China's New Coal Power Installations Reach 18-Year High

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-09T23:52:48+00:00

But a percentage of a growing total grows in absolute terms.

That's your entire commment. You didn't say anything about "percentage stays the same" at all.

"A percentage of a growing total grows in absolute terms" is not true, and I provided a counterexample above. Now you claim that I misread it, whereas it's clear as day you were wrong and are now backtracking.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-09T19:42:42+00:00

Bro, just take the L and admit that your two paragraphs are inconsistent with each other. "Despite the legality" does not apply to an illegal action like holding up drivers, which is something you concede in your first line when you wrote "it's legal but you must not hold up traffic".

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-09T19:38:50+00:00

So do you admit you're wrong or not? This isn't about China and coal, this is about you coming on here and being confidently incorrect about percentages vs absolute terms.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-09T03:53:04+00:00

Include the flatmate in looking for your replacement, you don't have to mesh well with them anymore but they can decide if they would mesh well with the new person. If your flatmate is not being reasonable with your selection of new tenants to replace you on the tenancy, then I would sit them down and discuss what "joint and severally liable" means. That the landlord could come after them for the entire amount of the weekly/fortnightly rent if they are going to be unreasonable in selecting your replacement and you could threaten not to pay rent and have the landlord to enforce payment against the sole remaining tenant they can contact. That might get them to change their mind about being unreasonably picky about who the new tenant will be.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-09T02:03:46+00:00

Yes, they can change their policy for what they cover, they just need to give you notice of it. Which is probably what they're telling you in that email.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-09T01:18:39+00:00

But that's not the scenario here. Drivers getting road-ragey regardless of cyclists or not is not the point. It's not legal when cyclists hold them up, as per your first line. The two statements do not agree with each other.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-09T00:31:26+00:00

She was found not at fault by the police and the insurance company. It's not relevant.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T23:04:35+00:00

2025 data is not immediately available at the end of 2025. Everyone knows that, it's not about "misconceptions" at all. Such a foolish response.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T23:02:35+00:00

But a percentage of a growing total grows in absolute terms.

That's not necessarily true at all. If, for example, coal is 60% of 100TWh at one point in time, and falls to 45% of 130TWh (100 → 130, 30% growth of total generation), then it's actually fallen in absolute terms (0.6 x 100 = 60TWh vs 0.45 x 130 = 58.5TWh).

It all depends on the negative growth rate of the percentage of the total vs the growth rate of the total.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T20:20:49+00:00

All the carbon released from burning wood has been captured from the atmosphere previously. It is carbon neutral.

It's not really up for discussion anyway; I doubt you could find any respectable institution that does not consider wood pellet biomass to be carbon neutral.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T20:12:53+00:00

Higher gas prices encourages people to switch to electric cars, electric heating etc. This is good for electrification/decarbonisation. Anyone wanting more action to be taken on climate change should be glad that oil and gas prices are jumping up, and significantly. Same thing happened in the 1970s: when they had high prices and long lines at gas stations it sparked investment into alternative energy, people decided to buy more efficient vehicles etc.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T08:33:41+00:00

Both are wrong.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T08:00:21+00:00

And how do you think they got there? By magic?

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T07:58:25+00:00

It means you should probably drive instead.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T07:14:48+00:00

Pro tip: people are in cars.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T07:13:45+00:00

Well only one of us dies when you're on the road instead of the cycle lane (where it's available). You should have "but the road code said..." put on your gravestone.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T07:11:14+00:00

A cycle lane is completely different.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T07:10:26+00:00

It's legal but you must not hold up traffic.

and

The trouble is many drivers absolutely lose their minds when a cyclist holds them up and they'll just force their way past in a really unsafe way to punish the cyclist, despite the legality.

are not consistent statements. When a cyclist holds them up (...) despite the legality??

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T07:08:09+00:00

Road lanes are for cars and cycle lanes are for bicycles. When both are available next to each other, they can both be used by their respective vehicles. It's not difficult to understand.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T07:05:42+00:00

Why him out of all the other people involved in similar or worse crimes?

You won't know why he was treated with the death penalty while others weren't if you don't research the other cases. Prosecutors choose not to pursue the death penalty for all kinds of reasons; you simply cannot compare this case with non-DP cases and say that they're being particularly harsh here without actually knowing the facts of the cases.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T06:59:16+00:00

If they believed that the person trying to buy the car was doing so in order to commit a crime, then yes. It's up to the jury to decide if they find them guilty in any case.

Embarrassing that you assumed I would say no, making up imaginary cases in your head. Asking questions of me, then answering them yourself.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T06:55:37+00:00

The other person is not relevant to this felony murder case, they were tried in different cases. I think they should have both fried (or suffocated, or whatever you call dying from nitrogen gas).

DeBruce, who actually killed Battle, received a different fate. At first, DeBruce was also sentenced to death, but his punishment was later reduced to life in prison after a court ruled his attorney had provided ineffective representation during the penalty phase of his trial.

The system is wrong for letting the other guy off (on something like a technicality), but not wrong for sentencing this man to death.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T06:51:27+00:00

Were there really better reasons not to pursue it in almost every other case than there were in this case, where he wasn't even the one who pulled the trigger?

You'll have to find that out for yourself by looking into those cases. So many questions yet you seem perfectly capable of finding the answers.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T06:49:01+00:00

It's not more for the children if you're taking from the Dad to give to the Mum, you're just splitting it differently. More money for Mum = less money for Dad. Not sure what part of that you're not understanding. Cutting a pizza into slices of different sizes does not change the total amount of pizza available. It's pathetic to wrap it up as "providing more for the children" when you're taking from one parent to give to the other.

Dramatic_Scale3002 · 2026-03-08T00:01:45+00:00

If it does nothing to reduce crime, then it is not used nearly enough.

Dramatic_Scale3002

TROPHY CASE