I've run every version of macOS since Mac OS X Public Beta. I'm pretty sure I'm going to skip Tahoe. macOS 15 Sequoia is great; why would I switch to something profoundly ugly and unpolished if everything will keep running on my current OS and Apple's liable to make macOS 27 look tolerable?
As with solar energy, complete reliance on wind energy would pose intermittency challenges. However, wind, solar, and storage together can provide the majority of the country’s electricity without compromising reliability
The false claim they're rebutting is that because wind is unreliable, we shouldn't deploy wind turbines for clean energy generation. They stipulate that it is a great part of a package of renewables.
Yes, the actual claim they are debunking is the subheading: "Because of the wind’s intermittency and high variability, they do next to nothing to
reduce the need for other fuels."
Yes, but there’s no evidence that storage can or will be a cost effective strategy to let solar and wind handle base load power. That’s why China is betting on nuclear hard instead of storage to backfill what solar and wind cannot deliver.
Sure, but our grids have plenty of existing natural gas generation, hydro generation and storage, etc. These aren't going to disappear just because we're building wind and solar. If you can go from a grid that burns natural gas 100% of the time to only 20% of the time, you've still cut carbon emissions dramatically. In the mean time, storage technologies will improve, nuclear might become cheaper, transmission grids will become better and more interconnected, etc.
The fact that wind alone can't get us to a 100% renewable grid isn't a valid argument to not build wind power. Solar and wind are the cheapest and fastest technologies available today to expand energy production while reducing carbon emissions.
I wasn’t making that claim. I was just highlighting how renewables by themselves are insufficient for base load power. Renewables often help with peak load and that is valuable, but base load is storage+renewables, nuclear, hydro, or fossil fuels.
China isn’t doing one single thing… they’re rolling out more wind and solar than anywhere else on earth. They’re investing heavily in nuclear. They’re building massive banks of batteries and new hydro dams to store power. Pretending like they don’t have faith in renewables being a massive part of their future energy generation is just silly. They have multiple GWH+ battery projects under construction right now.
Yep. China installed 256 GW of new solar capacity in the first 6 months of 2025 (out of 380 GW globally).
To further put this into perspective, the United States had 239 GW of total installed PV capacity at the end of 2024. China is now adding more solar every 6 months than the US has installed ever.
Relative to the US, sure, call it 'hard' if you like.
Relative to China's total energy demand and current supply build out, coal still dominates (albeit near peak use in China and predicted to fall within a decade), renewables are where the bulk of growth and new generation is at, nuclear following a post Fukishima 'stumble' is planned to expand over the next decade, by 2035, to account for 10% of electricity generation (up from sub 2% now).
10%, perhaps even 15%, of total generation leaves a lot of slack that china plans to address with solar, wind, storage, HVDC transmission, etc.
Would they have space? Considering that Github was always remote, that's a lot of people to fit into existing space. Though I guess it depends on how many Github employees are within 50 miles of Redmond.
And, in my experience, a 50 mile commute into a big city isn't really sustainable--and that was with a fair bit of travel, etc. mixed in so I wasn't going in every day and pretty accessible commuter rail service if I was going in 8-5 or thereabouts.
Given that all GitHub teams are remote, the chance of having a team member at the same office is approximately 0. What's the point of commuting if you're not co-located with team members?
This does not stop every company from RTO mandates. My wife's employer is approaching full RTO and literally none of her team would go to the same office as her. And she was remote before COVID.
I think Hungry Hungry Hippos was the board game that taught me that advertisements lie. They were not, in fact, "fun fun fun by the ton ton ton." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBYcWhQae98
This feels like a great example of how wildly overcomplicated Swift has gotten in the past few years. I'm not sure exactly what the right time for Swift to have said 'enough' might have been, but I do know it needs a Snow Leopard [0] release.
In particular, I'd love to see the language designers spend a year simply improving compiler error messages. I don't spend a lot of time building iOS apps these days, and the inscrutability of the compiler's messaging turns that into a vicious cycle.
I think Swift Concurrency is a great idea that unfortunately wasn't executed very well. The motivation behind it is that concurrency is difficult to understand and tricky to get right, but Swift Concurrency is at times even more difficult to understand and has even more pitfalls and gotchas compared to old-school synchronization primitives. I don't know where exactly it went wrong but it does feel that they really overcomplicated this feature.
