golli

Additionally it's probably a rule that was written in blood and it also isn't an obvious feature that someone would know about and base their purchase decision on.

I think the only solution is to just abolish draws like the Armageddon chess mode does, where a draw is counted as a win for black.

And then have either an imbalance in allowed time for each player or have them bid on it.

And if it weren't a dominos app, but an otherwise identical or better third party app? Which through this now has a disadvantage compared to Apples app. Making it worse (regardless of how small or large that downside is) compared to whatever Apple offers, not because of having the worse product in the category, but because Apple also happens to own the otherwise unrelated operating system.

Is this just a count for America or Wikipedia in general. Because in that case it could also just be the rest of the world going "What the hell are you guys doing over there?"

Also why does it have to be a subscription in the first place. If it is a non standard use that requires extra software you don't and you want to separate those costs from users that don't need it, then make it a one time payment at least.

Subscriptions make sense when you have ongoing costs like significant load on servers that are needed for the service provided. But not for some piece of software you write once and are more or less done with (minus some small patches)

Considering last year at the same event a female player was fined for wearing the wrong shoes I have to disagree with your claim.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-29/chess-player-fined-ov...

I think right on calling me out on that statement as it was likely a bit to broad. One differentiation that probably has to be made is whether you work as an employee or go self-employed/own your own small business, where you can earn significantly more.

Also my first thought was more towards craftsmen like electricians, plumbers or basically anyone working within the field of renewable energies/heating (espeically heat pumps)/insulating older houses. And at least those are in such high demand where i am at that they can demand high prices.

I think another important issue is how the societal and cultural evaluation of university degrees compared to alternatives like apprenticeships in crafts has shifted.

The former is held in much higher regard as far as social standing goes even if we probably need many more of the latter, it requires lots of training as well, and you can even earn pretty good money.

> Charging overnight as far as I understand is a bonus proposition

I would disagree with it being just a bonus proposition, since it imo is part of the inherent advantages.

And while i do agree with you that in many cases it will still be an overall favorable comparison for EVs vs ICE cars, i think there is no denying that between being able to charge at home for cheap and having to rely on public chargers there's a value (and convenience) difference.

I am not really up to date with how pricing looks (so feel free to correct me), but i think in Germany electricity at home is on average like 27ct/kWh, and on public chargers you pay between 40ct on the low end (possibly with some monthly base cost) up to 80ct on the high end for some DC fast chargers.

I think (as already mentioned in other replies) it is usually less about chargers along major highways, but about charging at home/work. Which is especially relevant in places like Germany, where people primary rent rather than own their home and electricity costs are relatively high.

If you can't charge over night for cheap and maybe even combine it with your own solar installation, then EVs are losing a good part of their value proposition.

Yes, these and other innovations will defivinitely increase our overall electricity consumption, but i imagine that it will be a gradual shift as it is aleady happening, since vehicles and heating has long life cycles. It also helps that energy wise these technologies are more efficient, so that offsets some of the increase.

Probably hard to judge right now where AI is heading and if the pace of increased energy consumption remains this high. But i agree that they'll probably end up moving closer to sources of cheap electricity.

> > why China installed 217 GW of solar last year, but only 1.2 GW of nuclear > > And 114 GW of coal [1]. Don't do nuclear, and that becomes 115 GW of coal. Nuclear and renewables aren't competing for market share.

That is true for China, since their overall energy demand is growing massively. But is that also true for other parts of the world like the US or EU? Because looking at the electricity production [1] this doesn't seem to be the case. So in those markets they would compete for replacing existing fossil power plants. I think we can expect some growth, but not on a level even close to China.

[1] https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity/world-electricity-...