Solar storms don't work like that. It's not the movie-like electronics blow up left and right thing. It's quasi-DC currents in the ground thing.
What that means is that the power grid is designed for AC currents, and now there will be DC currents flowing through it, induced by the flexing of the Earth's magnetic field under the storm. That is very likely to saturate the cores in large scale transformers, causing them to blow up.
No more power grid. And these are not things you have spares for or can ship from China. You need to make new ones, in a country with spotty power and complete supply chain breakdown.
So your electronics would be fine, just out of power. Faraday cages are for the nuclear bomb type EMP events.
“Linux” (as in Linux based operating systems) are attractive because they’re community maintained and you can hack around in the OS with minimal skills and no special tools or extra computers. Android is almost the polar opposite of that.
I find this seriously confusing too. None of these sound like major, or even all that useful, features, and yet they talk about "considering whether there is any value in a crippled version of Chromium".
Unlike with ICE cars, it's trivial to turn any parking spot into a charging station for an EV. The model changes from "expensive building with attendants on every corner" to "a (120v/slow charging) plug at most parking spots". This is already the norm in northern communities where you need to plug in ICE cars if you want them to start in the morning.
In apartments/flats you are usually parking in a dedicated parking lot, that can be easily renovated to have spots with a plug. Street parking in front of small houses will likely gain parking meter like devices with extension cords.
Downtown flats and apartments around here generally don't have any streets that allow overnight parking, and do generally have their own dedicated parking, but that probably varies with location.
Once people started building with cars in mind here, they were building single family detached houses. Most apartments, duplexes, 4-plexes, etc. were built in the era of streetcars.
We do have some multifamily from the postwar era, but it tends to be either very luxe (contemporary gentrification) or very crappy (from when cities were for poor people). The stately, comfortable, once-grand-but-now-middle-class stock is all pre-automobile.
Honestly, as someone who has owned and driven an EV for the better part of a decade, L1 home charging has been sufficient most of the time. That uses the same type of 120V plug that you'd use for a coffee maker, and it's enough for about 40 miles of range while you sleep.
With a modern long-range EV, nightly L1 charging plus occasional DCFC or L2 charging would meet the driving needs of almost everyone.
So the solution is very simple: Just install L1 EVSEs everwhere. Streetlights have extra capacity now that LED bulbs are in vogue, so putting L1 charging next to every on-street parking space isn't even a technical challenge.
This could actually work pretty well. It would add more complexity to building parking lots, and possibly retrofits, but running junction boxes out to every parking space should be possible.
It can start small as well, maybe converting 10% of spaces and then expanding as adoption ramps up. You run into the grocery store for an hour, and you get a couple of miles. Park at work and get some more, then plug it in when you get home. I'm envisioning something like a retractable cable that you can pull out to your car, but maybe I'm overthinking the desire for theft of these cables.
1. Most gas stations break even on the gas an make money on the attached convenience store. That's a different business model than "charge at home" or "charge at streetlight" while you're sleeping.
2. A gas station is a place you "go" to. You're normally taking a detour or at least making an extra stop. Most day-to-day EV charging is done at your normal destination while you're doing things you'd otherwise be doing.
Those are fairly fundamental differences to the gas station model, as far as I'm concerned.
In the U.S., the majority of people drive to work, so even if you don't have a place to charge at home, you can still fully charge every weekday if your employer has chargers.
I'm not sure how feasible it is for an employer to have charging stations for 80% of their workforce. It would be a nice benefit though.
One nice thing about charging at your workplace though is typical 9-5 jobs are quire compatible with solar charging. So you put up an array of solar with electrical outlets in the lot. Excess power feeds back into the business.
As soon as there are enough electric vehicle ownership among employees, they can't reliably charge at work. I already can't, the chargers are always taken.
If all the chargers are regularly full, presumably they will build more chargers.
In the long run, having a higher percentage of EV owners should increase ability to reliably find a charger because there will be less variability in demand.
Fair enough, I used "home" but it could just as easily be anywhere else the car is stored: garage, office building, even public streets maybe. Going to a filling station is just too slow to be the main way to charge. No EV owner wants to dedicate 30 minutes a week twiddling their thumbs while the car charges. I just can't see a dedicated filling station will be part of the regular routine for most EV owners the way it necessarily is for gas cars.
Presumably you have "some place" where you store your car when you're not using it. It makes sense to put a charger there, as opposed to on the block corner.
It's been a while since i've been around that community, and recently i wondered what developed between 2013-ish and now.
More specifically, has the recent rise and push for recognition of plurality originated from tulpa communities? [1], for example. A lot of the terminology is different from what i remember, so i wondered if it's an evolution or a parallel development.
> But I do wonder how much of it is about different uses of words by different people.
