Meanwhile over here in WV, we are saddled with above-market electricity rates thanks to our state (non-)regulatory commission and a desire to keep old coal-fired generators operating. It drives us nuts.
I just checked my bill. Here in California, in the SF Bay Area, we're paying 82.7 cents per kWh. That's 62.6 cents for delivery and 20.1 cents for generation.
Those websites that report lower rates are incredibly wrong and misleading.
I don't think the numbers are "wrong," they are just aggregate. Obviously within a state as large as California there will be a lot of variation between regions.
I live in California and my energy prices are between $0.29 and $0.34 depending on the time of day. GP's point still stands that WV is cheaper than CA, but how much cheaper depends on which region of CA you are comparing it to.
These aggregate numbers they don’t reflect what most ratepayers actually pay.
For example, PG&E’s current E-TOU-C summer rates in SF Bay area are around $0.83/kWh peak and $0.62/kWh off-peak. That’s almost double the CPUC’s statewide “average” of ~$0.34/kWh.
But whatever, I'm just upset at how much we have to pay.
This is sadly the state for a good number of PUCs across the nation. That's one reason that electricity costs are rising even as generation is getting cheaper thanks to renewables and storage.
Forth was neat, but it was a bit of an evolutionary dead end. I'm not aware of any significant concepts from Forth which were adopted by other, later programming languages.
RPL (Reverse Polish Lisp, a high level language for HP calculators) possibly drew on it a bit, though the main antecedents are RPN and Lisp, and possibly Poplog (a Poplog guru was at HP at the time, but I don't know if he contributed).
The only thing PostScript and Forth have in common is RPN. Other than that, they are very different in philosophy - Forth is very bit banging, close to the metal, while PostScript is much more symbol oriented and high level.
That's true, PostScript is much higher-level and feels like a stack-based LISP. But, saying they just have RPN in common makes it seem like a small choice about the syntax - instead of a whole stack-oriented approach, which affects everything.
Well, yes, the stack oriented approach does matter. But even there, there are big differences with Forth having a user accessible return stack, which is implicit in PostScript, while PostScript has an explicit dictionary stack, which exists only in a very primitive form in Forth.
Did Forth inspire the stack-based VMs of python and java? I don't know about that part of CS history well, but a very large proportion of all code runs on stack based byte code interpreters.
Imho Lisp is deader than COBOL. Especially now that we've learned you can do the really hard and interesting bits of AI with high-performance number crunching in C++ and CUDA.
JEDEC has long maintained an EOL/EOS standard for semiconductors. This was a big part of a previous PM gig. Sounds boring, and it was. But having a process kept us out of serious hot water.
Boy, if robotics could learn how to bubble wrap, tape, box and stack both hard and soft items… They could hitch a ride on the back of a panel truck. Somewhat similar to forklifts on the tails of Home Depot delivery trucks.
Those robot movers would be recording every item in your home, evaluating the age and condition of those items, logging every member of your family, mapping out the floor plans of your old and new home, and streaming that data back to the moving company who would sell it to data brokers.
I'd love there to be a catalog of all the stuff in my home that I could organize, or easily put up on eBay. The biggest hurdle of selling something, for me, is the work of photographing and uploading the photos. A one-click "sell this" would be amazing.
With all the surveillance we live under, pretty much none of it benefits you in any way. I'd love to have access to all the data that's collected about me by the state and by corporations (including the inferences and assumptions they make by evaluating that data). I'd never need to keep a journal. They don't want to give you that data. They'd rather you don't think about it at all.
They’d rather you don’t KNOW about it at all. I think a good percentage of people that are outside of our tech bubble have no idea how deep that rabbit hole goes.
Inevitably, companies would arise that don't sell your data, and charge a higher fee to compensate the loss in revenue. Then, they'd go out of business as customers decide they prefer to sell all their data for a couple extra bucks.
What actually seems to happen is that the expensive company gains customers on the premise of privacy, then eventually succumbs to the temptation to start selling some data anyway.
If only we had a comprehensive set of data privacy laws that allowed users to request their data be deleted and limited what companies can do with people's data.
> Inevitably, companies would arise that don't sell your data, and charge a higher fee to compensate the loss in revenue.
I've been waiting for that to happen in just about every product category I have ever used since the rise of surveillance capitalism and it hasn't yet. It's a fantasy.
Companies will always make more money by charging you as much as you're willing to pay and then also selling your data and/or using it against you for the rest of your life. No company is going to leave that endless flow of money on the table and settle for charging you a slightly higher amount one time. The shareholders won't tolerate that.
That data would absolutely be used to harm you eventually. It'd likely haunt you for the rest of your life.
