It does happen all the time. The only odd thing here was the massive size of both vessel and bridge. A smaller vessel would not have taken such a big structure.
I once asked an admiral why a midsize navy vessel was not doing what I had expected it to do. His answer: “Vessels don’t have brakes”.
Meaning, once they are moving, it’s very difficult to stop or steer them. Both need lots of space and time. Piloting them in closed waterways like in Baltimore requires specialized pilots, and even so, stuff happens.
We are supposed to have rules and live with the consequences of those rules.
If you think the rule is all people accused of misdemeanors are to rot in jail until their trial is over, then let’s start building a lot more jails, and pay the taxes to pay for that.
The rule can’t be bail except for people that don’t deserve bail because they are bad people. Or don’t deserve bail because they are mentally ill, or don’t deserve bail because reasons.
Notable that option 2, jail, was more attractive to you than option 1, to try psychological treatment. Me, I prefer to try and get the guy to stop punching ladies. Your go to preference is instead punishment. Even though punishment in this particular case solves nothing, and will likely be more expensive.
And of course if he was actually a senior accountant in a mid size construction company he would post bail (can’t be too much in this particular case) and he will be as free as he is now.
Many people in America treat poverty as a sign of underlying immorality or sin, and not being poor as proof of a clean and moral life. I hope it’s not the case here.
1 Get him treatment for whatever issues he has, and support him until he can get well and support himself (going on a limb thinking that when he’s not punching ladies, he’s not working 9-5 as senior accountant in a midsize construction company, or even as an assistant manager in a Dunkin Donuts franchise). Let’s call it the good solution.
2. Change the laws and get him in prison for the rest of his natural life. Let’s call it the quick solution.
3. Let him go.
Options 1 or 2 are fairly expensive. 2 probably more than 1 but I haven’t run the numbers. Which makes Option 3 the cheap solution. (*)
Now what do you, personal you, Jaybird, think we should do. Me, I’d go for option 1, and I’m willing to pay the additional taxes to fund it. But our US society is very reluctant to pay to solve social problems. Other societies mileage vary and their results vary too.
(*)Someone should make a catch phrase to describe these kind of conundrums, a triangle of something, something strong and rigid. The uncooked spaghetti triangle perhaps?)
You are for sure at least partially right. I’ve only been involved in one such claim, and we the consigners were liable for cost associated to tow and repair a vessel that had a failure in high seas due to bad weather.
At least in that case, the argument is that bad weather is an act of God and all of us sending cargo had to pitch in in the cost of repair . But that was a property damage claim (the vessel itself was damaged, not third party property or lives). I have my doubts, but cannot vouch, that the consigners are liable for damages the vessel caused to third parties.
All vessels that I know are owned by companies that ONLY own that vessel, so any liability and risk (for the owner)
is limited to the value of the vessel.
A separate operating company (frequently, but not exclusively, an affiliate of the vessel owner) runs the vessel for a small fee, and its liability is limited to the total amount of the contracting. Both the operator and the owner carry liability insurance and whether the root cause is a machinery breakdown (a term of art) or faulty maintenance should define if the owner or the operator liability insurance is supposed to cover the loss. Above the insurance limit, and any excess liability insurance than might sit on top (*), your only recourse is against thinly capitalized (that’s it, little money) owner or operator company.
The fact that the vessel was under the authority of the port pilots adds another potential liable agent to the mix, and for sure both owner and operator will bring the pilots and whoever employs them to the dispute.
Jaybird above is also at least partially correct, but I’m not sure if the consigners (the guys sending cargo) would be involved in this case. See my answer to him.
(*) You can, if you want, and you are prudent, have several layers of liability insurance, with a primary level covering claims from zero (there’s normally no or de minimis deductible in a liability claim) to X dollars, and one or more excess layers covering claims above x up to y, above y up to z, and so on. Each layer is cheaper than the one below because the possibility of such large claims is very small. But even the largest excess liability policy you can think about contracting won't cover the cost of this accident.
All vessels that I know are owned by companies that ONLY own that vessel, so any liability and risk (for the owner)
is limited to the value of the vessel.