There are qualitative differences, however. I think a better question would be not how vivid the imagined shape is, but how connected and contextual it is.
Someone might imagine a 6 red star and stop at that, someone might imagine a 3 star, but with the whole Kremlin tower attached on a snowy night with distant car sounds.
Testable things i found are looking for reactions. Imagine yourself at the beach, standing half immersed in the sea, enjoying the view, then something grabs your leg underwater.
-Did you flinch, or was these just words? Some people would, since they are contextually immersed in the scene.
-Can you answer side questions, like how calm the sea was, were you looking towards the land or the horizon, were there any birds in the sky, and so on? Some people can, because they were visualizing the scene, some people won't unless prompted, since they were constructing the scene.
In the similar vein, do you project your imagination over the world around you? People who do tend to not comprehend how you can lose things, like forgetting where you parked your car.
I do think there is something to this, but it's exceedingly difficult to communicate about the differences.
For example English is not my native language and even though I'm basically fluent as far as understanding any TV show or reading books goes, but I still notice it doesn't reach me as viscerally as speech in my native language. It's blunted, it's like touching things with gloves on. So there is some sort of vividness of ideas, but it's hard to describe.
I think people who claim they can visualize something don't actually pixel for pixel visualize it. I read about some study where these people only realized this when followup questions came. I think you can excite your neurons to represent the visual concept of a house without having to expend all the effort to actually create all the parts, decide on the color of window frames, all the small details.
Overall I'm torn. I guess there are differences and we should listen to descriptions like these. On the other hand, I also know how unreflective and un-introspective average people can be.
"-Can you answer side questions, like how calm the sea was, were you looking towards the land or the horizon, were there any birds in the sky, and so on? Some people can, because they were visualizing the scene, some people won't unless prompted, since they were constructing the scene."
- this is exactly it. I seem to be unable to visualize things in my mind. If someone asks me to visualize a beach, I can create a description of a beach and know what exists on the beach, I am able to give an verbal explanation of it. However I do not at any moment see it, nor do I have insight into the beach that I didn't construct. I don't notice that there is a hotel in the distance, but I can think about it and add it in the description. I feel this is very different to what apparently majority of people can do.
Hm, not at the speed of reading. Takes a bit of slowing down to get some.
A complication is that a lot of these are from elementary school geometry books, so i tend to just remember the answer before getting a chance to look at it.
Can you imagine each Tetris shape, one after the other, in some kind of spatial way? Can you "make" the L shaped one sit on its short side then lie down on the long side?
Can you do this? "You see the silhouette of a cube, viewed from the corner. What does it look like?"
Or mark the edges of a cube into thirds, and cut off each of its corners back to the marks. What does the result look like? Can you mentally rotate this shape around?
I don't really see anything. If I attempt to visualize a cube from the corner, I can maybe say I can see the corner and three edges leading from it (to be honest, it's hard to say that I truly see it, but maybe a vague outline of three lines). I don't see the remainder of the cube.
If I try to imagine a cube, and then mark the edges into thirds, I cannot imagine what remains when I cut off corners back to the mark. And the cube itself is more of an idea of a cube rather than visual representation.
I cannot mentally rotate the shape as I do not see a shape.
I'm sure it's hard to believe, but trust me, it's hard for me to believe people can visualize in the way people describe.
Do you see any sort of visual imagery when dozing off to sleep? Have you ever played a lot of some visually repetitive game, like Minesweeper, Tetris, Bejeweled etc? I find that if I play a lot of those (hours) then at night when I shut my eyes I can't get rid of visualizations of these shapes in my mind, it's even kind of annoying.
For reference, this is what happens to me. If I spend a few hours playing a particular videogame, its imagery "burns into" my mind - when I close my eyes, I can see recurring patterns from the game (like ground textures or UI elements); if I'm tired, that's an easy way to get me to high level 3 on the "starn scale". The effect disappears after I sleep for a few hours.
For me, trying to make a tulpa 10 years ago ended up amplifying my loneliness, as well as placing it front-and-center, impossible to ignore.
In retrospect that was a good thing, since it prompted me into dealing with a lot of issues as well as discovering some i wasn't explicitly aware of. Trying to create an imaginary person you unconsciously wish you were born as could really sharpen and highlight everything that is different.
What that means is that the power grid is designed for AC currents, and now there will be DC currents flowing through it, induced by the flexing of the Earth's magnetic field under the storm. That is very likely to saturate the cores in large scale transformers, causing them to blow up.
No more power grid. And these are not things you have spares for or can ship from China. You need to make new ones, in a country with spotty power and complete supply chain breakdown.
So your electronics would be fine, just out of power. Faraday cages are for the nuclear bomb type EMP events.