Hmm. I actually corrected the spellings two days ago, so I'm wondering why people are still seeing the old ones now. Caching must be involved, but accessing the website in a private windows shows the correct spellings to me.
As I understand it, it was to improve their ESG score (they got up to 98) in order to spur up foreign investments. It did not quite work out as expected...
I thought it might be useful for people without a regular address like digital nomads, but it's not.
It's specifically for people "experiencing housing or homelessness difficulties and receiving support from one of our partner charities." Still a good initiative.
Google is garbage. I once complained a website stealing my contents and other people's contents was ranking very highly in Google. I was told I'd better fixed my website before looking at "competitors". Part of that was true, but at the time the person did not seem to care at all of spammy content delivered by Google.
Many people will lose money is this little game.
The hedge funds deserve to lose since they took too many risks, but I'm afraid they'll be bailed out.
GameStop is bleeding money, and if the stock value is really closer to $3, then once this is out of the news, price will fall down to under $10 pretty quickly. Many smaller investors will lose out in the end.
From the article: “When the final two turbines are commissioned at Granville Harbour, Tasmania will have access to 10,741 GWh of renewable generating capacity – well above our average annual electricity demand of 10,500 GWh,”
How do they determine renewable generating capacity? I'm asking because it will vary years to years. Is it the theoretical max, or is it the value based on some averages of the expected output?
You use a combination of local measurements (over a year) and historic weather data (over decades) combined with the specifications of your generator to estimate output. That model gives you an expected generation in an average year, amongst other things.
