This number can mean wildly different things depending on the size of your house (and location).
I live in the Bay Area, CA in a 1,500 square foot house and consumed 7.8MWh in 2025 and 7.6 MWh in 2024.
Digging a bit more into our solar system data:
We produced a bit over 9MWh in solar each year and it looks like our Enphase batteries discharged 2MWh each year.
CDs can oxidize in the span of decades. I've got hundreds of burned CDs that are from 2003 that are fine (even if they have changed color) because i store them in a climate controlled environment.
A vinyl record degrades every time you play it in a normal turntable.
Most of my CD collection is from the 80's and 90's and I've never done much to take care of them. Many have spent a decade or more of their life in a car. Most of them spent ten years in my attic that gets very hot and very cold.
Out of 100 disks, only five or six have failed and all have been because of scratches on the foil side (or whatever the media that the music is encoded into is called).
Note that if you don't store your records in a climate-controlled environment, they'll melt. You don't need to play a record to degrade it; just keeping it around is enough to render it completely unplayable.
> I want my browser to protect me from ALL those things. Ublock origin did precisely that, then Google went in to kill ublock origin. Ublock lite is nowhere near as good.
>
> I consider this betrayal - naturally by Google, but also by random web designers such as on the python homepage who consider it morally just to pester visitors when they do not want to be pestered. I don't accept ads; I don't accept pop-ups or slide-in effects (in 99.999% of the cases; notifications for some things can be ok, but this does not extend in my book to donation Robin Hood waylanders)."
> If Chrome wants to make itself less attractive, you should celebrate.
I appreciate that Chrome reducing user autonomy in order to further Google's own business goals _should_ be a reduction in their competitiveness in a perfect market.
But the web browser market does not have perfect competition today, and I cannot recall a time when it had.
Regulators preventing Apple from controlling iOS browser engines but allowing Google to have de facto ownership of the web would be an example of governments picking winners and losers.
Public policy needs to move the market towards real competition.
It was several years after first time I heard this that, that i realized that #3 was an impression of Archie Bunker with: "Edith, get me a beer, huh.", "oh jeez look at this" and "oh who's got the terlit paper."
That's a an analogy-- a literary technique the writer is using, to show the correspondence between the price of a specific amount of DDR5 RAM to a fully integrated system, so the reader can follow the conclusions of their article easier.
> I upgrade all dependencies every time I deploy anything. If you don't, a zero day is going to bite you in the ass: that's the world we now live in.
I think you're using a different definition of zero day than what is standard. Any zero day vulnerability is not going to have a patch you can get with an update.
Only if you already upgraded to the one with the bug in it, and then only if you ignore "this patch is actually different: read this notice and deploy it immediately". The argument is not "never update quickly": it is don't routinely deploy updates constantly that are not known to be high priority fixes.
But that isn't what you said? ;P "f you wait seven days, you're pointlessly vulnerable." <- this is clearly a straw man, as no one is saying you'd wait seven days to deploy THAT patch... but, if some new configuration file feature is added, or it is ported to a new architecture you aren't using--aka, the 99.99% of patches--you don't deploy THOSE patches for a while (and I'd argue seven days is way way too small) until you get a feel that it isn't a supply chain attack (or what will become a zero day). Every now and then, someone tries to fix a serious bug... most of the time, you are just rolling the die on adding a new bug that someone can quickly find and exploit you using.
> this is clearly a straw man, as no one is saying you'd wait seven days to deploy THAT patch...
The policy being proposed is that upgrades are delayed. So in a company where that policy was enforced, I would be required to request an exception to the policy for your hypothetical patch.
That's unacceptable for me. That's requiring me to do extra work for a nebulous poorly quantified security "benefit". It's a waste of my time and energy.
I'm saying the whole policy is unjustified and should never be applied by default. At all. It's stupid. Its harmful for zero demonstrable benefit.
I'm being blunt because you seem determined to somehow misconstrue what I'm saying as a nitpicky argument. I'm saying the whole policy is terrible and stupid. If it were forced on me by an employer, I would quit. Seriously.
> The report indicated that the fire was caused by the autoignition of the contents of a cargo pallet that contained more than 81,000 lithium batteries and other combustible materials
https://www.earlytelevision.org/prewar_crts.html
They didn't really have the problem of picking an aspect ratio because motion pictures existed and that was already 4:3