Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

941–950 of 956 posts

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

#941

Post by BrandoElFollito »

delecti wrote: post #939
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #932

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The third that didn't vote does not exist. The net result was roughly 50/50. The later does not preclude the former. They exist, and they don't vote. I'm not sure what nitpick you're trying to make.

> I'm not sure what nitpick you're trying to make.

The non voters are routinely used in discussions to lower the results of various parties. The message is "in reality only (a small) percentage supports them" (and then a ratio voters for that party / total population is taken).

What I am trying to say is that the people who did not vote do not exist in these statistics. Taking them into account is just a tactic to lower the results of competitors.

Additionally (but this is utopia) these people should not be allowed to comment in any form about the situation of the country (but again - this is utopia of course)

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

#942

Post by forestrywat »

Lio wrote: post #842
forestrywat wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you get angry at people for calling sea stars starfish? "They aren't fish they are echinoderms!" Or perhaps you get angry at people who call light utility vehicles "trucks"? Language evolves. People accept colloquial definitions. Wait until you learn about pencil lead, koala bears, dry cleaning, and peanuts. Windmill is absolutely acceptable if it's understood by people to mean wind turbine, which it is.

This is an interesting response. I think you know that “windmill” isn’t just a synonym for wind turbine but a politicised insult originating in the fossil fuel lobby.

Why would you think that?

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

#943

Post by mdp2021 »

gdilla wrote: post #921
timacles wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out country is ran by bunch of Lionel Hutz clones

America voted for this.

What would you have tried to mean? "The system in place allowed what happened to happen"? What you wrote can mean everything and nothing.

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

#944

Post by delecti »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #941
delecti wrote: post #939

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The third that didn't vote does not exist. The net result was roughly 50/50. The later does not preclude the former. They exist, and they don't vote. I'm not sure what nitpick you're trying to make.

> I'm not sure what nitpick you're trying to make. The non voters are routinely used in discussions to lower the results of various parties. The message is "in reality only (a small) percentage supports them" (and then a ratio voters for that party / total population is taken). What I am trying to say is that the people who did not vote do not exist in these statistics. Taking them into account is just a tactic to lo…

I don't think we fully disagree then.

I also see examples of "he only got 1/3 of the vote", but that's not what I was trying to do. I was pointing out non-voters as effectively voting "either is fine", in which case effectively they both got 2/3 of the vote.

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

#945

Post by BrandoElFollito »

delecti wrote: post #944
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #941

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure what nitpick you're trying to make. The non voters are routinely used in discussions to lower the results of various parties. The message is "in reality only (a small) percentage supports them" (and then a ratio voters for that party / total population is taken). What I am trying to say is that the people who did not vote do not exist in these statistics. Taking them into account is just a tactic to lo…

I don't think we fully disagree then. I also see examples of "he only got 1/3 of the vote", but that's not what I was trying to do. I was pointing out non-voters as effectively voting "either is fine", in which case effectively they both got 2/3 of the vote.

Yes, we agree then.

Interestingly enough, I noticed, at least in Europe, that a low participation is usually a sign of a country going well. People are more of less unaffected by the changes in politics so "either is fine".

And then when there are serious thigs at stake, the participation raises significantly. This was the case for instance in France in 2002 during the second round of the presidential election (Chirac vs. Le Pen) or in Poland in 1989 when the first free election was taking place.

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

#946

Post by navane »

wolvoleo wrote: post #898
navane wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's called "dutch disease". We did it with gas. Now look at Norway. We could've been like Norway.

We couldn't have been like Norway. Norway is super duper rich due to.... Oil rights elsewhere in the world. They play the best kid in class with electrification but their funding comes directly from contributing to the problem. And when Holland found the gas reserves in Groningen, global warming was really not known about yet.

Norway invested their oil winnings in a nation wide fund. The Netherlands spent their gas money on hookers and booze.

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

#947

Post by lesuorac »

gs17 wrote: post #934
gusgus01 wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

Very interesting graphics.

Definitely changed my mind over RCV vs STAR. Although I'll still support either if I had the opportunity.

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

#948

Post by delecti »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #945
delecti wrote: post #944

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we fully disagree then. I also see examples of "he only got 1/3 of the vote", but that's not what I was trying to do. I was pointing out non-voters as effectively voting "either is fine", in which case effectively they both got 2/3 of the vote.

Yes, we agree then. Interestingly enough, I noticed, at least in Europe, that a low participation is usually a sign of a country going well. People are more of less unaffected by the changes in politics so "either is fine". And then when there are serious thigs at stake, the participation raises significantly. This was the case for instance in France in 2002 during the second round of the presidential election (Chira…

You can see similar trends in US voter turnout, though possibly not to the same extent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...

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

#949

Post by senectus1 »

gman83 wrote: post #198
juntoalaluna wrote: post #12

Insane. Over the last year, wind - mostly offshore - has generated more than 35% of electricity here. Gas is down to 27%. It's really, really good. And it looks cool.

This is the exact reason it's happening. Offshore wind is cheaper than gas /kWh and would therefore kill Trump's fossil fuel donor's profits. So kill offshore wind and the grid is forced to go to more expensive fossil fuel sources, which increased the grid price and means extra profits go to those companies. All this raises energy prices.

its insidious that Trump gets to use tax payers money to pay a green energy solution to go away at the benefit of big oil/gas...

"no skin off his nose" but a dreadful inflationary weight on future tax payers.

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

#950

Post by whack »

oldsklgdfth wrote: post #542
whack wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to self-interest. It sure looks stupid when you look at America or the Roman Empire as a whole. But when you look at the specific individuals doing these "stupid" things, and the individuals enabling them, it is perfectly aligned with their own best interests.

> Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to self-interest. Interesting. Sounds like a counter-point to Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". I use Hanlon's quite a bit to explain nonsense I see day to day, but this is a better one in some ways. It shift the conclusion of "but if only they were shown the right way" to "they know what they are doing an…

My comment was indeed inspired by Hanlon's razor. And I generally do agree with Hanlon's razor. I just think there's a distinction between malice and selfishness.

- Someone harming you because they expressly desire to harm you? Unlikely

- Someone harming you because they are stupid and don't realize what they are doing? Maybe.

- Someone harming you as a side-effect of pursuing their own selfish interests? Most likely.

Post reply on HN