Rivalarrival

@Rivalarrival@lemmy.today

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hold on!⁩ ⁨⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  I identify as an Electronic-American, and my pronouns are buzz/click.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Saviour⁩ ⁨⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  A narcissist taking something away and then giving it back is a common manipulative tactic used to control their victim[s] by creating a cycle of dependence & uncertainty.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If a child went into a coma and woke up as an adult what would happen ?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Point of order: “Americans” aren’t talking about taking over Greenland. “Semi-sentient Cheetos” are talking about taking over Greenland.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If a child went into a coma and woke up as an adult what would happen ?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Ah, a Greenlander.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If a child went into a coma and woke up as an adult what would happen ?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  American, or European?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Biden’s TikTok Flip-Flop: President Rushes To Undo Ban He Championed As Backlash Grows⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  These two fuckers need to share the same retirement hole.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Darn it⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Absolutely.

  It used to be that if you had $10,000 excess income, you could use it to buy $900 worth of stock, bonds, and other financial instruments or you could spend the entirety of that $10,000 on something you tell the IRS you plan to use for business purposes.

  Now, if you are $10,000 over the line, you can turn $6,300 into stocks, and double your money in 4-5 years. There’s no point in actually spending your money anymore; just keep rolling the excess into the means of making more.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Darn it⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  People born in the 1950s grew up with a 91% top-tier income tax rate, which ultra-rich people went out of their way to avoid by spending their excess income on “business expenses”, rather than investments.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bloodletting recommended for Jersey residents after PFAS contamination⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Plasma donation works much better.

  Whole blood donation typically takes 500ml of blood every 12 weeks. Plasma donation takes 1000ml of plasma every 2 weeks (in the UK) or twice a week (in the US).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Marvel game, developed with the Chinese firm NetEase, ‘bans’ the words ‘free Taiwan’ and ‘Winnie-the-Pooh’⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Oh, bother.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨POV: It's January 19th⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes. I only want FOSS and federated spyware social media.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Feminists in their natural habitat of bigotry⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  We’re on the same page, but I wasn’t saying anything about feminists, actually.

  The post was about an artist receiving death threats after having drawn a female character’s hand in a “pinching” gesture, under the theory that such a gesture is referring to a tiny penis.

  I was saying that the people wishing death on feminists don’t qualify as “men”. Actual “men” don’t give a shit about such things. The people who are offended by feminist insinuations of tiny penises aren’t men at all.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is it wrong to not have a disabled child solely to avoid forcing the child to suffer their whole life?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  The American healthcare system kills people all day long. But, it’s not a public function; it’s not a component of the state. Yes, it practices voluntary manslaughter for profit, but no, it’s not eugenics.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is it wrong to not have a disabled child solely to avoid forcing the child to suffer their whole life?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  The state is not involved in your decision to not have ginger kids. Your decision not to have ginger kids is not eugenics.

  The state providing incentives for behavior is a mandate. The state providing incentives for not having ginger kids is eugenics. Not “subtle eugenics”. Not “planned breeding”. Eugenics.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is it wrong to not have a disabled child solely to avoid forcing the child to suffer their whole life?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  If your decision to abort is because the fetus will be a redhead, that’s “planned breeding”, not “eugenics”.

  The sine qua non of eugenics is a state mandate.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is it wrong to not have a disabled child solely to avoid forcing the child to suffer their whole life?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Alternatively, it’s an incredibly simple question, with an incredibly simple answer:

  It’s your business, not mine. Do what you want for the reasons you want.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is it wrong to not have a disabled child solely to avoid forcing the child to suffer their whole life?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ve said this many, many times: If abortion is a viable option, it is the only option worthy of consideration.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you save, we will charge you more⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  The transformer is dimensioned based on the max capacity of the houses in the neighbourhood

  No, it isn’t. They use considerably smaller, cheaper transformers, based on the maximum expected load. A 500A transformer might serve ten 200A users.

  Those ten users might never use more than 400A total, even though each of them might use 150A+ from time to time. It doesn’t make sense to install a 2000A transformer when it will never see more than 400A.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you save, we will charge you more⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Understood.

  And that “$10 connection fee” makes perfect sense for covering per-user administrative costs. The cost is the same to send a $1 bill or a $1000 bill to the customer; a per-user fee to cover that administrative fee is not unreasonable.

  But they aren’t talking about administration. They are talking about infrastructure maintenance. Infrastructure is a shared resource, and the maintenance charges scale (primarily) with total consumption, not per-user.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you save, we will charge you more⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  because consumption and service connectivity aren’t the same? Consumption and connectivity are two different line items on the bill representing different costs associated with the service.

  That’s fine. There are certainly some per-user costs. Such as the cost of billing each user every month. A fixed administrative charge makes sense to cover those billing costs. That cost is the same whether they are sending a $10 bill or a $50,000 bill, so a flat rate charge is reasonable.

  “Infrastructure maintenance” is not a per-user cost. Maintenance is performed on the shared resources: the lines between the poles. The customer pays their own electrician to install, connect, and maintain a service feed; that is not part of the maintenance that the power company performs.

  A transformer does not care whether it is maxed out serving 20 users, or it is maxed out serving just 2. It costs the same to maintain either way. Call it $1000 per transformer, just to illustrate.

  In a neighborhood with 20 low-use customers (equivalent to 1 transformer) and 10 high-use customers (equivalent to 5 transformers), it is ludicrous that every one of these 30 households should be paying the same $200 “maintenance fee”. The 20 low-use customers incur an average of $50; the 10 high-use customers average $500.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you save, we will charge you more⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Simplified scenario.

  • The cost for the grid provider to maintain a transformer is $1000.

