That didn’t acknowledge anything that I said and was no different than the grandfather comment lol. You just pretty much reworded your original comment.
(Although, I do slightly agree less with this wording. It’s too absolute and doesn’t apply to all situations. But you know this.)
>True, but people tend to act like similar programs don’t exist in red states also when they make statements such as yours…
They don't, at least, not to the extent that they exist in blue states. Texas and Florida do not have programs as extensive as Maryland's. Texas doesn't have a good behavior program for inmates' terms at all.
>(Also, Maryland had a republican governor up until recently)
Immaterial, the governor does not pass laws, the legislature does. Maryland General Assembly has a supermajority of Democrats in both houses.
>That didn’t acknowledge anything that I said and was no different than the grandfather comment lol.
It's only "no difference" if words no longer have meaning, which is in vogue for leftists these days.
>You just pretty much reworded your original comment.
Again, only if words no longer have meaning. You can vote and tolerate differently.
LaPere was openly pro-BLM, which pushed "soft-on-crime" policies all over the US.
This is LeopardsAteMyFace to a T. We all know what would happen if we posted this story on /r/LeopardsAteMyFace though.
If this means we're going to have to continue the next decade with btrfs I may scream. I already use ZFS everywhere, but it's ease of use has been distro dependent.
Linus looks like he's back to his old ways. I should take a closer look at illumos.
Linus isn't behaving greatly here, but having a read through of the whole mailing list thread I'm actually fairly understanding of his reaction for once.
Here's this big project that Kent's been wanting to merge for ages and very basic steps that any Kernel developer would be aware of (like sending it to linux-next first) have not been done.
Basically everything related to multiple disks is super basic and too simple.
1. If you are writing with the `single` profile. It always writes to the one with the most space. This means that adding a new disk to a system will hotspot writes to that disk. Alternatively you can rebalance and it will make it so that all disks have the same space available which will basically hotspot reads. Most sane filesystems will do some sort of balancing.
2. If you are writing to the `RAID0` (striping with no redundancy) it will write across all disks and fill them up equally. When one disk fills it will be dropped out and the other disks will be hotspotted.
3. If you read from a replicated profile it picks the disk based on your process ID rather than any sort of intelligent metric like queue length or typical latency.
4. Replication profile can only be set on the filesystem level. bcachefs can set replication profile on the per-file or recursively at the directory level.
I mean nothing is absolutely terrible. But it is just shockingly basic for many things.
I don't care about the raid features personally, that's irrelevant to me. I care about snapshotting and send streams more than anything else.
Your anecdotal evidence about data loss is meaningless. I can counter with my own anecdote: I've had zero data loss with btrfs running pre-release RC kernels on my laptops for over a decade. I fill up disks a lot.
One failure report is worth 1,000 success reports. Add as many orders of magnitude as you wish, and the statement remains true. This is not merely an axiom of reviewing and assessment, it's a joke:
I've been reviewing tech for a living for nearly 30 years now, and evaluating tech for a living -- as well as using it and fixing it and deploying it -- since the decade before that.
The point of tech assessment and tech reviewing is to balance the good features against the bad features. Too many people get dazzled by the good stuff so that they don't notice the bad stuff.
As the late great Douglas Adams put it:
«
In other words - and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation's Galaxywide success is founded - their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.”
»
I don't care how good the features of a filesystem are if I can't trust it. Either it needs to be very solid, and have good documented battle-tested tools for fixing it and repairing it, such as XFS or JFS... which probably means it is also conservative on the features.
Or, alternatively, absolutely blasted bulletproof, to the extend that a multi-billion-dollar corporation sees fit to launch it without a repair tool because it doesn't need one.
There is one such system, and it is ZFS.
Btrfs is neither. It is loaded with features, some half implemented if that, it is fragile, and it does not have good repair features.
If I had seen it fail once, I would be dubious and sceptical.
If I had seen it fail twice, I would no longer trust it.
But I have not. I have seen it fail half a dozen times in 4 years.
And it is not just me.
