diy solar

diy solar

Coming Energy Prices …..

You are correct and all the more reason to keep an open mind.
Must be a matter of perspective because the phrase "open mind" to me has always stood for "I'm going to try to fool you with my load of crap"

To me, "open mind" has always meant conjecture, supposition, irrational beliefs, paranormal, and almost everything else that can't be proved within any level of scientific reason.
 
Must be a matter of perspective because the phrase "open mind" to me has always stood for "I'm going to try to fool you with my load of crap"

To me, "open mind" has always meant conjecture, supposition, irrational beliefs, paranormal, and almost everything else that can't be proved within any level of scientific reason.
Then what does a "Closed" mind mean to you?
 
Then what does a "Closed" mind mean to you?
In the context of how I view "keep an open mind", then my mind is closed. Either provide verifiable facts, science, math, etc, or go away.

Of course, few things are ever that cut and dry, but that's the gist of it.

In modern times, "keep an open mind" almost always means con-job, false information, wishful thinking, or some other agenda based thing.
 
In the context of how I view "keep an open mind", then my mind is closed. Either provide verifiable facts, science, math, etc, or go away.

Of course, few things are ever that cut and dry, but that's the gist of it.

In modern times, "keep an open mind" almost always means con-job, false information, wishful thinking, or some other agenda based thing.
No it means be prepared to listen and consider an alternative narrative. Yours may not be right anyway.
 
No it means be prepared to listen and consider an alternative narrative. Yours may not be right anyway.
But within any narrative, there is information that is either factual or non-factual, and in our current climate, listening to any narrative is basically a waste of time.

For example, in a criminal investigation, the investigator will normally ignore the personal stories of the involved parties and focus on relevant factual information that can be proven or disproved as false information.

Pretty much everything falls into either subjective information and objective information. I tend to ignore the subjective and focus on the objective.

By their nature, narratives are subjective. Even eyewitness testimony is notoriously and ridiculously inaccurate.

The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) did a study on this problem decades ago (1960's I think). They wanted to know why a bunch of people could witness a plane crash and provide different stories with conflicting information. What they found was that human perception and eyewitness accounts were ridiculously inaccurate.
Even simple events are beyond the average person's capability to recite later with any reasonable accuracy. The problem is so bad that there was even talk at one time about eliminating personal testimony in our court rooms.

In today's world, when someone talks about narratives, it usually means they want you to ignore the objective stuff and pay attention to their load of crap.
 
But within any narrative, there is information that is either factual or non-factual, and in our current climate, listening to any narrative is basically a waste of time.
That’s a extremely cynical attitude I’m sorry for you.
For example, in a criminal investigation, the investigator will normally ignore the personal stories of the involved parties and focus on relevant factual information that can be proven or disproved as false information.
I only no one investigator. He’s listens to everything afaik
Pretty much everything falls into either subjective information and objective information. I tend to ignore the subjective and focus on the objective.
Yes but it’s not obvious which is both and and if your mind is closed your never listen to alternatives.
By their nature, narratives are subjective. Even eyewitness testimony is notoriously and ridiculously inaccurate.

The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) did a study on this problem decades ago (1960's I think). They wanted to know why a bunch of people could witness a plane crash and provide different stories with conflicting information. What they found was that human perception and eyewitness accounts were ridiculously inaccurate.
Even simple events are beyond the average person's capability to recite later with any reasonable accuracy. The problem is so bad that there was even talk at one time about eliminating personal testimony in our court rooms.
So the point is you can rationalise and extract the position
In today's world, when someone talks about narratives, it usually means they want you to ignore the objective stuff and pay attention to their load of crap.
No they just want you to listen.
Otherwise your life becomes informed only by your own biases and it’s the worst form of echo chamber -ism

Keep a open inquisitive mind , accept others may know as much as you but have a different perspective. Put your own beliefs and biases to the test every day.
 
Yes but it’s not obvious which is both and and if your mind is closed your never listen to alternatives.
It's not obvious which information is subjective and objective? Is that what you're saying?
No they just want you to listen.
Otherwise your life becomes informed only by your own biases and it’s the worst form of echo chamber -ism
My life becomes informed by facts, not by alternative subjective narrative horse crap.

Keep a open inquisitive mind , accept others may know as much as you but have a different perspective. Put your own beliefs and biases to the test every day.
Open mind bad.. Inquisitive and curious mind good.

There is no such thing as "a different perspective" when it comes objective information. I don't have irrational beliefs, I avoid them like the plague.
 
No financial guru would recommend solar.
Creating this 'free green energy' fuks the planet.
It simply fuks the planet somewhere far away.
I choose it for offgrid survival, when the system crashes.
Personal pricey choice, away from gov/utilities etc.
Large scale solar simply means MORE taxes wasted.
 
No financial guru would recommend solar.
Want to bet? My wife has a degree in economics and ran our solar investment through almost a dozen financial investment models and not a single one of them came even close to the payback of solar. Five years down the road, and her model is spot on so far to within 1%.

So on that note, you're obviously wrong.
Creating this 'free green energy' fuks the planet.
It simply fuks the planet somewhere far away.
Stupid people without any relevant education who make such comments are the ones who fuk the planet. Do you have a science degree? Do you have any degree or education beyond grade school?

I choose it for offgrid survival, when the system crashes.
Personal pricey choice, away from gov/utilities etc.\
Why don't you just store tens out thousands of gallons of petroleum fuel if solar is such a bad choice financially and ecologically? Your own words betray you.
Large scale solar simply means MORE taxes wasted.
Huh? What taxes? WTF are you talking about?
 
No financial guru would recommend solar.
Creating this 'free green energy' fuks the planet.
It simply fuks the planet somewhere far away.
I choose it for offgrid survival, when the system crashes.
Personal pricey choice, away from gov/utilities etc.
Large scale solar simply means MORE taxes wasted.
This post makes zero sense. Why would anyone want to be “ away “ from Gov or taxes. Both are impossible anyway no matter where you live. Better embrace it rather then howl at the moon

These posts with completely unsubstantiated massively outlier statements add nothing to a debate it’s like listening to trump
 
Back
Top