A separate operating company (frequently, but not exclusively, an affiliate of the vessel owner) runs the vessel for a small fee, and its liability is limited to the total amount of the contracting. Both the operator and the owner carry liability insurance and whether the root cause is a machinery breakdown (a term of art) or faulty maintenance should define if the owner or the operator liability insurance is supposed to cover the loss. Above the insurance limit, and any excess liability insurance than might sit on top (*), your only recourse is against thinly capitalized (that’s it, little money) owner or operator company.
The fact that the vessel was under the authority of the port pilots adds another potential liable agent to the mix, and for sure both owner and operator will bring the pilots and whoever employs them to the dispute.
Jaybird above is also at least partially correct, but I’m not sure if the consigners (the guys sending cargo) would be involved in this case. See my answer to him.
(*) You can, if you want, and you are prudent, have several layers of liability insurance, with a primary level covering claims from zero (there’s normally no or de minimis deductible in a liability claim) to X dollars, and one or more excess layers covering claims above x up to y, above y up to z, and so on. Each layer is cheaper than the one below because the possibility of such large claims is very small. But even the largest excess liability policy you can think about contracting won't cover the cost of this accident.
Because compared to the cost of rebuilding a 1.6 miles bridge, tugboats are cheap, but compared to the price of a new car, or a new house in the suburbs, renting several tugboats for several hours is quite expensive. And what do we need them for, if the vessel has its own engines and a big rudder and two port pilots?
For this to be implemented, it needs to come as a regulation, either from the maritime national authorities, or from ship classification authorities or maritime insurers, that would make vessels uninsurable unless they hire tugs to navigate close to critical infrastructure.
In cases like this, the profit (not renting the tugboats) belongs to the ship owner, the losses (rebuilding the bridge) are paid by society. The damage is orders of magnitude bigger than the vessel’s insurance policy limits, or even the value of the ship itself.
Usually each vessel is owned by a separate special purpose corporate vehicle. The most the owner, and its lenders, vessels of this nature are highly leveraged , can lose is the ownership of the vessel itself
Having been marginally involved in ships moving in and out of fuel terminals, my suggestion going forward is that any vessel big enough to damage infrastructure in case it looses power or steering (itself a not uncommon and normally not a dangerous event) has to accompanied by tugboats until it is in a place where there is no more risk of damage.
The cost of rebuilding the bridge would probably cover a century of tugboats escorting every large vessel under that bridge.
Without knowing I would assume the dolphins around the transmission pylons were built to protect against collision by much smaller boats, which would not damage the bridge but would totally destroy the very fragile pylons.
If the vessels blew away the bridge support structures, you’d need dolphins bigger than those structures to protect the bridge (or the pylons).
As much as it is easy to imagine a cargo vessel running into the bridge, the cost to protect it from such a low probability event would be astronomical. And those who now criticize the lack of foresight would have spend decades criticizing the useless waste of taxpayer money in building protective dolphins as big as the bridge itself.
Don’t hit me (you’ll probably end breaking your screen) but I think I like the Rhett Shull cover better than the original. I find Torry’s vocals too jarring (*)and distracting, taking center stage away from the music.
Thank you for this. A nice present to start the day
(*) I also don’t like sopranos doing scales, so it’s a me thing, and not a criticism of Torry’s amazing vocal abilities.
As much as I love lamb, I’m not partial to lamb shanks. But now I need to cook this. Like right now.
Regretfully I read it after arriving from a market trip where I bought salmon, aged tenderloin, duck, and blood sausage, so the shanks will have to wait until next week. I could cry right now, if I wasn’t so happy I found blood sausage in Houston
I think that if Biden was free to pass on his baton to whoever he chose, he would chose Mayor Pete.
But he isn’t free, and he will have to endorse Kamala.
In a Kamala Harris - Pete Buttigieg primary, I’m team Mayor Pete through and through (and so are my energy company executives colleagues; at least those that will vote D).
Can I suggest something that I have included in my relationship with my spouse.
When he does anything for me, even if I don't want it or like it (specially if I don't want it or like it), my first response, my first words, are "Thank you". And I really try to mean it and be thankful. Only after thanking him, I might say something like "next time less sugar", or "I'm not thirsty now", or "so where are we putting the nails now that you've moved them to clear room for the hammers?".
I find that thanking him straight ahead focuses my mind away from how I (capital I) am impacted by his action, and towards how HE went out of his way to do it. So even if I'd rather the nails still were where they used to, the time it takes to say "Thank you" gives me chance to put myself in my partner's place,.
