[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-16-2023).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: rinselberg, I have a question. Why do you post topics in Totally O/T that you know are political. Do you think you can spin your yarn without a political response?

Whenever I post a new message or in this case, a new topic (thread), I am looking for engagement, and that is always measured by whether there are Reply messages, by the quality of the Reply messages, and by the demographic(s) of the forum members that take the time and effort to post Reply messages.

Leaving myself aside, we have two distinctly different demographics represented in the Reply messages:

"Commonly seen in both Totally O/T and Politics & Religion"
Patrick, fredtoast, cliffw

Commonly seen in Totally O/T but seldom seen in Politics & Religion
theogre, Hank is Here

Neither "theogre" or "Hank is Here" has expressed a complaint that I have violated the sanctity of the Totally O/T section by introducing an overtly political topic, so the fault here is clearly with "cliffw" for having an overly sensitive nerve (so to speak) about what topics are political. In other words, "cliffw" is being like this:

quote This is so POLITICAL ..!

Is this a political topic?

The topic has some connections with politics, but it's not an overtly or inherently political topic. It's first and foremost a technology-related topic. It was originally about the possibility of a new way to improve the efficiency of solar energy installations.

In the course of the discussion, "theogre" referenced the problem of EV battery flammability, and I responded to that with a presentation from the Electric Viking of his thinking about the pros and cons between two different kinds of EV batteries that are currently in use. And "theogre" responded to that, but he did not express any angst about seeing politics in this Totally O/T section of the forum.

Almost any topic could have some certain connections or implications, but the issue that "cliffw" should be addressing is whether this is an inherently or overtly political topic, as it was originally conceived.

I would say, based on the evidence that's apparent, that the answer to that is a resounding "No." Two forum members, "theogre" and "Hank is Here", are like the proverbial canaries in the coal mine in this context, and neither one has expressed any concern about the intrusion of politics into what Cliff Pennock is offering as a space for non-political discussions, which was his intention for Totally O/T when he created the Politics & Religion section.

So the more relevant question is why "cliffw" is being triggered about this—and it's incumbent upon "cliffw" himself to grapple with that question.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-16-2023).]

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-16-2023).]

quote [Within the U.S. Department of Energy,] the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (HFTO) focuses on research, development, and demonstration of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies across multiple sectors enabling innovation, a strong domestic economy, and a clean, equitable energy future.

https://www.energy.gov/eere...-technologies-office

It's federal industrial policy... to provide federal funds in the form of grants or loans that enable private sector startups and consortiums to conduct research that looks promising from a science perspective, but is too speculative and forward looking to attract investment from commercial banks or the typical run of venture capitalists, who need more assurance of financial returns on their investments within a shorter period of time.

Backing the Liquid Sunlight Alliance financially in this way is a longer term proposition.

You might say it's "Uncle Sam's way of playing the Long Game."

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-17-2023).]