Resonosity

Both sides are bad. And by that I mean Democrats never represent the Left while routinely allowing the Right to exert their selfishness and greed. They are controlled opposition to frame American politics as a binary, when in reality an entire half of the political spectrum could be represented to widespread approval

If it's a straight line from Nixon to Trump as you say, then why claim Republicans are environmentalists with Nixon as your example?

He said straight line THROUGH Nixon and Trump, not straight line TO Nixon and Trump.

The former implies distinct and self-evident political differences, whereas the latter implies political evolution from one into the other where both politicians have a common set of political similarities.

I can't help but think at this point that we're reaching comprehension issues...

You say "it's too long ago when Republicans were different" isn't a valid argument.

He didn't say that. You did.

He pointed out your hypocrisy when you said that stating the fact that Nixon created the EPA must mean he's a Republican (and a MAGAt one at that), but then turned heel and said that any politicians from 50 years ago don't matter (likely because the political landscape then is not the same as the political landscape now, which is reasonably true - he makes this same point by saying 1860 Republicans are not the same as 1960 Republicans or 2025 Republicans).

You stated he's a Republican, then dissolved your own claim by saying support for past Republicans doesn't matter. You've closed your own logic loop.

Why can't stating facts just be that: stating facts.

Instead, people have to insert imaginations of their interlocutor's position so they can try to dish an "own" before asking them for clarification first.

And we wonder why discourse is broken in today's age

So no one in the (non-residential) industry cleans their modules, except if you're in the Southwest.

The phenomenon of panels getting dirty is called soiling loss, and its defined either by how many solid particulates (e.g. soil, dirt, sand, agricultural dusts from nearby harvests, chemical particulates from nearby factories, etc.) or snow accumulates. I make that distinction because there's different models that the industry uses for predicting these things: the Kimber model for non-snow, and the Townsend model for snow.

The reason the (non-residential) industry doesn't really care about washing their panels is because:

• 1. rain washes any solids away, and
• 2. panels generate heat if converting photons to electrons

The Kimber model assumes that solids accumulate as a line function which restarts once it rains more than a certain amount. Weather data provided by NOAA in the States for instance can be fed into the model to calculate what percentage losses your panels will experience over their lifespan. Usually solar engineers over design their systems so they reach the energy amount across the entire system's lifespan.

For snow its the same, except when it snows a crazy amount like in the Northeast US and so much accumulates, all of the panel's cells are blocked from direct sun and this delays the self-heating effect as the modules are essentially fully shaded. In those cases, depending on how bad the snowfall was or how frequently it falls, companies may elect to brush off the snow once or twice in a winter season.

You'll notice that I left out residential solar, which is what you most likely care about.

Since residential solar is so finely tuned to meet the greater degree of constraints with working with a smaller array than community or utility scale arrays, more attention does need to be paid to cleaning the modules.

Whoever is designing your system though should be able to build in a certain amount of soiling losses, and that will help dictate the final array design. If your developer or installer doesn't know what this number is (should range from 0.5-4% loss compared to perfect world conditions), then I'd try to dig more for that or switch developers/installers if they don't want to give that information up.

It's not worth it for homeowners or developers or installers to clean such small arrays unless it's their prerogative to do so I guess. But I guess I'm a lazy engineer making that call so who am I!

As someone in the solar industry

Yes!

T-Mobile supports these bands:

• 5G: n2/41/71/258/260/261

• 5G,ER: n25

• 4GLTE: B4/5/12/71

• 4GLTE,ER: B25/66

• 2G,GSM: B2

Fairphone 5 supports these bands:

• 5G: n1/2/3/5/7/8/20/28/38/41/48/71/77/78

• 5G,ER: n66

• 4GLTE: B1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/20/28/32/38/40/41/42/48/71

• 4GLTE,ER: B66

It looks like the Fairphone 5 covers T-Mobile's 5G Frequency Band 1 frequencies (bold), but Frequency Band 2 is not covered (italic).

Regarding 4G, the Fairphone 5 covers all LTE networks (bold) except for extended range band B25 (italics).

it doesn't support US bands for TMobile

It covers some, but not all.

Even if he had gone all in on manufacturing, it's not like a supply network of industrial goods can be built in a day. Hell, it's hard to build that in a 4-year term. Trump is virtue signalling while at the same time jeopardizing any chance America had of reshoring.

It's honestly infuriating me how big projects needed to improve our infrastructure take years and years to complete, when from one administration to the next, those same projects can be cancelled.

It takes multiple presidencies to build something good, and it takes one to tear it all down.

I see now the benefits of China's 5 year plans with how well organized they can control their economy.

Do you know the origins of that meme?

I thought I had already explained my idea of its origination, but according to Know Your Meme, the "soy" reference started around 2017 when information was hitting the mainstream about how soy contains phytoestrogens (isoflavones) [likely due to the rise in veganism at the time and people pushing for soy-based milk alternatives to cow milk and protein alternatives to meat] and people started to speculate (ignorantly) that consuming more soy makes people more feminine (but particularly less masculine). This may be true, but current it's plausible due to a lack of sufficient evidence.

Know Your Meme then go on to explain how the term "soy" gets ascribed to a meme, "Soyjack", and how his effeminate male persona gets compared to the ultimate masculine male persona "Chad".

I take this meme to mostly refer to how some people in the world are changing their worldviews and behaviors to disform with the traditional patriarchy and order. People are upgrading their morality, whether that means abstaining or advocating for not consuming animals for food, or championing equity and minority rights like women's, or touting the reality of the climate crisis and how we need to abandon fossil fuels in favor of clean energy.

This is in comparison to an older, narrower point of view that aims to regress worldviews and behaviors to a time when humanity dominated all other species on Earth (since we're obviously better), neither women nor minorities had societal or individual powers or rights, or coal, natural gas, and oil are the best forms of energy because of how much they've contributed to humanity's advancement.

People who subscribe to a worldview like the latter routinely would call people with the former worldview "soy".

Are you sure you're okay with repeating it yourself, even if it's just meant as a joke?

I am fine using that term myself only towards regressives that abandon their worldviews or fail to practice their beliefs out of cowardice or a lack of conviction specifically because those people claim superiority over progressives. I'd use the term on people who would call others out for being more feminine (i.e. showing compassion, talking things out before forcing people to do things, etc.) but then show those same characteristics themselves, often without them recognizing their hypocrisy.

So, I called Microsoft soy in this case not because they enjoyed relatively progressive policies on human rights for example, but because they regressed on those beliefs by foresaking them and firing one of their employees who acted fully within the policy framework Microsoft themselves had created.

We should not settle with only one side of the societal spectrum name-calling and bullying the other for how they live. All ways of life are acceptable, so long as they don't impede other's. Tolerance is not a paradox. It is earned, in trust, as a social contract. If people prove to (routinely) breach that contract, then they deserve no respect in my eyes.

I have no issue with calling people or groups or companies or countries soy in that way.

No, sorry there's a meme going around online where the English term "soy" (as in soybeans; this term was likely derived from veganism where many vegans drink soy milk instead of cow milk) is being prefixed to nouns or people to denote weakness or just to snark at people, kinda like how people would use snowflake in the past.

I was calling Microsoft "soy" in this way

Soy Microsoft, tbh

Scumbags