At this point you are half-arguing a hypothetical. What if people that currently invite Jews into their houses suddenly decide to target them?
If we are going to explore that (and I acknowledge it has happened before, 80 or so years ago), you have to fill in the details. What were the causes then? What is different now, if anything? Is the same everywhere? Is there anything the Jewish community can do to stop, or to accelerate, this change in attitude?
Because otherwise to just point out that perhaps one day non-Jews will decide ( everywhere? In the USA? In Latin América?) to target (what does target actually mean in this argument?) the Jews, is like saying that perhaps one day an asteroid will hit the earth. It is possible but there doesn’t seem to be anything anyone can do about it.
So, in this particular case, is there anything you think people could be doing to foreclose the chance of the 1930s happening again?
I spent my teenage and college years in a Latin American country and it was exactly like that. Jewish people were not unknown. My parents had Jewish friends, there were a couple of Jewish kids in high school, and I went to college with others, which still remain friends after four decades (one moved to Israel, and reports every once in a while on what she sees there). I even met a couple of Holocaust survivors.
But in general, they all were all “normal” people. @Jaybird would call them EPCOT Jews. They had different holidays were they ate different foods, were happy to explain them to you when you asked about them (and I got invited to a couple of Friday Seders or Purim parties, as well as some synagogue weddings and brits, were kippas were provided at the door for gentile guests), and went to synagogue on Saturdays instead of Mass on Sundays. But otherwise, they were indistinguishable to the rest of us. They studied with us, partied with us, and if my mum served pork chops for lunch to one of them, my Jewish friends would eat them in good spirits.
The only thing in which they stood apart from the rest was dating. They very rarely dated outside their religion. One of my gentile friends married a Jewish guy and it was a big big deal for both families (she converted and her Italian family father cut her off for many years).
I do not think they felt isolated from the rest of society. Nobody discriminated against them. They favored certain neighborhoods, but could be found be living anywhere in town.
At the same time, they all blended in. Sometimes, you saw a very modestly dressed woman and could accurately guess she was Jewish, but Haredi-like men were as rare as hen”s teeth (most of the ones I met were rabbis). But the vast majority lived exactly like their neighbors, went to the same schools and clubs, worked in the same jobs, and were welcome without much thought.
So, for what is worth, I find most people are welcoming of those who want to belong. Probably the EPCOT version of diversity is all we can safely have, but at the same time the EPCOT diversity is there for the taking. I myself am a foreigner living in a different land, and I’ve been welcome even with my own cultural quirks. Nobody takes offense that I don’t celebrate Thanksgiving in my house, but I’ll accept an invite if offered.
Of course there’s no chance Hamas would be able to wipe out Israel. No one, not even Hamas itself, believes it (*). It’s not going to happen, so talking about it is not very productive.
At the same time, do you have a view on how Israel is going to “destroy” Hamas? Hamas, at its core, is an idea. You can kill a lot of Hamas fighters (if you can distinguish them from the rest of the Palestinian population) but too much killing will just reinforce the idea of Hamas, even if the next group is called something else.
Of course, at some point, you can kill enough people to kill an idea. Ask any cathars around, if you can find any. But you have to kill a lot of Palestinians to get there.
You can also not kill an idea, but banish it far away. Emperor Hadrian did it. So did Isabella and Ferdinand. So did Catherine the Great. So did others. But to empty Gaza of the Hamas idea you have to empty it of Palestinians, and, unlike 135, 1492, or 1791, international political conditions are not favorable to a forced deportation of millions to…. where exactly? Where will these people go, and why would the people there receive them?
The third option is to quarantine the idea. Keep all that could be Hamas fenced. It’s a short term palliative, but you can extrapolate the result from high school biology. Keep the population controlled and isolated, and sooner or later (actually sooner) the whole population will carry the idea. And then you are worse off than you are right now.
I suspect Israel will go for the quarantine option, reoccupy and block Gaza, looking for Hamas, and its eventual successors, members, with the intent of eradicating them. The comparisons to events you are familiar with write themselves.
So what is Israel’s vision? We talk a lot about “from the River to the Sea” coming from Hamas, but it seems from the outside that that’s exactly the vision of the Israeli right, and of the current Israeli government. You are probably closer to it so please correct me. Please tell me that Israel is truly working for two states (two real states, not a state and two bastuntans), or for a single multiethnic Great Israel.
