The article is likely not stating it because the admins won't say:

>Osborne said it’s difficult to say how much money it's costing because during the pandemic and in its aftermath, energy costs have fluctuated wildly.

>“I would say the net impact is in the thousands of dollars per month on average, but not in the tens of thousands,” Osborne said.

It wouldn't be difficult to figure it out, and "not tens of thousands oer months" isnt encouraging. The whole thing is due to the board mandating a fly-by-night green system where when something happens no other companies know what to do, but what I dont understand is why someone wasnt just flipping breakers at night. I can understand you can't flip the main, but surely there are breakers lol

this renewed push for centrally-planned economies is not going to end well. we're currently dealing with the outcomes of the poorly-sourced Modern Monetary Theory and this is the same throwback to "hey, just plan everything out from a central place there are efficiencies being wasted!". It has the veneer of science and logic, just like Marx did, except it ignores basic realities and papers over the actual science by not showing its math and not accounting for things we know to be true -- like the fact that people like stuff.

Here's a basic example from their article that becomes hilarious, where they argue for shifting away from capitalism to models that don't really exist or are akin to Donut Theory (not really showing their math):

>Balancing the national economy will require new macro-economic models that combine economic, financial, social and ecological variables. Models such as LowGrow SFC (developed by T.J. and P.A.V.), EUROGREEN and MEDEAS are already being used to project the impacts of degrowth policies, including redistributive taxes, universal public services and reductions in working time.
>
>But these models typically focus on a single country and fail to take into account cross-border dynamics, such as movements of capital and currency. For example, if markets are spooked by low growth in one country, some companies might move their capital overseas, which could adversely affect the original country’s currency and increase borrowing costs. Conditions such as these posed severe financial problems for Argentina in 2001 and Greece in 2010. International cooperation for tighter border control of capital movements needs to be considered and the effects modelled.

So we have to find the right model or create one and shift away from capitalism and all will be well -- the ones listed are not exactly ready for primetime. But when you do that, if you're the only one doing it everything will collapse because capital and resources will go towards more competitive markets. They're basically telling you that even if it did work, it would never actually work unless everyone did it at once, hence this could only happen in a constrained system where all the larger countries were in full cooperation. Which isn't realistic without force. Which brings us full circle to Marx, but don't worry the taking over with force for your own good is only temporary!

This is not a real answer to anything, and they're actually telling you it themselves.

They don't feel they can affect change, and it's hard to place blame without running into real political, policy and optics issues (which currently lead to your being called names and screamed at) so it somehow becomes the fault of people a thousand miles away.

>but in the beginning of episode 6 season 1 and I’m not getting hooked.

Not everything is for everyone. It's like books -- you'll never get through everything and there's so much out there that if you pick up something and a few chapters in it's not doing it for you, put it down and pick up something else. You'd know by now if the qualities the show was offering worked for who you are and where you are, and if it's boring to you try something else.

I believe they mean advertised prices, which a menu is (either in your lap or seen from the street). eg, if they have filet mignon on the menu for $30 but then the bill comes and there's a kitchen-appreciation-fee it's not really the fee-for-service that was advertised.

They could also mean they'd like to know if the money even gets to the kitchen, or if the fee itself is kind of a scam where the restaurant is just passing padding margins.

>Have you actually measured how much of a statistical anomaly? Highly divisive elections draw people into two groups effectively

I think you mean calculated, but that depends on each race -- the higher the vote count the less likely it is. e.g., an election between 20,500 people being decided by one vote is much less likely than an election between 20 or 200. Hence why it never really happens throughout our election history as counts go higher as shown in the link.

>If anyone was interfering in American elections, it would require covertly corrupting thousands of independent low level election workers

We don't know the why of what's behind this, but you're starting with an unproven assumption about how many people it would involve especially in a closer election.

Things like software aside, take for example this recent very weird case in CT which involved a republican town clerk handing over ballots that had been kicked back for being filled in improperly. That person then forged the votes and signatures then turned them into be counted normally. There's still an ongoing FBI probe so a lot of people didn't have to testify as to what was really going on.

There are now three this cycle that gave an election to Democrat by one vote in the NE after recounts.

• Paulos vs Morrison in CT
• Kassner vs Mirra in the north shore
• Mosley vs Gagne in NH

To say it's a statistical anomaly is a bit of an understatement. Here's a list of super-close votes that have occurred across the country from 1800 to 2010.
You'll also notice that most of those are not one-vote wins, but a few hundred, several votes, things like "1.1 votes per precinct across the election" or "we couldn't find 50 votes so decide to do a coin toss" (not making this up). You'll also notice they almost all involve small vote counts in the hundreds (congressional), as the more votes you have the more statistically unlikely it is -- by the time you are talking elections in 5,000-10k range it's powerball-ish.

