I assume plug-in batteries are considerably more workable in the UK on 240V, since they could charge and deploy at double the rate of a plug-in system here. Of course 240V plugs exist in North America, but they're generally only installed for dryers, ranges, and EV chargers, so people don't tend to have one just free.
What percentage of buyers do you imagine are gonna buy a battery big enough to saturate 15A*120V=1800W for long? The average home uses 30 kWh per day = 1250W. Batteries don't need to handle peak load. Approximately nobody has a whole home UPS.
Also 240V power strips are fairly common in my circles because GPU server PSUs tend to be more efficient at 240V. They're marketed as PDUs, not strips. You're not gonna install a new outlet for every server. One dryer outlet in the garage is enough for most people
I'm not clear what point you're making about PDUs.
Re 120V outlets, while batteries don't need to supply the full peak load, they are more effective the more of it they can supply. And a home with a heat pump or baseboard heaters, electric range, EV charger, or dryer for example is going to at times significantly exceed the capacity of the 120/15 outlet. Doesn't mean the battery would be useless, just that it wouldn't be as effective at its primary purpose of load shifting as a 240V system, and therefore less economical.
My point about PDUs is that "people don't tend to have one just free" is irrelevant. It's easy to split a 240V outlet into multiple outlets. One of them can be used to inject power. The copper doesn't care which way the electrons go.
Heat pumps and baseboard heaters are pretty uncommon in the US. Natgas furnaces are nearly 100% efficient so I don't expect that to change any time soon
> What percentage of buyers do you imagine are gonna buy a battery big enough to saturate 15A*120V=1800W for long?
You can get 10kWh of batteries and a 5kW MPPT chargeverter for a little over $2k these days (UL certified). A 30 kWh system with inverter can be had for around $4k. That’s well within the reach of most households.
What makes it easier on 240v systems is that your entire household is on the same “circuit”.
If you’re on a 120v system, there’s a ~50/50 chance that your load is on the wrong side (except for 240v loads where you’ll imbalance things a tad but it should average out).
Unless you’re in an apartment/conso and have 208v instead of 240v… dunno what happens then.
Every US household has at least some big circuits across both lives. You could theoretically put the battery in the laundry room and use the 240v outlet. This is effectively what I did when my power was out during a hurricane. I backfed my entire house through my laundry room. Not to code but nothing was that week. The circuit wasn't rated for enough to handle the HVAC load so I eventually installed a separate 50A inlet on the side of the house.
> Every US household has at least some big circuits across both lives.
Not really. My parents have all natural gas for the furnance, oven, stove, clothes dryer, and water heater; no air conditioner. Everything else is lights and outlets. There are no 240v outlets and no 240v breakers other than the main breaker.
There are multiple circuits on each phase, you would still need to limit current per outlet to 10A (8A sustained). If it's a dedicated circuit then 15A is fine, but usually that means a separate run, and in that case you can just have 20A or 32A.
When you have "three phase 415v", the 415v is the phase-to-phase voltage. Unlike the US 180 degree split phase 220v or 208v p2p, consumer equipment is not wired phase-to-phase unless it is 3-phase.
It's interesting that Europe has 3 phase cooktops, we usually see 32A single phase in Australia, homes rarely need more than 7kW per circuit. Aircons, pool heat pumps and EV chargers are the 3p loads.
Getting a 3 phase PV inverter is worthwhile if you have sun synchronous loads, like pool heater/chillers, across the phases. Then you will want a 3p battery inverter for the same reasons.
they weren't shy about pirating content before, and i think there is a decent legal argument they could have made. non-destructive scanning is also probably more expensive. so they made a business decision based on risk (and i would assume cost).
If you can't predict what isn't worth saving it means it wasn't worth saving.
I login and use it a little different for work but I separate sessions and leave them open longer until I'm done and still everything clears when I close, sometimes I remove the checkbox but I clear at the end of the day.
You can't even save user preferences (like language or other settings) without showing a cookie banner. Edit: I was mistaken. You can't save inferred preferences, but can save explicit user-saved options.
And for a serious website, front end analytics are kind of a necessity to understand how users interact with pages and improve the experience. Note that it certainly doesn't require tracking the behaviour of individual users, just understanding how controls are used in aggregate.
I know it seems like you could work around this with careful design and maybe focus groups and such, but I can tell you we regularly uncover surprising insights from (aggregate) trends in front-end events.
That's not true and is a very common misinformation people repeat online. You can save user preferences in cookies without any consent banner, if the cookie isn't used for tracking.
See here[0], page 6:
> As stated in Article 5(3) ePD: ‘This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service.’
As long as you do not share that info with 3rd party, and the user requested it, you can store via cookies pretty much whatever you want without the need for a consent screen
You're right; I haven't looked into this in detail in some time. You can't save inferred preferences, but can save things that the user has explicitly selected to save.
Aggregated analytics do, and you can't run a serious website without some kind of analytics. Preference-storing does as well, despite any reasonable user expecting that, if they set a preference, it will be saved.
You don't need cookies for basic aggregated analytics. Now if you want to track and record mouse movement, you do, and that's a privacy concern.
The law really has nothing to do with cookies, it has to do with privacy, tracking, and PII. You can absolutely save preferences and perform analytics. What you can't do is hoard data that is personally identifiable for purposes that are not obvious to the consumer.
Sure, and you can use cookies! Just not to store PII. Ultimately these things are actually optional - I don’t have a cookie banner on my site. Neither does my company I work for, because it’s an application.