Because from the River to the Sea will never come to happen. Neither for Hamas, nor for Netanyahu (**)
(*) there’s probably someone on the internet that would disagree with this statement, but let’s, not quibble about him and stipulate it for the time being
(**) Let me throw another alternative here. The end vision of the Israeli government is to milk the conflict for continued power in Israel in the next couple of decades, and then après moi le dèluge.
My day gets better when there's a Ben Sears post in the morning.
Man, you really have to write a book, or at least get a tumblr or something where the world can look at your recipes. This one, also, is now in the to-do soon.
I had to Google Gal Gadot (I had her mixed up with Gad Elmaleh.See the “I’m 61” bit), so I’d have to say I don’t like her (she’s pretty to look at, but can’t judge her talent).
Natalie Portman, who I agree is a great actress, came to fame in the early 90s, so, though more recent than drip irrigation, is not something new.
Talking about great middle aged actresses, I also think greatly of Hiram Abbass (you saw her in Succession). Does she count as a point for “The world would be a considerable poorer place without Palestinians “?
I don’t know about the Rockies (except that flying over western Colorado you see wind farm after wind farm), but windpower investors’ returns are extremely sensitive to capacity factors, the ratio of how much energy it generates versus how much it would generate in wind blew up 100% of the temp.This factor depends not just on how constant the wind is in a location (it doesn’t really need to be strong) but also on the technology; modern wind farms are more efficient capturing the energy than older ones.
Fifteen years ago normal onshore capacity factors were high 30%. 41 or 42% was record breaking. Today, you wouldn’t bother to develop something below high 40s , and over 55% would be normal. Offshore generation is high 60s, and each percent point increases the returns dramatically, since the marginal cost of the additional generation is zero.
Solar capacity factor is much more stable and predictable, having been low 20s for fixed panels, and high 20s for panels with trackers for a long time. On an annual basis, latitude doesn’t affect this numbers since summer and winter days tend to cancel each other, but cloudiness is an important factor.
No, Low 40s $/MWh is a (very good price) for long term renewable generation without subsidies. Subsidized renewable energy is sold (last I checked, it’s been a while) in the high 20s.
So paying 100 $/MWh, three to four times what the utilities could buy power for, would be a massive subsidy from the utility customers to NuScale. One that could perhaps be considered in the name of developing small scale commercial nuclear power. But there are limits to the subsidies customers should be asked (or forced) to make. Go back to the drawing board and get it right, or use that money to support a different technology
This is literally my day job, and has been for decades. Power generation in over twenty countries.
And you are mistaken that renewable power prices does not include decommissioning costs. Basically all the environmental licenses for solar and wind power I’ve seen includes the details and costs of that decommissioning. In California (at least in Alameda county) you actually have to provide a 25 years performance bond to cover those costs before you get your construction license.
And you might be surprised, but decommissioning a renewable facility in actually don’t that expensive. Among other things you have no soil pollution to remediate, and most of the structures are very light and easy to disassemble. You do have to take both the blades and the actual solar panels to authorized recycling facilities, but that’s a lesser burden than to dispose of oil polluted soil
You can buy subsidized renewable energy in the high 20s.
100 $/MWh would be
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 4/8/2024”
Sylvia Poggioli is a person of color.
Her color is white.
Both parents were Italian (antifascist refugees).
On “Bridge Derangement Syndrome”
It does happen all the time. The only odd thing here was the massive size of both vessel and bridge. A smaller vessel would not have taken such a big structure.
I once asked an admiral why a midsize navy vessel was not doing what I had expected it to do. His answer: “Vessels don’t have brakes”.
Meaning, once they are moving, it’s very difficult to stop or steer them. Both need lots of space and time. Piloting them in closed waterways like in Baltimore requires specialized pilots, and even so, stuff happens.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/25/2024”
We are supposed to have rules and live with the consequences of those rules.
If you think the rule is all people accused of misdemeanors are to rot in jail until their trial is over, then let’s start building a lot more jails, and pay the taxes to pay for that.
The rule can’t be bail except for people that don’t deserve bail because they are bad people. Or don’t deserve bail because they are mentally ill, or don’t deserve bail because reasons.