Here is the documentation on the repair tool:
«
Warning
Do not use `--repair` unless you are advised to do so by a developer or an experienced user, and then only after having accepted that no fsck successfully repair all types of filesystem corruption. E.g. some other software or hardware bugs can fatally damage a volume.
»
This tool cannot be trusted and that it is present means that the FS cannot be relied upon.
This is a giant red flashing light and eardrum-bashing warning siren.
It doesn't matter how many people like it and have had no problems. THERE ARE PROBLEMS. It doesn't matter how many corporates use it. A broken tool may still be usable.
Meta may deploy Btrfs across racks of kit but they don't care about the data on those racks and it can be replaced.
Fedora doesn't use snapshot support because it's bodged that functionality into OStree so it doesn't care if it's dangerous. It just wants to describe how horrendously inefficient Flatpak is.
I've used btrfs for about two years and in that time it completely destroyed my filesystem and almost lost data. Not trusting it again.
Realistically, that's a basic requirement for any filesystem. I've not had a filesystem do that in my two plus decades of linux usage. That means I'm just not using it. Restored to ZFS from backup and couldn't be happier. ZFS works; is extraordinarily stable; and hasn't lost data for me yet.
Given bcachefs' cheeky strapline "The COW filesystem for Linux that won't eat your data" (clearly referring to btrfs' spotty record of reliability and data loss), it's understandable the btrfs people are feeling triggered, that doesn't excuse the passive-aggressive obstacles those who are gatekeepers for kernel FS code have been using to stall adoption of bcachefs in the kernel.
ZFS is the only other alternative to bcachefs (a rock-solid one, albeit not license-compatible), which is why it's mentioned.
Omg how after all this time are people still fucking repeating this 'not license-compatible' nonsense. This is one of this myths that at some point has infected the OpenSource community and its so totally wrong and damaging.
Its not license incompatible, many, many, many organizations have shipped ZFS as part of the distribution and absolutely nobody ever sued or even threatened sue over the license.
Linus didn't want to merge it because of some vague fear of Oracle and how they sued over Java, but that was about API not license.
What Linus should have done is to simple upstream it. If some big company (IBM or whoever) wants to not 'risk' ZFS then they should damn well do their own work and remove it. There is no reason that the waste majority of the Linux community should be denied great features (ZFS, DTrace and friends) over some vague fear of Oracle.
CDDL means ZFS can't be incorporated into the Linux kernel as opposed to a distribution. That does have impacts as in when the kernel makes breaking changes in the internal vfs structures used by ZoL. Oracle could change that at the stoke of a pen, but chose not to, for whatever reason.
I don't think fear of Oracle is the issue, more likely just an irrational rejection of everything Sun and Solaris. After all btrfs also originated in Oracle (what's worse, despicable Oracle itself, not via the Sun acquisition).
Perhaps Oracle's unwillingness to relicense is simply that Oracle knows how inferior btrfs and thus doesn't mind giving it away by licensing it GPLv2, but ZFS is much more valuable and they want to keep the rights to it as potential competitive advantage. If Sun hadn't licensed ZFS CDDL before the acquisition, I'm pretty sure Oracle would be happy to keep it closed-source.
I hope bcachefs makes it into the kernel quickly, that distros drop btrfs and that its infiltrators are turfed out of kernel-land, but that's probably too much to hope for. In the meantime, I am happy to keep running ZFS for all my critical data on Illumos, Alpine and Ubuntu.
If you can legally distributed then there is no reason it can't be linked into the main kernel.
> I don't think fear of Oracle is the issue
Why then did Linus say exactly that?
> After all btrfs also originated in Oracle (what's worse, despicable Oracle itself, not via the Sun acquisition).
Wrong. It was simply a guy that worked for Oracle, it wasn't an Oracle project.
> Perhaps Oracle's unwillingness to relicense is simply that
It doesn't matter what Oracle once, of course they don't want anything to do with ti. The community has forked ZFS long ago and Oracle has no power what so ever to reliance most of that code.
Literally nobody wants the Oracle proprietary ZFS anyway.
