And quite often they are associating their illness with the last thing they ate, which may be the wrong thing. Food poisoning symptoms can take over a week to develop:

https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/symptoms.html

In some of the tournaments described in the thread, after each round winning strategies reproduce and take up more seats in the next round. Losing strategies get fewer seats in the next round. I would guess that the slave strategies would quickly fall out of the competition. How would the masters fare against generous tit for tat without slaves? Instead of cults, this could be a model for tribalism.

A study on competition a while ago found that the first competitor usually didn't have that big of an impact on price. The second competitor is what moves the needle.

The style seems more like what you received several years ago when you paid an SEO outfit to churn out blog entries for your company's website and they farmed it out to people who had access to spellcheck and methamphetamines but few other qualifications.

I'll go the opposite route from others in this thread: He didn't think he would win, he was just running to milk the process.

He was running in what was supposed to be a safe Dem district, and was considered a longshot until well into October. His plan was to win by losing: the campaign was a way to build his reputation, build his scam businesses, and harvest campaign donations for personal gain. He had no plan for what he would do if he actually won - he never even considered what would happen if he faced real scrutiny because so far in his life he has been able to just walk away from his misdeeds with no real punishment.

Plus he's a fabulist: he lives feeling that all of his lies are "his truth". Even jail time won't stop that, he'll just reboot with fresh lies.

Which kind of gets to the heart of the problem: putting solar on dwellings is inefficient and really expensive. We provide incentives to make it profitable for some, but the benefits go to the people who need it the least. Why not just let any household invest up to $20k into a solar farm instead while getting the same incentives, etc? We would get ~3x more solar capacity for the money that way, and wouldn't discriminate against renters. Interest rates have gone up, but loans to cover the investment could be available the same as now.

It pencils out if you had a large bill to start with. If your bill is small, it is hard to make back the principal by selling electricity back to the utility.

>Energy compagny buy the excedent of private owned solar panels at very
low price, and sell it back at the regular price, taking the same
margins as on other sources and having no problem to fonction.

This increases the cost of the last mile infrastructure, as it turns out a lot of older infrastructure doesn't have the capacity to handle whole neighborhoods putting electricity back onto the grid.

It also forces utilities to use more expensive peaker plants to generate electricity at the times when solar isn't providing as much.

​

> taking the same margins as on other sources

If they take the same margins as from other sources, then there are no additional funds available to make up for the shortfall. They need to have a much higher margins (compared to other sources) to do that.

Advertisers on FB aren't allowed to directly target political interests, so they look for the proxies that correlate well.

The term MNNOH was alluding to but didn't actually use is "review article", which typically are better sources unless you are looking for the most recent results.

They're fine in California, at least where I live. I have three near my front door.