Notable that option 2, jail, was more attractive to you than option 1, to try psychological treatment. Me, I prefer to try and get the guy to stop punching ladies. Your go to preference is instead punishment. Even though punishment in this particular case solves nothing, and will likely be more expensive.
And of course if he was actually a senior accountant in a mid size construction company he would post bail (can’t be too much in this particular case) and he will be as free as he is now.
Many people in America treat poverty as a sign of underlying immorality or sin, and not being poor as proof of a clean and moral life. I hope it’s not the case here.
"
You (general, society, you) can
1 Get him treatment for whatever issues he has, and support him until he can get well and support himself (going on a limb thinking that when he’s not punching ladies, he’s not working 9-5 as senior accountant in a midsize construction company, or even as an assistant manager in a Dunkin Donuts franchise). Let’s call it the good solution.
2. Change the laws and get him in prison for the rest of his natural life. Let’s call it the quick solution.
3. Let him go.
Options 1 or 2 are fairly expensive. 2 probably more than 1 but I haven’t run the numbers. Which makes Option 3 the cheap solution. (*)
Now what do you, personal you, Jaybird, think we should do. Me, I’d go for option 1, and I’m willing to pay the additional taxes to fund it. But our US society is very reluctant to pay to solve social problems. Other societies mileage vary and their results vary too.
(*)Someone should make a catch phrase to describe these kind of conundrums, a triangle of something, something strong and rigid. The uncooked spaghetti triangle perhaps?)
On “Bridge Derangement Syndrome”
You are for sure at least partially right. I’ve only been involved in one such claim, and we the consigners were liable for cost associated to tow and repair a vessel that had a failure in high seas due to bad weather.
At least in that case, the argument is that bad weather is an act of God and all of us sending cargo had to pitch in in the cost of repair . But that was a property damage claim (the vessel itself was damaged, not third party property or lives). I have my doubts, but cannot vouch, that the consigners are liable for damages the vessel caused to third parties.
"
All vessels that I know are owned by companies that ONLY own that vessel, so any liability and risk (for the owner)
is limited to the value of the vessel.
A separate operating company (frequently, but not exclusively, an affiliate of the vessel owner) runs the vessel for a small fee, and its liability is limited to the total amount of the contracting. Both the operator and the owner carry liability insurance and whether the root cause is a machinery breakdown (a term of art) or faulty maintenance should define if the owner or the operator liability insurance is supposed to cover the loss. Above the insurance limit, and any excess liability insurance than might sit on top (*), your only recourse is against thinly capitalized (that’s it, little money) owner or operator company.
The fact that the vessel was under the authority of the port pilots adds another potential liable agent to the mix, and for sure both owner and operator will bring the pilots and whoever employs them to the dispute.
Jaybird above is also at least partially correct, but I’m not sure if the consigners (the guys sending cargo) would be involved in this case. See my answer to him.
(*) You can, if you want, and you are prudent, have several layers of liability insurance, with a primary level covering claims from zero (there’s normally no or de minimis deductible in a liability claim) to X dollars, and one or more excess layers covering claims above x up to y, above y up to z, and so on. Each layer is cheaper than the one below because the possibility of such large claims is very small. But even the largest excess liability policy you can think about contracting won't cover the cost of this accident.
"
All vessels that I know are owned by companies that ONLY own that vessel, so any liability and risk (for the owner)
is limited to the value of the vessel.
A separate operating company (frequently, but not exclusively, an affiliate of the vessel owner) runs the vessel for a small fee, and its liability is limited to the total amount of the contracting. Both the operator and the owner carry liability insurance and whether the root cause is a machinery breakdown (a term of art) or faulty maintenance should define if the owner or the operator liability insurance is supposed to cover the loss. Above the insurance limit, and any excess liability insurance than might sit on top (*), your only recourse is against thinly capitalized (that’s it, little money) owner or operator company.
The fact that the vessel was under the authority of the port pilots adds another potential liable agent to the mix, and for sure both owner and operator will bring the pilots and whoever employs them to the dispute.
Jaybird above is also at least partially correct, but I’m not sure if the consigners (the guys sending cargo) would be involved in this case. See my answer to him.