I obviously share your frustration! I have long viewed these bogus licensing claims as the open source variant of NIH syndrome,[0] complete with the conjuring of both fear and grievance that always makes for particularly virulent thinking among the orthodox.
But the license claims aren't bogus – or at least not all of them? For example the CDDL states that you can't add additional restrictions, but if you combine it with the GPL then the GPL also applies, so that's an "additional restriction", no?
Of course, all of this is highly legalistic and in spirit the CDDL and GPL are essentially identical, and from that perspective any lawsuit would be complete bollocks, but ... bollocks lawsuits do happen.
There's lots of claims about GPL and CDDL compatibility floating around and much of it sounds at least plausible and it's all a bit controversial. Clearing up this sort of confusion is exactly the sort of scenario where courts come in to play. So it seems to me that fears of a lawsuit are not entirely unreasonable.
Do you want to put all your money and the future development of Linux at risk? The nature of lawsuits in the US means that as soon as the lawsuit is filed you've lost already, and the ruling just decides if you've lost even harder.
Not denying Linux can have its share of NIH, but I see this mostly as a matter of risk management. e.g. Canonical has decided to take that risk, which is fair and reasonable, but Linus decided to not take that risk, which is also fair and reasonable.
Of course the entire situation is ridiculous; btrfs is partly sponsored by Oracle, and Oracle is also sitting on a perfectly functional filesystem they can just relicense like they did with dtrace. I don't know what's preventing Oracle from doing that.
Why then does Canonical and many other places link it with the kernel and distribute it. Canonical stated there is no issue.
If you really believe there is a license issue go ahead and start suing people and see how far you get with that.
> So it seems to me that fears of a lawsuit are not entirely unreasonable.
And yet lots cooperation shipped code and products with ZFS and Linux with no issue what so ever for many, many years now.
> Do you want to put all your money and the future development of Linux at risk?
Its not a risk for Linux at all. Its a risk for a company that distributes Linux with ZFS in it. If a company for some reason believes that there might be an issue and they don't want it, then they can feel free to remove it.
My guess is that 99.9% of companies will simply use Linux with ZFS in it.
> Linus decided to not take that risk, which is also fair and reasonable
He could just say he would merge it, and unless half the large cooperations in the world jump on him to stop him there is no reason to not merge it. But he didn't do it, he just reject it out of hand based on some vague 'maybe oracle' something. Did he consult a lawyers?
Lots of lawyers have said it's probably incompatible. Is it? Who knows. You're saying it's all nonsense, which seems quite a far-fetched claim. I find it hard to see how anyone could defend any other answer than "it's presently unclear", possibly followed by "but it's probably (in)?compatible".
That distros haven't been sued yet seems meaningless. Granted, Oracle has been a bit better in recent years, but people haven't forgotten Oracle v. Google, SCO v. {everyone}, USL v. BSDi, etc. One of the lessons is that you can never know who will own some piece of copyright or IP in the future and what they will do with it. Oracle could off-load all of the Solaris stuff to some copyright troll tomorrow.
But it doesn't really matter who is right or wrong here or if it is or isn't compatible: there's enough of a dispute for lawsuits, and they're going to be costly and a headache anyway.
> That distros haven't been sued yet seems meaningless.
I don't think if meaningless. And its not just distros, there are whole companies whos buissness model depends on linux with zfs. And its also all the companies who use the distros.
Literally 100s and 100s of company are running Ubuntu. All of those companies have decided that ZFS isn't a problem of them. All of them could have ask to exclude ZFS but non have to my knowlage.
Its also not really about Oracle. Sun did the legwork when they open-sourced their stuff. Those licenses in itself are not in question. And those licenses certainty don't care about being linked with GPL. The only question is if GPL is incomparable with the CDDL.
So the fear of Oracle in this case that Oracle would put itself forward as defender of the GPL? That makes no sense. But anybody could sue anybody about that at any time.