It's a great way to get downvoted because of all the election-denier stuff, but I think it's fair to say it's weird as hell and if these results were going the other way we'd have a whole lot of questions in the same way you would someone in an area repeatedly winning the Powerball. That it's all favoring one side, and all happening in the same region makes it weirder.

The thing is, if you wanted to mess with an election, why would you make it so obvious? If you were a foreign power that wanted to really destabilize a democracy, this might be an approach -- the side winning feels no choice but to dig in while knowing something is weird harming their faith in elections, while the other side becomes full on rabid that something seems very wrong.

Edit: As mentioned, it's a great way to get down voted but that's fine, it's part of the "have to dig in while knowing something is wrong" part but you have to realize how irrational & impartial it comes off. One election would make the news because of its statistical improbability, three is weird as hell and when you keep adding qualifiers like the same region and for the same party...

>The local population is exceptionally socially progressive

...except for property taxes, zoning/housing/building, etc. e.g., I'd rephrase this as they're very progressive-brand-conscious regardless of the realities as everything turns into a bank branch.

Road & Track had a good writeup as to how Subaru became pretty entrenched in the area compared to other brands:

>With initial curiosity-driven demand dried up, and the Consumer Reports review echoing maliciously, U.S. Subaru sales ground to a halt.
>
>In 1971, Subaru of America embarked on an ambitious plan to outrun the bad review. As co-founder Bricklin told Automotive News in a rollicking interview earlier this year, "Somebody called me and said, 'Have you seen Consumer Reports?' I said, 'What's Consumer Reports?' [...] At the time, they had a circulation of half a million. So I thought, so what? Half a million people saw it, out of how many million in the United States?"
>
>So Subaru of America decided to focus on markets where Consumer Reports had less sway—as Automotive News puts it, "small towns where the reputation of the local dealer was more important than awareness of the brand he was selling." The American importer targeted rural regions far away from the big cities. Places like Vermont, Minnesota, Washington state, New Hampshire and western Pennsylvania—where hardworking people on a budget might be willing to try a relatively-unknown brand offering cheap, frugal transportation.

You then had the 1973 oil embargo and subaru's use of 4-wheel drive in a family car kind of sealing the deal.

>I've heard of the 4 months up front deal and am planning for it, it's so strange, I have not seen that anywhere in Canada.

You won't see it anywhere, it's one of those things where people know it's wrong but it serves the interests of those who are entrenched here. Keeps property values and school scores up and feeds locals who bilk the students come through.

You'll be OK in that price range but start early and be open to a bit of a walk

Keep what hush-hush? It's kind of already in the news.

Apple's insurance will cover damages to the building if they choose to exercise it and workers compensation will cover any employees, but anyone else is on their own unless they can prove negligence on Apple's part. While they might get added to a lawsuit, and might offer to settle if it's less than the legal fees to go to court, it's so cut-and-dry it'll likely be tossed before it's even at that point.

>A virtually tied election isn’t statistically less likely (or statistically weirder) than any other exact arbitrary outcome.

Well we just know that's not true, it's powerball level odds to pick a random number and hit it. Winning the lottery is weird. Winning it twice is spooky. Winning it twice at the same gas station is weird asf.

>I (mis)interpreted your original comment as a suggestion of potential election fuckery. Apologies if that’s not what you were getting at.

Nah, tho even if I did think that I wish people would chill in the name calling and acting like that it isn't going to change minds yah know?

Someone rigging elections and making it by one vote would be idiotic lol just like if they both won by 153. But it's weird asf

You,'re right, I misread what you originally wrote, sorry about that.

So why bring up winning by one vote vs an arbitrary number you have picked beforehand if they are both astronomically rare? What is the point?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/here-are-the-chances-your-vote-matters.html

As you'll see, the larger the number the less likely it becomes. That's whether your vote matters, but for the purposes of this it can be whether any particular vote will break the tie. It's why in the list I gave before, single-vote wins are exceptionally rare and when they do occur it's generally in smaller votes.

Can you show me yours?

>Winning by exactly one vote isn’t less likely than winning by exactly 100 votes.

Yes, it is. It's math and basic statistics.

>Not everything is a conspiracy you weirdo.

Nobody said it was a conspiracy, why are you calling names about something that was never said Darondo?

>This comment's entire thesis is that it's unlikely because it benefitted one party over another.

No, it was about the statistical odds of it occurring at all -- that it benefited one party added a whole other layer. It's pretty clear right there in the comment, and I think you know that enigma7x
.

