Even if you can't get to 100%, it would still make sense to strive for as large a % of renewables as you could achieve. So, that's going to involve batteries necessarily.

For context I work at a company in Japan working on this problem. The entire reason the company exists is Japan's energy policy in response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Batteries are severely underutilized in Japan at this point in time, so we can at least vastly improve on where we are.

My question is a few math operations away from "how much batteries capacity can we deploy to support how much % of renewables in the short-medium term, while still having a stable grid". My "100%" phrasing was sloppy, no need to index too much on it.

Since you're in the industry, maybe you can answer this question and change my mind.

Batteries alone cannot handle all storage use cases, but also including an alternative long term storage mode (syngas, thermal) can get to a 100% renewable grid. Use of hydrogen vs. just batteries cuts the cost of an all renewable grid in Europe in half.

I forget the exact numbers but from my recollection it relies on widespread adoption of EVs and being able to leverage their batteries as part of the grid.

I like how you didn't even ask for any context that would help you evaluate whether or not their chosen architecture is actually suitable for their environment before just blurting out advice that may or may not be applicable (though you would have no idea, not having enquired).

Much like parallel programming, distributed systems have a very small window of requirement.

Really less than 1% of systems need to be distributed. Are you Google? No? Then you probably don't need it.

The rest is just for fun. Or, well, pain. Usually pain.

I like how you didn't even enquire as to what size organisation they worked in order to determine if it might actually be applicable in their case.

I never said it was applicable to them, in fact I said the opposite:

> Obviously that ship has sailed for you, but I mean in the general sense.

In the general sense, no, you don't need a distributed system. Even if you have billions of dollars worth of revenue - no, you don't need a distributed system. I know, because I've worked on monoliths that service hundreds of thousands of users and generate billions in revenue.

If you're making YouTube, maybe you need a distributed system. Are you making YouTube? Probably not.

You can, of course, choose to make a distributed system anyway. If you want to decrease your development velocity 1000x and introduce unbelievable amounts of complexity and risk.

We're there at least 1000 engineers working on that system you worked on?

Yes, 1500 or so.

That seems like the most unfortunate of reasons to choose it as a framework for new projects, though. I hope that doesn't become the deciding factor in the future.

Yes, we try not to do that. But I know very many people do.

I didn't even know it was called an em dash.

Until they get caught.

Yeah, I can see how that would feel jarring. Music discovery is supposed to feel like serendipity—stumbling across a track you didn’t know you needed—so when AI-generated filler creeps into that space, it can cheapen the experience.

Spotify hasn’t officially said they’re flooding “Discover Weekly” with AI songs, but there’s definitely been a surge of AI-produced music uploaded to streaming platforms in the past year. Since Spotify’s algorithms don’t always distinguish between human and synthetic content, it can end up mixing both in your recommendations. That’s especially noticeable in genres where production is relatively easy for AI to mimic (ambient, lo-fi, EDM, generic pop).

I think the larger unease you’re feeling—AI creeping into places where you expected human curation or artistry—is being shared by a lot of listeners. There’s a debate brewing about whether platforms should label AI music clearly, or even let users opt out of algorithmic recommendations that include it.

Do you want me to check what tools or tricks people are using to filter out AI-generated songs on Spotify (or elsewhere), so you can get back to the human-made discovery experience?

(Sorry, I couldn't help myself with this one. I'll see myself out now.)

Yes, you are being sarcastic and making fun, but I want it.

We know the rules, and so do AI

* slow clap *

体力なかったら怖いよ

haha :)

They are devoted to themselves.

I feel terrible for wondering this but... is the same true for Down's Syndrome? Because from the outside you wouldn't think so...

Are you asking if people with Down's syndrome are unique people with unique experiences and personalities? Because I hope you'd pretty quickly arrive at "yes, of course people with Down's syndrome are unique people with unique experiences".

I think a more generous reading of their comment would be: do people with Down's syndrome vary significantly in terms of their Down's syndrome symptoms? Or: do they vary significantly in how they experience their symptoms? I don't have enough experience with Down's syndrome to answer either – I've only met a few such people in passing – but would be interested in knowing the answer.

Edit: I feel I should note that, given the phrasing of the comment, I think your interpretation is closer to the original intent – or at least, a clearer reading of what was said – but I wanted to add this in the interest of taking the strongest interpretation of their comment (and to satisfy my personal curiosity).

I was just making a joke in bad taste, since they all physically resemble one another. My assumption is yes, they're all different.