If Linux had included ZFS the ZFS code would already exists on most of the worlds computers by now. And the waste, waste majority of companies would not remove ZFS over some open source inside baseball.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I fully understand why the code can't be incorporated as is. Then again, workarounds were found for things like the proprietary nVidia drivers, and the unwillingness to do so for an arguably far superior filesystem reeks of NIH.
Hi Bryan! Yes, NIH is the most likely explanation, since btrfs was accepted depite originating from deepest, darkest Oracle (and I happen to share your dim opinion of them).
You know, regular men. Regular men who want what the 2020's was advertising. Neurotic "partners", Soylent on the table after you lock your work laptop, reading reddit on the sofa totally undisturbed, anti-natalist so kids not getting in the way of the Twitch broadcast or asking questions or requiring time commitment, leaving for your bull for hours with no notice, every-other-weekend Antifa riot with the fellow cucks.
You know, regular men, who surround themselves with no one but are still self-absorbed-to-the-death. They've earned it, and fo' fkn sho' they goin' collec'.
Outside of a few places like the US, people care a hell of a lot about the genetics. Try putting Africans in India, or Japanese in China, and so on, there is no such thing as the melting pot in the vast majority of the world.
They don't care about genetics. They just dislike specific groups of people. Which ones is largely arbitrary and has more to do with history than genetics. Some places also have a much narrower "in-group" than others, again largely as a result of history. In some cases the "in-group" doesn't even include all the groups of people that historically live in the same territory, e.g. present-day China has significant undertones of Han nationalism or India with Hindu nationalism, despite both countries being geographically huge and ethnically diverse.
In the moment, aside from historical preconditions, the largest factor to how narrow this in-group is and how strong the dislike towards those not in it is, is mostly a matter of perceived scarcity and danger. As every good business owner knows, the best way to distract an employee from how small their share of the profits is, is to dangle a more desperate group in front of them as a scapegoat. Give someone your scraps, then make them deathly afraid others want to take it away from them, and they won't dare to ask for more (or solidarize with others against you - racism was one of the biggest cudgels against unions in the early 20th century US before simply framing unions as communist became an option).
>It really depends how you define what a people is.
Not at all, not unless you use some Orwellian tactics to completely redefine what an ethnic group is.
>Geographically, it's obviously not replacement. "People lived here, now people live here" is just continuity.
A geographic area is not a "people" nor an ethnic group. Shoving more people into the landmass we know as Japan may be good for the economy of the landmass, but it won't be good for the ethnic group we call the Japanese.
>Genetically, who cares.
Common ancestry is one of the core attributes of ethnic groups. The Japanese people and ethnologists care
>Culturally, that's up to the people.
"If we replace the Japanese with Appalachian Whites, it's up to the people to decide if they're being replaced or not."
Yes, you made my point for me: if you replace the Japanese with foreigners, they are being replaced.
> "If we replace the Japanese with Appalachian Whites, it's up to the people to decide if they're being replaced or not."
Basically true. An awful lot of Americans, for example, don't see it as "replacement" when people from Mexico, Canada, El Salvador, Spain, or wherever come join them. Their cultural identity isn't defined very tightly at all by who their parents were. This is not universally true in the country, of course, and some of the larger political fights are over this notion.
If Japan feels much more strongly that ancestry matters profoundly, well, that's going to be a rub for them moving forward.
But beliefs are malleable and it will ultimately be up to them.
Not at all, not unless you use some Orwellian tactics to completely redefine what ethnic replacement is.
>An awful lot of Americans, for example, don't see it as "replacement" when people from Mexico, Canada, El Salvador, Spain, or wherever come join them.
Just because there's a large group that's delusional or willfully ignorant to what's happening doesn't make it true. An awful lot of Americans think men can get pregnant, or climate change isn't anthropogenic or happening at all. They're being replaced whether they bury their head in the sand or not.
>Their cultural identity isn't defined very tightly at all by who their parents were.
Of course it is, just like it is in Japan. Your common ancestry and common ancestral grounds are core attributes of what we call ethnic groups.
>This is not universally true in the country, of course, and some of the larger political fights are over this notion.
As covered above, it's true whether one side believes it or not. No doubt it's become a large political fight from what I've seen. I agree with you there.