The most innocent use of that data would result in you getting endless spam from the manufacturers of every item in your home letting you know about the latest model you should upgrade to, along with spam from every competitor telling you why their product should replace what you have. Companies you've never even heard of would suggest you buy their stuff just because you happen to have something in your home that is somewhat similar to something they offer.
Maybe the IRS gets their hands on that data and starts wondering how it is you've managed to afford what you have? Maybe you divorce and your ex's attorney uses that data against you because you forgot to list an asset or to demonstrate that you should have to pay more in alimony, or to paint you as being less fit for custody of your children. Maybe you have something in your home that matches something that was used in a crime and you become a suspect when you wouldn't have otherwise.
Maybe you have things in your home that others would find offensive and activists and extremists target you because of something you have. Scammers and thieves will use that data to target you more effectively. Physiological profiles will be updated based on what you own and how well you maintain your possessions. How sentimental are you? How much do brands and trends matter to you? What do your items say about your values? Those insights will be used by people looking to manipulate you and your views.
It could impact the prices you pay when you buy things, factor into whether or not you get employed at a job you want, and it wouldn't just be happening to you either, but to everyone else in your household including your children.
There's basically zero chance of that data helping you in any way and lots of ways it could end up being used against you without you even being aware of the cause. Your health insurance company isn't going to tell you that they raised your rates because the sporting equipment you kept in your garage made it look to an algorithm like you're more likely to get injured. You just see the higher bill. Everyone who gets their hands on that data will try to use in any and every way that they can to benefit themselves and that will usually be at your expense.
That's a lot of maybes. I think I'd take the trade, the same way I pay for Netflix even though it means they know what I'm watching, or sign up for the store card at the grocery store even though it means they know what I'm eating.
I'm willing to trade information about myself for goods and services.
There's no way to do anything in today's society without being surveilled and the data being collected never goes away. We all make choices on how much to we're okay with handing over knowing that it will all be used against us later. I'll leave the robots to you and just hire a few young men to do the job. I'll sleep better knowing that at least in this case, I won't face negative repercussions for the rest of my life as a result.
The Constitution and the principles of my country are perfectly aligned with adults entering into a mutually agreed business transaction. They’re aligned with a company offering to sell me a service with a given price, and where part of their upside is retaining data about me.
autoexec’s reply in a parallel thread is a strong case for why somebody might view the impact of that data retention as too costly to be worth using such a service. And that’s why nobody is forced to hire data-collecting robot movers. But under the principles and freedoms of my county, companies are allowed to make the offer.
Rereading the post in question, I'm not so sure that I'd be afraid of "theft of my personal data" so much as "a plan for theft of my personal possessions." A map of my house with an inventory of my possessions would mean a lot to thieves who wanted to hit targets quickly and optimize their spree for a value-to-weight ratio. That kind of data could make organized burglary very profitable.
The overlap of "the entities that carry out data breaches on digital entities" and "the people who break into your house to steal stuff" is not really well correlated. This is for a variety of reasons, but the most boring is that hacking websites is way smoother when you're a faceless entity far from any kind of jurisdiction, and breaking into somebody's house is something you need boots-on-ground for.
Scammers and thieves are using data brokers more and more all the time. They already buy up lists of rich elderly people, lists of people with dementia, and lists of people with low IQs or poor educations who are often easier to trick out of their cash.
Most criminals breaking into houses aren't buying up targeted lists of likely victims from data brokers yet, but it's effective so you should expect that the number of criminals turning to those resources will only increase.
They could, but it'd take a lot longer and movers are usually paid by the hour so they could expect to hear a lot of "Stop playing on your phone and get to work" or even "why are you taking photos of my (or my child's) stuff" which could get pretty awkward.
I expect that right now moving companies do sell info like your name and your old/new address. That alone should give them a rough idea of your income level, if you're getting poorer or richer, starting a family or recently divorced, etc. If you're using a moving company like Flat Rate and taking photos of all your stuff so that they can make an estimate they could be selling that data too.
I’m rebuilding a learning library. Webpage bookmarks (with big help from raindrop.io), PDFs (hundreds of them, mostly book chapters), images, jupyter notebooks, markdowns, etc. using a Jekyll static site generator to minimize the tech stack hairballs.
The interesting part is that nearly all of the content is tagged to associate with two or more domains ex:
Goodreads-history-truecrime
PyTorch-Jupyter
Rubyonrails-Testing
Behavior-Gaslighting
Semiconductors-GPUs
And so on.
It’s an exercise in taxonomy creation. Searching by tag doesn’t quite get it. And we all know PDF auto summaries are tough.
I’m not expecting anybody to be impressed. It keeps me occupied while learning how to be (unfortunately) retired.