(*) You can, if you want, and you are prudent, have several layers of liability insurance, with a primary level covering claims from zero (there’s normally no or de minimis deductible in a liability claim) to X dollars, and one or more excess layers covering claims above x up to y, above y up to z, and so on. Each layer is cheaper than the one below because the possibility of such large claims is very small. But even the largest excess liability policy you can think about contracting won't cover the cost of this accident.
"
Because compared to the cost of rebuilding a 1.6 miles bridge, tugboats are cheap, but compared to the price of a new car, or a new house in the suburbs, renting several tugboats for several hours is quite expensive. And what do we need them for, if the vessel has its own engines and a big rudder and two port pilots?
For this to be implemented, it needs to come as a regulation, either from the maritime national authorities, or from ship classification authorities or maritime insurers, that would make vessels uninsurable unless they hire tugs to navigate close to critical infrastructure.
In cases like this, the profit (not renting the tugboats) belongs to the ship owner, the losses (rebuilding the bridge) are paid by society. The damage is orders of magnitude bigger than the vessel’s insurance policy limits, or even the value of the ship itself.
Usually each vessel is owned by a separate special purpose corporate vehicle. The most the owner, and its lenders, vessels of this nature are highly leveraged , can lose is the ownership of the vessel itself
"
Having been marginally involved in ships moving in and out of fuel terminals, my suggestion going forward is that any vessel big enough to damage infrastructure in case it looses power or steering (itself a not uncommon and normally not a dangerous event) has to accompanied by tugboats until it is in a place where there is no more risk of damage.
The cost of rebuilding the bridge would probably cover a century of tugboats escorting every large vessel under that bridge.
On “Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore Struck By Container Ship, Collapses”
Without knowing I would assume the dolphins around the transmission pylons were built to protect against collision by much smaller boats, which would not damage the bridge but would totally destroy the very fragile pylons.
If the vessels blew away the bridge support structures, you’d need dolphins bigger than those structures to protect the bridge (or the pylons).
As much as it is easy to imagine a cargo vessel running into the bridge, the cost to protect it from such a low probability event would be astronomical. And those who now criticize the lack of foresight would have spend decades criticizing the useless waste of taxpayer money in building protective dolphins as big as the bridge itself.
On “Music Monday: Is This the Greatest Rock Instrumental of All Time?”
Don’t hit me (you’ll probably end breaking your screen) but I think I like the Rhett Shull cover better than the original. I find Torry’s vocals too jarring (*)and distracting, taking center stage away from the music.
Thank you for this. A nice present to start the day
(*) I also don’t like sopranos doing scales, so it’s a me thing, and not a criticism of Torry’s amazing vocal abilities.
On “Girl Dadding in the Taylor Swift Era”
I sign along to Meatloaf over and over and over in my car. I might restart the same song up to ten times before I move to the next.
It’s fishing fun
And last I checked, like this morning, I have guy bits :-)
P. S. And I was born when the Cuban Missiles crisis was also known as “last month”.
On “Spring Lamb from a Once Noisy Rock”
Ok, you did it again
As much as I love lamb, I’m not partial to lamb shanks. But now I need to cook this. Like right now.
Regretfully I read it after arriving from a market trip where I bought salmon, aged tenderloin, duck, and blood sausage, so the shanks will have to wait until next week. I could cry right now, if I wasn’t so happy I found blood sausage in Houston
Thank you again. You are my hero hehe
On “Hail to the Champs”
I think that if Biden was free to pass on his baton to whoever he chose, he would chose Mayor Pete.
But he isn’t free, and he will have to endorse Kamala.
In a Kamala Harris - Pete Buttigieg primary, I’m team Mayor Pete through and through (and so are my energy company executives colleagues; at least those that will vote D).
On “Refire A Classic: Deconstructed Salisbury Steak”
A Spanish galleon of (freshly ground) pepper in almost anything (*) sounds about right to me.
(*) less if you are making a dessert (**)
(**) Strawberries with ground pepper is a great dessert, in case you haven’t tried it. Probably a mid size yacht of it is enough, though.
On “Lent!”
Can I suggest something that I have included in my relationship with my spouse.
When he does anything for me, even if I don't want it or like it (specially if I don't want it or like it), my first response, my first words, are "Thank you". And I really try to mean it and be thankful. Only after thanking him, I might say something like "next time less sugar", or "I'm not thirsty now", or "so where are we putting the nails now that you've moved them to clear room for the hammers?".