Actually you can't send any cookie that is not essential to the operation of the website without consent and that would include analytics regardless of PII. same for pixel tracking / fingerprinting, it's all a no-no.
There are many analytics solutions that dont require cookies. You can do aggregated analytics just fine without. Saving preferences does not require consent either.
My understanding is that any front-end analytics solution will require consent. You're right about explicitly set preferences. I was mixing that up with inferred preferences.
How many requests per second are being served? How many error codes were delivered to clients? How quickly the service responded? Service logs without PII? All perfectly fine to aggregate and analyze without consent.
How long did it take x user to navigate from x screen to y screen is one of the most valuable metrics for any site, and most people consider this to require consent. Or at least it not being worth the risk to not ask.
Acting dense like this isn't productive... And literally this information would be stores as anonymous user 12345, but that still would require consent (probably, or at least arguably).
That can be implemented. Within a session you don't need to know it's the same person tomorrow, so a per-day key derived server-side is enough to measure that someone took 40 seconds from x to y. No cookie, no localStorage, nothing stored on the device, nothing to consent to. Hash ip + user agent + your domain with a secret salt that rotates and is destroyed every 24 hours, and you are on the safe side.
Of course, recognizing users across days requires consent. But is that really necessary?
Or use some JS to put the time-on-page in the next request, right?
Is it a violation to send data that could theoretically be used for more invasive tracking than you actually do? I don't think so, or else you'd need consent just to receive an IP packet.
>How long did it take x user to navigate from x screen to y screen is one of the most valuable metrics for any site
Stats like that are only used to implement dark patterns better and justify user hostile decisions since pretty much the time the idea of telemetry was introduced. Otherwise, we'd live in the world of perfect web ui and we're not.
Practical: Supposedly-aggregated stats have a history of actually being perfectly possible to analyze back into individually identifiable information. Also, it's conveniently the same tech stack in a way that makes it easier to make an actual slippery slope.
The practical argument I can understand. From the abstract argument though, it sounds like you'd be opposed even if the anonymization could be guaranteed, which I don't understand. Why is it "spying" to try to understand in aggregate how users are using your website? How are you supposed to eg. identify usability problems without this information? And what is the harm to users? (Again, in the abstract case where we leave aside any possibility of individual users being identified.)
I just visited theguardian.com to see their cookie banner. The banner says this:
> Your Privacy (`x` button to close the tab)
> US residents have certain rights with regard to the sale or sharing of personal information to third parties.
> Guardian News and Media and our partners use information collected through cookies or in other forms to improve experience on our site and pages, analyze how it is used and show personalized advertising.
> You can opt out of the sale of all of your personal information by pressing
> <button>Do not sell or share my personal information</button>
It's 3 sentences, plus a button that says "Do not sell or share my personal information". I actually don't even think this is GDPR compliant, because my layman's understanding says that GDPR consent must be presented as opt-in, rather than opt-out. (I guess they are going for CCPA/CPRA compliance?) But anyway, I would think that a reasonable person could be expected to notice a button that says "Do not sell or share my personal information" and then click it, especially when it's portrayed prominently at the bottom of the page.
Because this is there 1 millionth cookie banner, because every site and their momma has one.
Also, 90% of cookie banners are not this good. They tell you nothing, hide the "reject" button behind multiple screens, etc. At that point the consumer is trained to click accept.
> Independent, quality original journalism needs your support.
> Please choose an option.
> * Accept personalised advertising and all cookies
> We use cookies and similar technologies to support the Guardian and personalise your experience in other ways. To do this we work with a cross section of [139 partners].
> - or -
> * Reject all and subscribe to Guardian Ad-Lite for €5 per month
> Read the Guardian website without personalised advertising. This does not include ad-free. You will still see non-personalised advertising and we may still use cookies and similar technologies to improve our site.
Followed by:
> Some cookies are necessary to help our website work properly and can’t be switched off. Find out more in our privacy policy and cookie policy, and manage the choices available to you at any time by going to ‘Privacy settings’ at the bottom of any page.
> Cookies and similar technologies collect information from your device and may be used to access personal data about you including page visits and IP addresses. We use this information about you, your devices and your online interactions with us to provide, analyse and improve our services. We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
> * Store and/or access information on a device
> * Personalised advertising, advertising measurement, audience research and services development
> * Personalised content and content measurement
And finally the buttons:
> ( Accept all ) ( Reject all and subscribe )
> If you already have Guardian Ad-Lite or read the Guardian ad-free, [sign in]
Notice how they show you those three sentences and don't just put a bunch of small print at the bottom of the page. Because if they did, it would be invalid.
The GDPR doesn’t allow opt-out consent to count as consent. The only consent it recognizes as valid consent is opt-in.
However, since we are discussing the banner that The Guardian website shows to US viewers, I assume they’re trying to comply with California privacy law, which does allow opt-out regarding the sale of personal information.
You've muddled the definitions again. "opt" signifies an action by the user.
If I am "in a group" by default, then I can take an action to "opt out", requesting to be removed from the list.
If I am not initially joined to the group, then I can take an action to "opt in" and be added to the list.
There is no such thing as "opt by default". That is not a user action. It also makes no sense for the same list or group to be both "opt in" and "opt out" because, as adjectives, they imply the default states and they describe the user action taken to change that default.
The video showed well over a minute of manual setup time! Most dome tents of a comparable size can be set up in less time than that. Elastic cords help pull the poles together, you put the ends into the grommets and clip the tent body on.
reply