>If Japan feels much more strongly that ancestry matters profoundly, well, that's going to be a rub for them moving forward.
We do. Many countries in Asia and around the world do, which is why many of them (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.) are ethnically homogeneous.
> not unless you use some Orwellian tactics to completely redefine
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
But I'm not really interested in tugging on this thread because it's extremely tedious to argue definitions of words in a language where the dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive.
> They're being replaced
You can't replace a culture via immigration that has, as a cornerstone, "Come join us." That's like saying the population of a school has been "replaced" because it graduated an entire generation of students and a new generation is there now. The relevant continuity is unchanged.
One way out for Japan would be to shift their cornerstones. If that's not on the table, if a younger generation unserved by the status quo can't find a way to put it on the table... Good luck.
We both know exactly what it means and it's clear that its aptness bugs you.
>But I'm not really interested in tugging on this thread because it's extremely tedious to argue definitions of words in a language where the dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive.
I'm not interested in it either, but it's clear: the definition and proscriptive usage doesn't suit your narrative.
>You can't replace a culture via immigration that has, as a cornerstone, "Come join us."
Yes you absolutely can. If you replace the "come join us" leftist people with ISIS, surprise surprise, you've been replaced. QED.
>That's like saying the population of a school has been "replaced" because it graduated an entire generation of students and a new generation is there now.
This is a hilariously not well thought out example because it actually proves my point. Yes, if you replace the population of a school with a different ethnic group, you're replacing the original ethnic group. This is like saying if the trout population in a stream goes down, and you replace the dwindling population with salmon, "the relevant continuity [of fish] is unchanged." You've kept the fish population the same, but you replaced the trout with salmon (who are not native there). Thanks for proving my point. QED.
>One way out for Japan would be to shift their cornerstones.
Or maybe Japan doesn't need "a way out".
>If that's not on the table, if a younger generation unserved by the status quo can't find a way to put it on the table... Good luck.
Homogenous nations will do fine, even if they upset your IMMIGRATION and unlimited capitalism pyramid scheme Gods.
Good luck ensuring quality of life for your citizens with an inverted population pyramid and weakening economy. It’s not a matter of unlimited growth capitalism, it’s just basic economics.
Replaced? No. For the most part native Americans were murdered. Some, quite blatantly, sometimes with literal bounties being set on their heads but more often than not just like a regular "pest" or "dangerous wildlife". Others, more indirectly, through famines brought on by destruction of their food storages or culling of their hunting grounds. And even more died from plagues. They were also repeatedly strongarmed into contracts which were then broken after they had held up their end of the bargain. And of course there were many cases (as recently as the last century) where their children were forcibly removed and placed into Christian boarding schools to "kill the savage, save the child".
I know you probably like to use all of these things as fanciful metaphors to support your argument that "natives" (white people or the Japanese) are now being "replaced" by (incidentally Black and brown) immigrants but these weren't metaphors, these were the real deal. By alluding to these things as metaphors you're masking the real scale and character of these historical atrocities.
Agreed. I've introduced an internal, selfs-signed CA using Vault, ansible and Jenkins for my personal infrastructure. Issues certs via pipeline job and restarts / reloads affected target services if needed.
I might do a writeup soon on this, it's not even that complicated.
Not sure why this was [dead], but I can't delete it now:
Ah yes, the newspeak term "at risk" for describing a community that's better off after delusional fascistic mods we're rightfully removed. It's like an abusive partner that tells their victim how shitty their life would be without them.
Subreddits are not mods' personal fiefdoms. They learned the hard way who actually owns the platform (Reddit Inc.), and who the platform serves (the users).
If the money follows the student in these "school choice" programs, why would that be "defunding" public school? If schools get $x of money per student, and a student decides to go to a private school... The public school no longer bears the costs of educating that student, so it's a neutral move.
Part of the reason is that not all of the costs scale linearly per student. Take 15% of the students out of a class and you get 15% less income, but you still need the same number of teachers, admins, building costs, etc.