....this is about something very, very different even if it's implied there were six ties and they flipped a coin:

>Here’s what happened in Ames, according to David Schweingruber, an associate professor of sociology at Iowa State University (and Sanders supporter) who participated in the caucus:
A total of 484 eligible caucus attendees were initially recorded at the site. But when each candidate’s preference group was counted, Clinton had 240 supporters, Sanders had 179 and Martin O’Malley had five (causing him to be declared non-viable).
Those figures add up to just 424 participants, leaving 60 apparently missing. When those numbers were plugged into the formula that determines delegate allocations, Clinton received four delegates and Sanders received three — leaving one delegate unassigned.
Unable to account for that numerical discrepancy and the orphan delegate it produced, the Sanders campaign challenged the results and precinct leaders called a Democratic Party hot line set up to advise on such situations.
Party officials recommended they settle the dispute with a coin toss.

No, again, the reason I keep pointing it out is because I said it was weird, and then responded to someone saying "It's not weird" and "it's not a surprise."

I have no issue with someone going "Yeah it's super weird, this is why votes matter" but I have an issue with someone denying basic probabilities or claiming I said something I didn't say.

>A lot of your comments in this thread make you sound very suspicious of the process.

Could you point to them enigma7x?

From where I'm standing, it's someone putting words in someone's mouth and attempting to bully them into not participating in the subreddit for a simple statement, while saying different things in different comments. It's not really cool dude.

What comments in this thread did I make that made me sound very suspicious of the process?

>It's definitely a pretty wild thing to happen.

We agree!

>What's a little bizarre is your inability to accept that it happened without casting any doubt on it.

If you read the actual chain enigma7x, I was responding to someone saying it wasn't surprising at all -- then listed out why it was. Please don't turn this into something it isn't or say I said something I didn't.

In fact in your other comment, you're saying it isn't weird at all. It's super damned weird, that's all.

>I mean, in other parts of the country these right races went to the other party.

Yes, this was a contested race but...

> It just shows how tight things were in this midterm.

It does, but it's statistically really unlikely it is to win by one vote, especially in a larger election. Here's a list of super-close votes that have occurred across the country from 1800 to 2010, and note this election had 10,593 votes cast.

You'll notice that most of those are not one-vote wins, but a few hundred or two votes and (a) It isn't that many (b) the majority are much smaller votes (c) they're having to fudge, e.g. "1.1 votes per precinct across the election" (d)

Two races winning by one vote for the same party is like winning the powerball multiple times. Statistically possible but surprising as hell.

>Given Southington's political compass this isn't that surprising

It should be surprising, statistically the odds of a race coming down to one vote is exceptionally small -- and the larget larger the township the more unlikely. It happening twice is weird. It happening for the same party is another layer.

Uh this is I believe two races going to Dems by a single vote. Statistically that feels a little weird...

Edit: why this is statistically so weird, because I'm getting caught up in some downvoting.

>Not tryna be racist but a lot of white trash lives there.

If you weren't even trying, you may just have a natural aptitude.

>The weird part here is that you didn’t address the entire point I originally made regarding why people are confused by this.

I did, and people aren't that confused by it. You said a lot of things, and keep changing what you say they meant. First it was that she hadn't taken anything, then it was ignoring allegations that had no evidence (when it was really you were ignoring allegations she hadn't refuted).

>By today’s standards, even what’s accused, would be completely mild

By whose standards? Corruption and selective prosecution are both real issues, but handwaving whataboutisms doesn't make politics cleaner even if it's one of our own. Again, is your argument that her taking financial favors or violating the Hatch Act is mild and doesn't matter in this day and age? Do you know why we have them? Do you know why government agents are not supposed to be conducting business on personal equipment?

I do actually have a real issue with selective prosecution and "rules for thee but not for me", but handwaving away these things because it's our side does no one any favors, least of all our democracy, and completely cedes any moral high ground.

>You’re pushing a narrative.

Are you projecting a bit there cujobob?

Edit: Ohhhh noooo I've been blocked. Anyways...

>How can I ignore an issue that hasn’t been confirmed to be true?

I mean, you were willing to discuss one of the allegations, even though we don't know the specific circumstances yet? And we do know she was told to repay the Hollywood agency, per the article.

Yet you seemed to want to avoid the others by not mentioning them and making it only about that one, but not the having her trip paid for by a Hollywood agency or the usage of a personal phone for official business... Considering both the explanations were given by the same types of anonymous sources omitting the others seems a little sus?

> She’s being investigated… hence the title “probing US Attorney.”

We can agree there is nothing wrong with the Justice Department investigating the accusations of violating the Hatch Act?