Because the thing that knocks out the power is freezing rain / snow mixes. When that's happening I conclusively prefer being inside.

And replacing my current setup with a similarly function primarily-electric setup would be expensive even ignoring my preference for being partially off-grid. Right now I don't have 220V to my kitchen at all. Decent induction stoves aren't cheap, especially with space constraints. My cookware is all appropriate for an open flame (e.g. cast iron, enameled cast iron) and while it may work with an induction setup it wouldn't be optimal there.

I live in a rural area. Electricity goes out for like a week pretty consistently every year.

I've got a propane generator, but running a stove off of it rather than just using the propane to run the stove seems silly. If power goes out for too long, I'll turn the generator off, be without electricity, but still be able to cook.

The health risks of propane seem pretty marginal to me. If I were going to try to change my energy sources for health reasons my wood heat setup would be much higher priority.

the typical definition of children (18 and under)

Really? That's what you're going with?

When you design an OS to pretend there's no such thing as a file, it ends up being bad at handling files.

Firefox died long ago.

It was an engine fight, and Mozilla decided not to participate.

The zeal for equality is the marketing line. Believe it or not, the bean counters did the math and figured out it was cheaper, at least in the short term

That'd be less bad if this particular educational structure wasn't getting mandated as a "legal right to equal education", with any alternate structure being fought at every step by an array of institutional forces.

It's important to keep in mind that the choices you can make are limited to those choices that are actually yours to make.

It doesn't matter how serious you perceive a problem to be. You don't get to pick whether some family you've never met in Bangladesh eats pork for dinner tonight. Not your choice.

You can choose to engage in political advocacy, but while your political advocacy may have effects, those effects will almost never be to allow you to chose worldwide policies.

Even when political movements partially succeed, the outcome may be to make things much worse. Environmentalists today need to very seriously consider the question of whether today's climate crisis is the direct result of the success of the anti-nuclear movement 50 years ago.

Things cost stuff.

Except Bio-Dome, that's free. Basic economics says that price approaches marginal cost of production.

The Kia Niro is pretty close, although if you're really serious about making it dumb you'll need to pull the cellular modem. It doesn't depend on any internet services, but it does connect to the internet to get nearby charger data.

I can't find such a study, and it seems extremely unlikely to me that any such study was performed recently. The original law was passed in 2007, and then the regulations were in political limbo for more than a decade.

My base hypotheses here, subject to easy refutation by any real evidence, are that:

• The DOE has looked at no study from after 2007 to justify their current policies.
• This regulation is going into effect now simply because it was on the list of stuff Trump did that the Biden admin reversed.
• The effect on consumer electricity costs and carbon emissions are negligible, since LED bulbs are a decade cheaper and better and almost everyone voluntarily buys them.

Once you're doing resistive heating any resistive element is just as efficient as any other. Incandescent light bulbs have three advantages: They are cheap, easy to work with, and it's really obvious when one is turned on.

As for your link, it's talking about arguments about which books should be made available at school and local libraries. In no sense is that even related to the federal government banning books.

the impact on actual electricity usage is going to be massive.

Is it?

How many people are still installing new incandescent bulbs in 2023?

Is there an actual study showing the expected costs and benefits of this rule, or is it purely political posturing?

Does anybody use incandescent light bulbs as radiators?

Yes. I've done it personally a couple times.

Because it's the only alternative use I can think of.

The thing about alternative uses is that they're still real even if you can't think of them.

Broad bans are a bad policy tool in general. Even if you believe in the progressive ideal of expert regulators making broad societal policies, a simple thought experiment shows the problem: What would it take to do the study to accurately determine all the negative effects of a ban? Not guessing, not wishful thinking, but really collecting and analyzing the information.

I wish people were as mad when books get banned, but sadly it's not the case

When was the last time the US federal government banned a book?

And heat is not ready a concern. You can touch most LED bulbs with your bare hands with no risk of severe burn.

This very clearly indicates that you haven't seriously considered this issue at all, and are just supporting your political faction with no reflection on what the unintended consequences might be.

A common application of incandescent bulbs is to produce heat, for a variety of use cases. The typical example is an improvised chicken incubator.

Consider very carefully why there's an exception for traffic signals.

Because imagining that someone might have a legitimate reason to want a product or service that a regulator might not have thought of is currently a "Republican" trait in the US.

Sure, and non-profit digital radio stations will never need to pay for music streams.

No, we've been watching how this sort of nonsense plays out for decades. If what you want to do is not contemplated by the regulatory deal, then it'll end up illegal.

What exempts small sites?

Why do you think that loophole won't be closed in the future?

Or you know. Lemmy!!

Until Canada tries to enforce this law against Lemmy instances.

"The Matrix" was released closer in time to the French Revolution than to today.

The lessons of the 20th century have mostly been forgotten. Re-learning them is going to be very expensive - not just in money, but in lives.