US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects • Hacker News Board

Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects

#931

Post by perpetuallunch » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 8:13 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #705

perpetuallunch wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and we definitely need to be careful that we handle the transition without screwing people over. Well we’re certifiably not going that . No need to wait decades to look at the recent data. London can’t even work out how to properly ventilate their underground rail network. The solution is obvious: built nuclear power and refrigeration (heat pumps). Where it’s too cold either nuclear and heat pumps and / or district…

> Well we’re certifiably not doing that. Don't disagree with you there. > London can’t even work out how to properly ventilate their underground rail network. This seems unrelated. It's not an energy problem: it's a problem with lack of space in the tunnels and lack of places to build ventilation shafts due to the issue not being considered 100 years ago when the tunnels were built. > Or people can melt in the summer…

London’s tube system had an eminent domain, technology, political will problem. It’s entirely fixable.

Cold weather kills more people than hot weather. By a huge margin.

People frequently move from cooler areas to areas that have comparatively hotter climates than even the worst (completely fabricated) global warming predictions.

But they rarely do the opposite.

Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects

#932

Post by BrandoElFollito » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 8:14 PM UTC

delecti wrote: post #576

zeezer0 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a majority at all. it's a manipulating minority.

I don't think "manipulating" is valid. A bit over a third voted one way, a bit under a third voted another, and a third didn't vote. The third that didn't vote was saying "sure, whatever".

The third that didn't vote does not exist. The net result was roughly 50/50.

Now, maybe this third will start to exist and vote if they either wake up, are seriously hit financially or someone annoys them enough.

Until then they decided to erase themselves from any decision making and if the world was fair they , would not have the right to any comment regarding whatever is related to their country.

Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects

#933

Post by gyanchawdhary » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 8:23 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #926

gyanchawdhary wrote: post #916

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“People are irrational, emotion-driven, and trapped by rigid mental models.” ... of course they are ... everyone except you toomuchtodo :) ..

The drugs I take inhibit most, if not all, of any emotions I might have, leaving me aggressively data driven by evidence, observations, data, and facts. I am a complex expert system with a pulse.

weird flex but cool

Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects

#934

Post by gs17 » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 11:02 PM UTC

gusgus01 wrote: post #858

gs17 wrote: post #788

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, the biggest group pushing for an alternative is FairVote, who exclusively push RCV/IRV, which doesn't fix most of the issues of FPTP and introduces new ones. I'm bombarded by their ads, where they outright lie about its properties ("RCV ends the spoiler effect", "RCV means no more voting for the lesser evil").

What doesn't RCV fix about FPTP? And what issues does it introduce? I've seen discussions around how it can be more confusing than the current system, and can reduce confidence in the election.

It doesn't fix the spoiler effect (it makes its own version of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_squeeze ), and it removes monotonicity. The second one is a big deal for me, at least in FPTP a vote for a candidate always helps them. With RCV, a vote for a candidate can hurt them, and sometimes not voting makes the outcome you want more likely than if you did vote for it.

The 2022 Alaska election was a great example of it failing: https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22/ FairVote called that election a success because people managed to fill in their ballots, even if they didn't get the outcome they thought they were voting for.