>Take 15% of the students out of a class and you get 15% less income, but you still need the same number of teachers, admins, building costs, etc.
Those should scale somewhat linearly too though. Consolidate classrooms to keep the same student-to-teacher ratio and you'll need less teachers. Less teachers means less administration. Less children means less buildings, etc.
There's so much dead weight in administration that can be cut. This may force the hand.
As much as I agree that there is a ton of dead weight in the public school system as a whole, and I strongly feel that the buildings themselves are a big part of that in many parts of the country,
I don't agree that the 15% scales linearly in most cases you can't remove 15% of a principal, or security guard, and in most cases there aren't enough math teachers or similar for a good class size to really help - if a school has 2 math teachers you can't remove 15% of them because you have 6 less kids in the school.
I am all for less buildings, less football fields and all that though for sure - a complete rework of the whole complex would benefit most kids in the low and middle.
A) this will be politically difficult. And can’t simply be handwaved away by saying it should happen anyway. Cynically, I also don’t see the administration getting any smaller…
B) you can’t get rid of a classroom in a building. Your stuck with it.
No doubt it'll be politically difficult, I agree with you there. I'm also cynical when it comes to administration not wanting to slim down.
Indeed you can't get rid of classrooms, but I see lots of schools with temporary buildings that can be removed. You could also consolidate schools, but it may be difficult to forecast and plan.
Maybe schools could rent out their empty rooms to the private schools and share common resources. Kind of like "educational infrastructure as a service". I'm only half joking, I've seen some real examples of this: elementary school/alternative school, high school/deaf-only school, high school/adult school. The buildings were divvied up, and the admin and everything else was a different organization. The only complicated thing was having to have separate entrances for each and locked doors inside so students can't pass from one side to another.
Speaking of separate but equal, were schools in the US ever separated by gender? Because ~100 years ago in Canada they were. You can still find old school buildings with Boys/Girls engraved above separate entrances.
Public schools were not within the lifetime of my parents (high school classes of 1943 and 1945), I don't think. The old one-room schoolhouses of course weren't divided even by age.
Kids with no special needs and from high functioning families get a lot more education for their dollar. Right now the model is to have those kids subsidized the ones from broken homes and special needs.
Really it’s the argument between equity and equality. Equality benefits top performers, equity benefits the bottom.
I've found it very interesting how true this is when diving into the data, and speaking with people in the varying parts of all this.
I did not understand what the serious impact of all these issues are until actually seeing first hand how the micro-interactions were handled at the school on the local level, and then grabbing data to see how it is reported only solidified what I witnessed on the grounds.. but there is no way I would of connected the plot lines and dots without going and seeing the interactions.
then trying to find ways to solve and discussing with those tasked with solving.. wow. The finite resources create a major problem for those 'in the middle', as they will never get enough help to succeed, and I don't see that changing unless we go back to one room schools and destroy the current multi-million dollar school building complex.
I will add that it appears it does not matter how much the tax dollars of the high functioning families are used to subsidize the kids from broken homes - there will never be enough to fix the learning problem the middle and lower class are tasked with in the standard learning systems - certainly there are benefits for the special needs folks that get the help they need
- but we have already given up on the middle and lower class kids, I now don't see that changing in the US ever, taxes will never be raised enough to cover what is needed - their best hope is to get out of the public school system and do something different, literally anything.
> The public school no longer bears the costs of educating that student, so it's a neutral move.
It's not neutral because the "alternative" schools never take the expensive students. You are seeing selection bias.
This was the general confounder when you look at all the "alternative schooling" outcomes. When "alternative" schools participate in a lottery which causes them to have the same demographics as the public school, they almost always turn out worse than the public school.
(I say almost always because there was one notable exception--Louisiana. There the suburban schools were so terrible that even alternative schooling beat them--but not by much).
Market rates for whom? Programmers? It was never my impression that private-school teachers were paid as well as public school benefits or had comparable benefits.
The reason you pay for private schools is the same reason that you buy a house in a good school district: to select your child's classmates and their parents.
