Hedging and diversification is important. Unforseen consequences and unknown future conditions can screw up your long term plans for 100% renewables. The more diverse our energy portfolio is, the unknowns become easier to weather.
That is the answer for why we build and research something that is more expensive and may divert resources away from better options. To argue that there is literally no place for energy development other than purely renewable is a difficult position to defend.
Your sandwich analogy is lacking because we're talking about far future consequences of our decision. Maybe you plan to eat the sandwich a week from today. Which do you buy? You don't have enough information to determine which will be better in a week. Do you pick the chain store's because it's full of preservatives? Do you decide to buy both in case one of them gets moldy just to make sure you have anything to eat?
The consequences of developing or not developing potential viable solutions to energy requirements can be far reaching. Completely dismissing alternative options is just not rational.
If you used sources to make your argument it's not so hard to add them to your comment. Makes it just that much harder for people to call you out like what just happened.
"Reliably guide action" seems too vague to be useful for determining truth. Believing that climate change is a hoax reliably guides people that are part of that community to receive support and praise from others. Maybe this is better explained in the text, but action within social environments isn't necessarily interested in effects on physical things.
I think that their "true belief" definition is useful for explaining how humans act rather than a good definition for factually true beliefs.
I've also recently gone this way. I used my old gaming PC motherboard, ram, and CPU. Put Ubuntu server on it and it's been running great. Mine is running in software raid5 and has room for 7 drives (though I'm only using 3 at the moment). I did put a gtx1650 in it for Plex transcoding and that works great as well.
Title seems intentionally misleading. It's not the Mustang. It's a Mustang branded car likely to be based on or similar to the Ford GT. They aren't doing what Chevy did with the Corvette C8.
I think it's still silly to dilute what good will was left of the Mustang name. Even if it's for a new GT-like supercar.
I actually have ADHD and the opposite is true for me. Working from home I can concentrate without distractions of office workers walking by, or talking about something that I'm not interested in but can't block out. I work in my office at home with the door closed for practically the whole day and it's great. My work has it's own built in structure, but I imagine that other kinds of less structured work could be very difficult for someone with ADHD.
Thanks for helping bring this perspective to light. Most threads on work from home go all in on productivity being higher, but don't take into account the longer term consequences of working from home on knowledge sharing, education, training, and team building. Even if productivity is higher now, that doesn't mean it will remain that way in the long run.
While this is a nice idea, adoption of this kind of knowledge sharing is known to be extremely difficult to accomplish without a massive cultural shift in a company or department. Not to mention it requires those who are knowledgeable (typically older workers with less social media or computer experience) to be tech savvy enough to be active in a space dominated by younger employees asking questions.
I am a proponent of trying to bring knowledge capture software and methods into my department and company but the struggle is real. Getting people on board with this idea will basically require those who aren't interested to leave by attrition for the culture to change enough to accept this idea. But those people who retire are exactly the people we want to capture knowledge from! It's really a difficult situation.
Honestly, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I love working from home and feel that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks in almost all ways. I agree with your sentiment, but without a good understanding of what companies are giving away and whether they can afford it is a big part of why back to office was hurried along.
HR has to basically rewrite the book on everything after such a big shake-up in the culture of employment. New calculations for salaries, new requirements for liability, new hurdles for IT, infrastructure, and security. These are all costs to companies because the culture shifted. Working from home was mandatory for a short time, but it wasn't obvious that companies could make it all work without time to sort out how to best do it.
Working from home is a benefit that is worth money. People are willing to get paid less for the benefit of working from home all else equal. Effectively, if you got to work from home, you got a raise. Forcing people to come back to the office after allowing working from home is like giving a raise and then taking it back. I agree that this is shitty and sucks.
However, when you negotiated your pay it was for a particular job with certain benefits. Complaining about your company not giving you a benefit that wasn't initially part of your hiring negotiation is basically asking for a raise that they aren't obligated to provide.
Edit: I guess this isn't a popular opinion. I felt I was contributing to a conversation that seemed a little one sided by offering an alternative look at it. From an economic perspective there's nothing wrong about what I've said. I don't agree that it's a nice or even ethical thing to do, but the backlash (against companies that push for RTO) seems overly dramatic to me.
My department works almost entirely on the computer but is made up of knowledge workers. We found that our metrics also reflected improved efficiency. However, our metrics didn't (and likely can't) measure knowledge sharing interactions and training effectiveness to compare working from home with in the office. Most of our department has noticed and believes that knowledge sharing and training interactions decrease when working from home. This is not good for long term health and efficiency of the department. In 5 to 10 years the quality of work we provide will go down (or at least not improve as much as it could) without these interactions. So a small sacrifice in efficiency now could be worth it in the long run.
It's hard to quantify exactly what is being sacrificed one way or the other. The only way to really find out is to experiment and see what happens long term.
There is a tangible benefit in certain jobs from being in the same space. I work in a place where we are constantly training new employees with OJT. Continuous improvement and learning new things from peers is important for our future capabilities. Knowledge sharing is a big part of my job.
We rotate in-office and work-from-home weeks and there is a considerable reduction in questions asked and just general training-type or knowledge sharing interactions. Being able to ask a question or provide guidance directly, in-person, and off the cuff is easier than messaging or calling. I definitely get more work done at home, but sacrifice future efficiency of myself, my peers, and the department as a whole because of the reduction of knowledge sharing interactions.
I think we have struck a good balance with the rotation in the time being. We could certainly try to figure out ways to make knowledge sharing and training easier and more effective to do remotely, but as our culture is now, working from home makes it less effective.
I've been struggling figuring it out for the first time in a home server. Without understanding how a config file works it seems like magic.
I've had a rough time getting permissions to work right for each container and am still not entirely sure how upgrades work. Though I do have to admit that once I had it set up once, moving it to a new server when I changed operating systems was much easier than the initial set up.
It's my first time running any kind of containerization service, and my first time running a Linux server (though I've used Linux off and on for over a decade) so maybe it's just how new the idea is to me.
Why do people have diverse stock portfolios?
Hedging and diversification is important. Unforseen consequences and unknown future conditions can screw up your long term plans for 100% renewables. The more diverse our energy portfolio is, the unknowns become easier to weather.
That is the answer for why we build and research something that is more expensive and may divert resources away from better options. To argue that there is literally no place for energy development other than purely renewable is a difficult position to defend.
Your sandwich analogy is lacking because we're talking about far future consequences of our decision. Maybe you plan to eat the sandwich a week from today. Which do you buy? You don't have enough information to determine which will be better in a week. Do you pick the chain store's because it's full of preservatives? Do you decide to buy both in case one of them gets moldy just to make sure you have anything to eat?
The consequences of developing or not developing potential viable solutions to energy requirements can be far reaching. Completely dismissing alternative options is just not rational.