There’s a legit grid stability issue for solar in general, balcony or no.
Usage varies second by second, so the grid relies on physical inertia in the form of rotating turbines. Panels have no inertia; therefore, the more you have the less stable the grid gets.
That is however something which can be fixed by grid-scale batteries. Or home systems, for that matter, if they have batteries and some equivalent of Victron’s PowerAssist.
(Which limits the rate at which power draw can change. Very useful when you use a house-sized generator; it amounts to synthetic inertia. I have a 7kW generator, but a 7kW step load would stall it.)
You would need supercapacitors, but you can make an inverter emulate inertia almost as well as flywheels, and more than well enough to not make a difference once you push the energy into a few kilometers of non-zero impedance grid.
Ah, this is why I come here. I had no idea that was the case. I feel like there was a story going around recently about how hard it is to restart some power generator if it gets knocked offline. Maybe it was about Hoover Dam now that I think about it (i.e., how bad it would be if the Colorado gets too low).
It doesn't, because "it was so common to", as OP stated, is not the same thing as "you were supposed to". There's no reason it should be corrected, it's accurate.
Respectfully disagree. The AGPL exists for that use case, and the difference is exactly that you need to distribute the changes.
If you license something under GPL, that necessarily means you’re okay with people making local changes and not sharing them. If you aren’t okay with that, then don’t use the GPL.
For me, that means I use a mix of AGPL and MIT depending on project.
> If you license something under GPL, that necessarily means you’re okay with people making local changes and not sharing them. If you aren’t okay with that, then don’t use the GPL.
GPL has always meant you're okay with someone making local changes for their own internal use.
When it comes to servers, someone making a project this decade that uses GPL might be signalling they're okay with server code staying closed source. Or it might be other reasons, like the uncertainty over what code is covered by AGPL. And if a project is older, there's an increasing chance they didn't expect the current ecosystem and hate that the code is being used this way.
How are you supposed to learn without doing? Who sets the bar for when you have achieved understanding?
And finally, in specific instances of creating front ends that are inclusive for users, I would argue that being willing to receive feedback and improve is vastly more important than getting it right on the first try.
That's not what I said, I said I likely understand it less than a 635B parameter LLM, and that using the LLM as a shortcut to that knowledge is something I'd consider perfectly acceptable. I might even become better at it through using the LLM.
You need a certain understanding to be able to judge whether the output is adequate. I think the argument is against people who lack that understanding.
It increases the chance of solder cracks, which is one major cause of failure. Thermal cycles in general will do that, however, and home computers are designed to survive a lot of them.
reply