The reason private school teachers get paid equal or less often has more to do with the level of education of the private school. The barrier to every for public school teaching in my state is very high. They get paid a pittance considering how much education they need to have to get the job and unpaid hours worked
No, the reason (in my case) was because the public schools prioritize social agendas over academic quality. My kids can do advanced math. My neighbor's kids estimate or guess. I hope the public schools in my area get de-funded. They are a waste of tax payer money. My choice had nothing to do with who is poor or rich.
I believe that "Success Academy" does a lottery after you apply. This is selection bias again as they disqualify some applicants (almost always by a proxy for socioeconomic cohort).
The "lottery" I am referencing is when students get assigned to any available school which takes public money solely based upon the lottery. A school cannot refuse a student that has been placed into their school by the lottery.
What this does is that it removes selection bias. A school can no longer decline a student simply because they belong to a lower socioeconomic cohort (or use any of the proxy measures that indicate lower socioeconomic cohort--religion, race, ADHD, etc.).
Once you remove this bias, the alternative schools almost always come in looking worse than the public schools. This is unsurpising as the alternative schools are almost always smaller and cannot amortize the fixed costs as effectively.
We know how to "fix" education. You make teacher to student ratios somewhere around 1 teacher (2 teachers if elementary age) to 5-10 students and then place students of roughly equivalent levels together.
At this rate governments should ban fossil fuel based heating for new construction and renovations. I see new houses all over the US and Canada still being constructed with natural gas or propane for heating.
That would be dangerous for many rural areas. For some remote regions, blizzards taking out the electrical grid is a real concern. You need a local mechanism to generate heat and an on-site propane/oil tank is the only realistic option.
We're in the process of designing a house in a rural/mountain region and friends and family keep telling us to put in fireplaces/logburners in case the power goes out. But we don't like the idea of all of those particles in the house (plus the external pollution). However we're predicting that we'll have at least one 60kWh+ portable battery parked in the garage, plus solar panels (which aren't great in winter but still help) and possibly a battery like the Powerwall (another 14kWh+). So it feels like the days of worrying about losing electricity are coming to an end.
You can get wood burning stoves that are completely closed as far as the interior of the home goes. All they do is radiate heat where you need it. The hatch where you put in the fuel and the exhaust are all outside (hopefully somewhere accessible if you're in a blizzard :) ).
Daily incident shortwave energy per square meter is significantly lower in the winter (about half of what it is in the summer). You're also not going to get much of a current when the solar panels are buried in snow.
Wood burning stoves are cheap enough and the odds of you losing power to warrant needing one are large enough that it's a safer bet getting one.
You really should follow their advice. Even if you never use it, it'll still help with the resale value of the property. I'd never want to be dependent on the grid that much in the mountains.
>For some remote regions, blizzards taking out the electrical grid is a real concern.
Effectively every fossil fuel powered heater being installed requires electricity for the fans to work.
>You need a local mechanism to generate heat and an on-site propane/oil tank is the only realistic option.
A backup generator that runs on propane. You'd need a backup generator to begin with even for propane heating, so just go full electric with a heat pump.
Eh, most rural folks I know have wood heaters or fireplace inserts, even in the south. If the power is out, they can still manage to keep a room toasty warm and the pipes from freezing. Same with having a gas stove. It's really nice to be able to have a hot meal when the power is out from a hurricane or whatever.
I'm all for electrifying things, but I wouldn't bet my life on them.
Even non-rural areas. See the December 2022 North American winter storm's[1] effects on Buffalo, NY. 11 people froze to death in their homes because power was out for days. Of course a lot of that blame goes to the city government for not having a plan to close the roads well in advance of the blizzard, having no plan to clear the side streets of snow, and thus making it impossible for the power company to service many of the downed lines in residential neighborhoods.
Ah yes, the newspeak term "at risk" for describing a community that's better off after delusional fascistic mods we're rightfully removed. It's like an abusive partner that tells their victim how shitty their life would be without them.
Subreddits are not mods' personal fiefdoms. They learned the hard way who actually owns the platform (Reddit Inc.), and who the platform serves (the users).