I find that thanking him straight ahead focuses my mind away from how I (capital I) am impacted by his action, and towards how HE went out of his way to do it. So even if I'd rather the nails still were where they used to, the time it takes to say "Thank you" gives me chance to put myself in my partner's place,.
It works wonders for me after 17 years
On “Weekend Plans Post: Beef Stew and a Knife you Need”
Besides those three, everything cooked in my house has fennel seed. It gives an extra aroma.
And, of course, Chinese Five Spices. It adds a dash of sweetness and another totally different aroma.
So what do you call a five people trinity? A pentity sounds really silly.
On “What is Israel’s Endgame in Gaza?”
At this point you are half-arguing a hypothetical. What if people that currently invite Jews into their houses suddenly decide to target them?
If we are going to explore that (and I acknowledge it has happened before, 80 or so years ago), you have to fill in the details. What were the causes then? What is different now, if anything? Is the same everywhere? Is there anything the Jewish community can do to stop, or to accelerate, this change in attitude?
Because otherwise to just point out that perhaps one day non-Jews will decide ( everywhere? In the USA? In Latin América?) to target (what does target actually mean in this argument?) the Jews, is like saying that perhaps one day an asteroid will hit the earth. It is possible but there doesn’t seem to be anything anyone can do about it.
So, in this particular case, is there anything you think people could be doing to foreclose the chance of the 1930s happening again?
"
I spent my teenage and college years in a Latin American country and it was exactly like that. Jewish people were not unknown. My parents had Jewish friends, there were a couple of Jewish kids in high school, and I went to college with others, which still remain friends after four decades (one moved to Israel, and reports every once in a while on what she sees there). I even met a couple of Holocaust survivors.
But in general, they all were all “normal” people. @Jaybird would call them EPCOT Jews. They had different holidays were they ate different foods, were happy to explain them to you when you asked about them (and I got invited to a couple of Friday Seders or Purim parties, as well as some synagogue weddings and brits, were kippas were provided at the door for gentile guests), and went to synagogue on Saturdays instead of Mass on Sundays. But otherwise, they were indistinguishable to the rest of us. They studied with us, partied with us, and if my mum served pork chops for lunch to one of them, my Jewish friends would eat them in good spirits.
The only thing in which they stood apart from the rest was dating. They very rarely dated outside their religion. One of my gentile friends married a Jewish guy and it was a big big deal for both families (she converted and her Italian family father cut her off for many years).
I do not think they felt isolated from the rest of society. Nobody discriminated against them. They favored certain neighborhoods, but could be found be living anywhere in town.
At the same time, they all blended in. Sometimes, you saw a very modestly dressed woman and could accurately guess she was Jewish, but Haredi-like men were as rare as hen”s teeth (most of the ones I met were rabbis). But the vast majority lived exactly like their neighbors, went to the same schools and clubs, worked in the same jobs, and were welcome without much thought.
So, for what is worth, I find most people are welcoming of those who want to belong. Probably the EPCOT version of diversity is all we can safely have, but at the same time the EPCOT diversity is there for the taking. I myself am a foreigner living in a different land, and I’ve been welcome even with my own cultural quirks. Nobody takes offense that I don’t celebrate Thanksgiving in my house, but I’ll accept an invite if offered.
"
Of course there’s no chance Hamas would be able to wipe out Israel. No one, not even Hamas itself, believes it (*). It’s not going to happen, so talking about it is not very productive.
At the same time, do you have a view on how Israel is going to “destroy” Hamas? Hamas, at its core, is an idea. You can kill a lot of Hamas fighters (if you can distinguish them from the rest of the Palestinian population) but too much killing will just reinforce the idea of Hamas, even if the next group is called something else.
Of course, at some point, you can kill enough people to kill an idea. Ask any cathars around, if you can find any. But you have to kill a lot of Palestinians to get there.
You can also not kill an idea, but banish it far away. Emperor Hadrian did it. So did Isabella and Ferdinand. So did Catherine the Great. So did others. But to empty Gaza of the Hamas idea you have to empty it of Palestinians, and, unlike 135, 1492, or 1791, international political conditions are not favorable to a forced deportation of millions to…. where exactly? Where will these people go, and why would the people there receive them?
