the single truth is terrible for society and justice.
A month ago or so people on HN discussed facial recognition when looking victims and perpetrators in child exploitation material, and people were complaining that meta did not allow this fast enough. Neither the article or the people in that discussion draw any connection that the issues in this article could happen. People seemingly want to think that the lesson is "Never go back to North Dakota", as that is a much easier lesson than considering false positives in detection algorithms and their impact on a legal system that is constrained in budget, time, training and incentives.
Long distance transmission is part of the cost of production when the location of the production is non-local to the consumption.
With-holding permits is stupid, as are bans on new deployments, but neither are subsidies. You can cut subsidies to zero and at the same time give out all the permits people requests.
The extensive EV car subsidies has really got people to buy EV. With 98.3% of all new cars sold, it is amazing what subsidies that accounts for more than 25% of the value of a new car does to encourage people to buy electric. In Sweden, it is a well know concept that when Norway do subsidies, they don't do it ungenerously.
Norway has however started to cut down on those subsidies, with one cut 2023 and now a second cut next year, and then a third one in 2027. They are combining that with extra fees for ICE, and time will tell what that will do to voters.
It is absolutely sane and perfectly reasonable. The climate highly support it, you are already used to a grid that in some cases are not available 24/7, and the major energy consumptions are AC and fans which correlate with production.
How are the fixed costs in this? Here in Sweden I have seen a strong trend that as the grid has become more variable and connected to the European grid, a larger portion of the bill becomes fixed. For most part of the year, the fixed costs are now greater than costs that scale with consumption.
Transmission and construction, crewing and maintenance of of thermal power plants (under the name of "reserve energy") cost a lot of money, which in turn becomes fixed grid costs. On top of that you got consumption costs during periods of poor weather, which in combination of high fossil fuel costs means that the consumption prices spikes. The cost of energy during optimal weather conditions is in contrast so low that at this point they can basically just be rounded down to zero.
"Some of the modelling we have suggests that you could get to a position by 2030 where if the wholesale price was zero, bills would still be the same as where they are today because of the increase in non-commodity costs."
Fixed costs are enormous and are increasingly driven by paying for the CFDs that back up the economics of wind. The CFD scheme allows wind producers to de-risk from market prices by locking in a fixed price with the government who then recover this from bills.
So, yes you get to enjoy low variable costs when it's windy, but you pay for the priviledge year round.
I do think that wind has a part to play in the UKs long term energy mix, but by this point I'm happy to call the current scale-up a complete false economy.
Household and industrial electricity bills are double what they were in real terms 15 years ago.
> I do think that wind has a part to play in the UKs long term energy mix, but by this point I'm happy to call the current scale-up a complete false economy.
Household and industrial electricity bills are double what they were in real terms 15 years ago.
The CfDs set a floor price when there’s lots electricity being generated by renewables but they also contribute to bills when the market price is over the strike price
Electricity bills are higher because we’ve had two fossils fuel shocks in the last 5 years and the costs for decarbonisation are added to electricity bills rather than gas ones
The amount wind farms in the UK have contributed back over the last ten years is a rounding error compared to how much they have received. It's not even close: https://x.com/7Kiwi/status/2031657347433603581
And the scary thing: the wind farms aren't even making that much money! Some projects have been cancelled and others had to re-bid in subsequent auctions to get a higher CFD price than they originally received because they couldn't make the economics work. Worse, there are reasons to believe they're not even fully provisioning for their end-of-life decommissioning costs.
The UK's energy policy is unbelievably destructive :(
He explains on his website where he gets his data from. He gets it from The Low Carbon Contracts Company... y'know: the firm who is the actual counterparty to the CFDs and so should probably know the actual sums of cash being moved - and in which direction.
And note: even when gas is more expensive than the CFDs, the huge fixed and/or policy costs (network build-out, capacity market, curtailment, etc) are devastating.
The story would be completely different if wind farms were actually cheap to build and run... the problem is they're just not.
I wish it were not so... it would be great if we had a path to being free of dependence on hydrocarbons. But in a battle between wishful thinking and physical and economic reality, reality usually wins.
So we're faced with a choice as a nation: continue to pour tens of billions of pounds down this drain... or call time on the experiment and free up all that money for something productive?
Thanks… I’ll have a read through though I’m highly skeptical of anyone who’s a member of Toby Young’s Free Speech Union… it says a lot about their political leanings
Cheers. No doubt there's additional nuance I've missed but I'm fairly certain he's directionally correct. And, if he is, we face some dire consequences as a nation.
Re the Free Speech Union, that's an interesting one and perhaps points to a broader point. It often feels to me that there can often be an asymmetry of risk faced by participants in some highly charged debates. I know this is a cliche, but there is definitely something to the adage that "conservatives think progressives are stupid, but progressives think conservatives are evil".
So it doesn't surprise me at all that the FSU was founded by somebody from that 'side': If you're debating in an environment when some (I stress some) of the people who may read your writings may actually think you're evil, as opposed to just wrong, it seems rational to invest in some protection?
In any case, I don't know Turver, but I have no reason to believe he's making this stuff up. He seems pretty rational to me, and does share his working. I'd urge you to remain open minded to the (scary) possibility he's right.
Both Hergie Bacyadan and Elis Lundholm has not undergone any hormone replacement therapy or surgery, and competes in the women's divisions. Their status as trans men has nothing to do with their eligibility to participate.
This would be like if two trans women, who has not undergone any hormone replacement therapy or surgery, would compete in men's divisions.
For Swyer syndrome, A 2017 study estimated that the incidence of Swyer syndrome is approximately 1 in 100,000 females. Fewer than 100 cases have been reported as of 2018.
For both the genetic disorders, they would have to be beneficial or at least not an disadvantage, for elite sport activity in order to be an issue for misclassification. For a sex-determination system, they could simply add an exception for Swyer syndrome and postpone the decision until such individual presented themselves at an Olympic competition.
I was wondering about trans men and there is actually quite a bit amount of regulations for it, as taking testosterone is generally considered to be doping. Trans men are only allowed to compete if they are under heavy supervision by a medical professional and they follow a very strict set of rules dictating how, when and what kind of treatment they do. Too high amount of testosterone or too uneven levels of testosterone will disqualify a trans man from competing.
The question comes down if the presence of the SRY gene impact athletic ability. From my reading, it seems very much like an ongoing research topic.
I recall a study looking at genetics in general and how much of professional sport abilities that can be attributed to it, and the number were fairly high for most sports, especially those involving strength and endurance. Genetic disorders like AIS could however also be a hindrance.
I do recall that in some endurance sports, certain genetic disorders involving oxygen delivery were much more common in top elites than in the average population, meaning that people without that disorder is at severe disadvantage compared to general population. It is an ongoing discussion if people with those kind of disorders should be allowed to compete in for example long distance skiing, as the disorder becomes natural doping and would be cheating if a person without the disorder was competing with that kind of blood in their system.
Genetic testing, outside of the culture war about what defines a man or a woman, really comes down to what is fair competition. Personally I can't really say. Does knowing that maybe half of the top skiers has a rare blood disorder make it less fun for people?
Blacklist and whitelist would be closer to include/exclude, so the replacement would be a includelist and excludelist, or include/exclude as shorthand.
reply