5 ms·

Texas was not constrained when they made the choice to develop an energy grid that remained separate from the other grids developing in the US. ("All of today's

Texas was not constrained when they made the choice to develop an energy grid that remained separate from the other grids developing in the US. ("All of today's grids started with smaller, less-connected entities.")

mannykannot 6y ago
The point that is actually relevant here is that Texas has not been constrained from modifying its energy infrasrastructure, to make it more resilient than it has proved to be, at any time since then.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  What policies were you referring to when you said "All of today's grids started with smaller, less-connected entities."? A lot of people have focused on Texas's separate grid policy.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    That is not a statement about policies, it is a statement of historical fact about electrical-supply grids in general. What part of that statement do you disagree with?
    - solidsnack9000 6y ago
      What's that statement have to do with the discussion at hand? What lead you to introduce it?
      - mannykannot 6y ago
        What lead[sic] me to introduce it was, of course, your statement that "Texas's separate grid dates back decades". The reason why I untroduced it, of course, was that that it explains why the statement of yours that I just quoted is utterly irrelevant to an analysis of what has recently happened, and, more specifically, is utterly irrelevant to the post of mine that you were replying to. And do I really need to explain to you how it shows that your comment is irrelevant? I suppose I do, given that we are here. It is just this: since the beginning of Texas' grid (as you say, decades ago - almost a century) there has been plenty of opportunity for Texas to make not just its grid, but its entire energy infrastructure, more resilient. Far from my case being one of recency bias, the reality is that your reply to it suffers from the opposite fallacy - a fallacy so obviously wrong that it may not occur often enough to have a recognized name.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        solidsnack9000 6y ago
        Oh, you are right -- "lead" is a common mis-spelling of "led". https://www.grammarly.com/blog/led-lead/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/led-lead/ The reason you "untroduced [sic]" it, of course, was "that that [sic]" it distracts from your backwards projection of current events, which is why your post is is utterly irrelevant to an analysis of what has recently happened, and, more specifically, is utterly irrelevant to the article you were commenting on. And do I really need to explain to you why your points are irrelevant? I suppose that I do, given that we are here. It is just this: the article actually discusses national winterization standards versus those of Texas, and points out both that other southern states have experienced power disruptions due to the cold, and that the national winterization standards are neither stricter than those of Texas nor strict enough to address the events of recent days. Far from my case being based on a fallacy so obviously wrong that it may not occur often enough to have a recognized name, the reality is that your reply suffers from one that is well known and quite common among your ilk: recency bias.
        mannykannot 6y ago
        Your complete change of argument here is not much better than the reply you originally posted, as the first thing I wrote in that post is that I agreed with what you wrote about the article (but that it and the article are not the whole story), and the only point where I mentioned Texas was to say that the issues are not confined to Texas. There are lessons to be learned here, for all the affected states, about basing planning on the realities of the actual world. Inadequate preparation in multiple states does not somehow excuse any one of them. You are now attempting to argue against, not what I posted, but an entirely imaginary reply. At least it seems that it has finally dawned on you that the argument you presented in your first reply to me, which, in its entirety, was "Texas's separate grid dates back decades, and was driven by a conscious desire to optimize for the needs of manufacturing. It doesn't have anything to do with climate-change denial or the current governor" is utterly irrelevant, both to the energy infrastructure / climate problem in general, and my specific post - though it took ten exchanges in which it was explained to you, multiple times, why it is irrelevant, for you to get it. We will see if you will have the integrity to acknowledge how utterly mistaken your original reply was.

mannykannot 6y ago

The point that is actually relevant here is that Texas has not been constrained from modifying its energy infrasrastructure, to make it more resilient than it has proved to be, at any time since then.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
What policies were you referring to when you said "All of today's grids started with smaller, less-connected entities."? A lot of people have focused on Texas's separate grid policy.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  That is not a statement about policies, it is a statement of historical fact about electrical-supply grids in general. What part of that statement do you disagree with?
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    What's that statement have to do with the discussion at hand? What lead you to introduce it?
    - mannykannot 6y ago
      What lead[sic] me to introduce it was, of course, your statement that "Texas's separate grid dates back decades". The reason why I untroduced it, of course, was that that it explains why the statement of yours that I just quoted is utterly irrelevant to an analysis of what has recently happened, and, more specifically, is utterly irrelevant to the post of mine that you were replying to. And do I really need to explain to you how it shows that your comment is irrelevant? I suppose I do, given that we are here. It is just this: since the beginning of Texas' grid (as you say, decades ago - almost a century) there has been plenty of opportunity for Texas to make not just its grid, but its entire energy infrastructure, more resilient. Far from my case being one of recency bias, the reality is that your reply to it suffers from the opposite fallacy - a fallacy so obviously wrong that it may not occur often enough to have a recognized name.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - solidsnack9000 6y ago
        Oh, you are right -- "lead" is a common mis-spelling of "led". https://www.grammarly.com/blog/led-lead/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/led-lead/ The reason you "untroduced [sic]" it, of course, was "that that [sic]" it distracts from your backwards projection of current events, which is why your post is is utterly irrelevant to an analysis of what has recently happened, and, more specifically, is utterly irrelevant to the article you were commenting on. And do I really need to explain to you why your points are irrelevant? I suppose that I do, given that we are here. It is just this: the article actually discusses national winterization standards versus those of Texas, and points out both that other southern states have experienced power disruptions due to the cold, and that the national winterization standards are neither stricter than those of Texas nor strict enough to address the events of recent days. Far from my case being based on a fallacy so obviously wrong that it may not occur often enough to have a recognized name, the reality is that your reply suffers from one that is well known and quite common among your ilk: recency bias.
        mannykannot 6y ago
        Your complete change of argument here is not much better than the reply you originally posted, as the first thing I wrote in that post is that I agreed with what you wrote about the article (but that it and the article are not the whole story), and the only point where I mentioned Texas was to say that the issues are not confined to Texas. There are lessons to be learned here, for all the affected states, about basing planning on the realities of the actual world. Inadequate preparation in multiple states does not somehow excuse any one of them. You are now attempting to argue against, not what I posted, but an entirely imaginary reply. At least it seems that it has finally dawned on you that the argument you presented in your first reply to me, which, in its entirety, was "Texas's separate grid dates back decades, and was driven by a conscious desire to optimize for the needs of manufacturing. It doesn't have anything to do with climate-change denial or the current governor" is utterly irrelevant, both to the energy infrastructure / climate problem in general, and my specific post - though it took ten exchanges in which it was explained to you, multiple times, why it is irrelevant, for you to get it. We will see if you will have the integrity to acknowledge how utterly mistaken your original reply was.