  • A transformer can serve 20 low-use households, or 2 high-use households.

  • Both the low-use and the high-use households have the same, 200A service to their homes. The only difference is in how much they actually use.

  • A neighborhood has 20 low-use households (1 transformer).

  • That same neighborhood as 10 high-use households (5 transformers).

  • This neighborhood of 30 houses has $6000 in maintenance costs.

  Here are the two options we are talking about:

  1. Fixed rate. Each household in this neighborhood pays a fixed, $200 “connection fee” to cover these costs.

  2. Consumption-based. Each of the 20 low-use household pays $50 ($1000 total, for the 1 transformer they share) and each high-use household pays $500 ($5000 total, for the 5 transformers they share).

  Fixed fees only make sense for covering administrative costs, which scale per user. Grid maintenance costs scale based (primarily) on total consumption. Fixing maintenance fees forces low-use households to subsidize high-use households.

  I feel like I’m in the fucking twilight zone here. The community does not seem to comprehend what they are demanding.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you save, we will charge you more⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  They have 200A service, same as you. They don’t need to upgrade.

  The difference is that they are using 200A 24/7/365, while you probably average less than 10A, and rarely exceed 50A.

  They are literally using 20 times as much power as you, and you’re saying they should be paying the same fees as you.

  One such cryptoboy per block and the total consumption in the region doubles. The infrastructure costs double. Your “flat fee” doubles, because it is divided evenly among the users, rather than assigned to the cryptoboys who created it.

  And you’re saying this is a good thing?

  I feel like I’ve entered the fucking twilight zone here.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you save, we will charge you more⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  My state separates generation from distribution. I literally have a hundred options for generation. I pay a generator to put power on the grid.

  I only have one option for distribution. I pay that distributor to convey power (ostensibly) from my generator to my house.

  The generator is not the only one with consumption-based costs. The distributor/grid provider also has costs that vary depending on how much power they are moving. They need to upgrade transformers and substations and install additional transmission lines as demand increases. Those have associated costs.

  I could understand a flat fee for administrative costs: the power company does have certain per-user costs. But grid maintenance is not one of them: grid maintenance costs depend almost entirely on the total amount of power being moved, not the number of users served. Those maintenance costs are already rolled into consumption. Making them a fixed cost just forces low-use households to subsidize high-use households.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you save, we will charge you more⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Is that not what your consumption fee is for? You’re paying for generation/distribution for the power you use,

  Based on that comment, I think I understand the issue.

  In my state, I can purchase power from literally any of a hundred generators. I pay them to put power on the grid, for me to take off.

  I also pay a single grid provider to (ostensibly) transfer that power from where it generated to me.

  What I am talking about here is the fact that both the generator and the grid operator have costs that depend on “consumption”. The more power I use, the greater the load on the grid, and the more infrastructure they need. They might be able to use a single transformer to adequately serve 20 low-use households; they might need 5 transformers to adequately serve 10 high-use households.

  Even though all 30 of these households have 200A service, It does not make sense that the cost of these 6 transformers should be evenly assessed. It does make sense that two high-use households (who use a full transformer) pay the same total fee as the 20 low-use households (who also use a full transformer).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you save, we will charge you more⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes. And that is true regardless of how heavily it is used,

  It’s not being used. The neighborhood is using the cheaper transformer, because it fully meets their needs.

  They don’t install the big transformer until Cryptoboy moves in and drastically increases the neighborhood’s needs.

  Why is the neighborhood evenly paying for that transformer upgrade? Why isn’t Cryptoboy paying for this upgrade?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you save, we will charge you more⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Connecting infrastructure costs roughly the same to maintain regardless if 10 amps or 1000 amps is running through it.

  That’s simply false. A 1000A transformer costs considerably more than a 10A transformer, both to purchase and to service.

  By your logic, you are subsidizing anyone who uses more power than you and you are being subsidized by anyone using less power than you.

  That is only true if the “connection fee” (distribution charges) are the same for both the 10A user and the 1000A user. When the charge is divided up on the basis of a user’s actual consumption, it is not.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you save, we will charge you more⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Cryptominer maxes out the same connection that you rarely draw 1/10th of. Why are you subsidizing cryptobro?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you save, we will charge you more⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Of course. I used that exaggerated example to demonstrate the nature of the problem, not to quantify it.

  Cryptominers can use the same connection that you do; they just max it out 24/7, while you rarely use more than 1/10th of your connection.

  Why should you be forced to subsidize your cryptoneighbor?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you save, we will charge you more⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I used exaggerated examples to clearly demonstrate the nature of the problem, not to quantify it.

  The problem is still present even within the neighborhood. Residential consumers rarely draw more than 1/10th of their rated service. Crypto-bro comes into the neighborhood and his miners continuously max out his service.

  The power company normally installs and maintains a single service transformer per block; but he alone uses as much power as the rest of the block combined. They have to install and maintain a second transformer just for him, but they spread those extra costs among the entire block.

  Why is it reasonable for the power company to demand you subsidize his electrical connection than for him to pay for what he is using?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you save, we will charge you more⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  You would have a point if it were possible to downgrade a connection to closely match your consumption. But that is not the case. You can’t buy a 20A service when everyone in your neighborhood has 200A. It’s a matter of safety: service lines need to be sized based on the upstream current limited, but the current limiter for your service (the main breaker in your panel) is downstream of that service line. If you put an undersized service line to your house and it develops a fault, it will burn up before tripping the neighborhood “breaker”.

  It is more reasonable to charge you for the generation and distribution of 2A than for your 2A service to be charged the same “connection fee” as your cryptobro neighbor.