The third option is to quarantine the idea. Keep all that could be Hamas fenced. It’s a short term palliative, but you can extrapolate the result from high school biology. Keep the population controlled and isolated, and sooner or later (actually sooner) the whole population will carry the idea. And then you are worse off than you are right now.
I suspect Israel will go for the quarantine option, reoccupy and block Gaza, looking for Hamas, and its eventual successors, members, with the intent of eradicating them. The comparisons to events you are familiar with write themselves.
So what is Israel’s vision? We talk a lot about “from the River to the Sea” coming from Hamas, but it seems from the outside that that’s exactly the vision of the Israeli right, and of the current Israeli government. You are probably closer to it so please correct me. Please tell me that Israel is truly working for two states (two real states, not a state and two bastuntans), or for a single multiethnic Great Israel.
Because from the River to the Sea will never come to happen. Neither for Hamas, nor for Netanyahu (**)
(*) there’s probably someone on the internet that would disagree with this statement, but let’s, not quibble about him and stipulate it for the time being
(**) Let me throw another alternative here. The end vision of the Israeli government is to milk the conflict for continued power in Israel in the next couple of decades, and then après moi le dèluge.
On “Farrah Fawcett and Grilled Spaghetti Sauce”
My day gets better when there's a Ben Sears post in the morning.
Man, you really have to write a book, or at least get a tumblr or something where the world can look at your recipes. This one, also, is now in the to-do soon.
Thanks again
On “Support for Israel is Strong, But….”
As an aside, Yossi and Jagger is my favorite Israeli movie 😁. We can talk about Yehuda Levi if you want
"
I had to Google Gal Gadot (I had her mixed up with Gad Elmaleh.See the “I’m 61” bit), so I’d have to say I don’t like her (she’s pretty to look at, but can’t judge her talent).
Natalie Portman, who I agree is a great actress, came to fame in the early 90s, so, though more recent than drip irrigation, is not something new.
Talking about great middle aged actresses, I also think greatly of Hiram Abbass (you saw her in Succession). Does she count as a point for “The world would be a considerable poorer place without Palestinians “?
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/6/2023”
I don’t know about the Rockies (except that flying over western Colorado you see wind farm after wind farm), but windpower investors’ returns are extremely sensitive to capacity factors, the ratio of how much energy it generates versus how much it would generate in wind blew up 100% of the temp.This factor depends not just on how constant the wind is in a location (it doesn’t really need to be strong) but also on the technology; modern wind farms are more efficient capturing the energy than older ones.
Fifteen years ago normal onshore capacity factors were high 30%. 41 or 42% was record breaking. Today, you wouldn’t bother to develop something below high 40s , and over 55% would be normal. Offshore generation is high 60s, and each percent point increases the returns dramatically, since the marginal cost of the additional generation is zero.
Solar capacity factor is much more stable and predictable, having been low 20s for fixed panels, and high 20s for panels with trackers for a long time. On an annual basis, latitude doesn’t affect this numbers since summer and winter days tend to cancel each other, but cloudiness is an important factor.
"
No, Low 40s $/MWh is a (very good price) for long term renewable generation without subsidies. Subsidized renewable energy is sold (last I checked, it’s been a while) in the high 20s.
So paying 100 $/MWh, three to four times what the utilities could buy power for, would be a massive subsidy from the utility customers to NuScale. One that could perhaps be considered in the name of developing small scale commercial nuclear power. But there are limits to the subsidies customers should be asked (or forced) to make. Go back to the drawing board and get it right, or use that money to support a different technology
This is literally my day job, and has been for decades. Power generation in over twenty countries.
And you are mistaken that renewable power prices does not include decommissioning costs. Basically all the environmental licenses for solar and wind power I’ve seen includes the details and costs of that decommissioning. In California (at least in Alameda county) you actually have to provide a 25 years performance bond to cover those costs before you get your construction license.
And you might be surprised, but decommissioning a renewable facility in actually don’t that expensive. Among other things you have no soil pollution to remediate, and most of the structures are very light and easy to disassemble. You do have to take both the blades and the actual solar panels to authorized recycling facilities, but that’s a lesser burden than to dispose of oil polluted soil
You can buy subsidized renewable energy in the high 20s.
100 $/MWh would be
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.