It has its uses.
Like most bespoke items they’re good at some things, not everything.
It’s nice if you’re trying to keep an indoor living space warm for a longer period, like overnight.
They typically have a thermostat setting on it to maintain the temperature.
It doesn’t make the same noise as a blowing space heater, as there’s usually not a fan. I’ve heard creaks and such from them.
As noted, the radiative effect can last for a few hours depending on energy loss in the space.
Basically yes.
It adds some efficiency because once you have a radiator full of hot oil in the radiator it tends to release the heat for a long while after the electric is shut-off.
Most electric space heaters send a plume of hot air arcing upwards.
You end up with a nice heat storage device to radiate warmth at the level you want to use it for longer than a normal resistive space heater using the same energy.
This is the same layout as the device I was referring to:
You’re right.
If they have a heat pump, it could be cheaper to use that over all.
*Edit: It’s electric resistive heat on a central air system.
If you’re in an area that doesn’t freeze you can keep the house cold and heat one room with an electric oil filled radiator very inexpensively.
If you’re in a place that freezes you need to keep the house warm enough to avoid freezing the water pipes.
Otherwise have fun, heat one room and bundle up everywhere else.
They said oil filled radiator, not oil burning. I expect it’s a very efficient electric heater like these:
If they are trying to keep one room warm and don’t care about freezing the rest of the house those are very efficient.
Fair point.
As a note, I don’t recall all of them saying ‘Windows Server’ in the top left of that page.
Right on. Thanks for that. Appreciate you responding.
The lazy part was your statement being at odds with your source, while discounting other folk’s experience or skin.
I know of more than one person who has experienced sunburn from closed windowed (newer)vehicle rides in full sunlight.
Yes. The answer is yes, glass doesn’t prevent sunburns.
It will delay them.
Article states, accurately; “you can still get burned with long enough exposure”.
Your link disagrees with you. Hoping nobody pays attention? Hoping for up votes?
False fact post, bad faith actor, or llm. All 3?
From your link: “You can still get burned with long enough exposure.”
All of this ignores this is not happening in a vacuum. Project 2025, trump, the supreme court selection of limited precedent and ignorance of other precedent…
This is a brick in the pavement of our descent into fascism. Hand waving it away as a wonderful clarification that enabled prosecution of the office is unreasonable.
They already ruled the Constitution and clear discussion in Congress during the original Amendment, invalid when the insurrection clause and States rights were revoked… Colorado ballot decision ftr.
They’ve shown their hand. They’re willing to select evidence, much like your review, that fits the narrative - ignoring any other facts.
It’s already being used to delay adjudication in clear abuses of power.
Law requires a certification from a board to practice. You’re of the opinion that examination that proves ones understanding of the law(bar exam, exhaustive study followed by proving that knowledge)— puts you on equal footing with that majority?
I continue to firmly dissent your assertion regarding the validity of your opinion, you have firmly claimed not to be a bar certified individual.
Being an expert in law here has weight. A majority of them feel this is a power grab. You’re welcome to hold opinions. Spouting endless review to make responses difficult isn’t helping you.
This is akin to you saying you know better how to file legal paperwork or act as a defense attorney because you read about it.
Do you also dospense medical advice?
Except in the future - If you’re part of the official staff for the president - A defense wouldn’t be needed. The fact that the president told them to do it wouldn’t even be able to come up. It’s privileged communication now.
yearse ?
Your argument seems to be, they already had this power - now the Supreme Court can stop them. When will that ever happen?
You’re glossing over the fact that they’ve declared entire sections of communication off limits going forward. This is new. This is not same old, same old. The Supreme Court is currently compromised. No-one is going to prosecute a republican president in this environment.
Everything they could do can be construed as official, immune, business after being elected when viewed through the right lens.
If this the president previously had immunity, why was Nixon pardoned?
The Supreme Court was free to interpret this as they saw fit. They’ve demonstrated that they’re not following precedent and are marching to their own beat.
Regarding the clear power grab, Denying the facts that the other changes the court has made will have untold effects on the ability of states that are gerrymandering based on race:
It’s ok to insurrection, if you do it right, also while president:
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/14/nx-s1-5005999/supreme-court-jan-6-prosecutions
It’s also ok to use your official employees as president to carry out illegal acts and prevent them from testifying:
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/01/1198912764/consider-this-from-npr-draft-07-01-2024
Denying that folks who actually understand the law, like law professors, and Supreme Court Justices. There’s a difference between laypersons and experts in some fields. I’m not claiming to be an expert in neurology, law, or other fields. I’m deferring to people who have studied these field(s) and asking for their logic and expertise. You’re responding and relying on your logic.
The court is currently controlled by one party. One person openly claims credit for this, and definitely pushed the balance towards one direction.
Our congress is deadlocked by republicans when it comes to anything related to the former president.
They will not pass anything or see cases against their preferred president making them literally immune in practice.
The word soup from kava seems to indicate they feel, that because the president had so much power already, what’s the big deal if a little bit more gets added?
Folks who are scholars on the topic seem to think accumulating more power to the Executive and Judicial branches to be a bad thing.
As noted in Supreme Court rulings: The only parties who get to decide if a president is acting incorrectly would be if A. Congress successfully impeaches the president, B. They passed the supreme court’s review of what constitutes (non)presidential acts.
In reality both of these branches have been corrupted and owned by ‘conservative’ interests.
Rulings on SuperPACs, Citizens United, gerrymandering, presidential immunity, insurrection and more are laying the groundwork to remove additional freedoms or protections.
So this has the result of essentially making it possible for the controlling party of these to have a literal dictator whose communications with officials can’t be reviewed or considered in prosecution.
Folks who have a lot of experience working with legal matters are voicing concerns on this. This isn’t an appeal to authority, rather a matter of consulting folks who are experts and considering their opinions.
Fair. Thanks. Was mobile and trying to wade through and reply.
They can’t impeach if they can’t assemble a quorum.
So your answer to why your opinion is more valid than everyone else is; Because I say so?
Thanks for providing clear sources as to why your opinion is more valid than the dissenters with credentials.
It has its uses.
Like most bespoke items they’re good at some things, not everything.
It’s nice if you’re trying to keep an indoor living space warm for a longer period, like overnight.
They typically have a thermostat setting on it to maintain the temperature.
It doesn’t make the same noise as a blowing space heater, as there’s usually not a fan. I’ve heard creaks and such from them.
As noted, the radiative effect can last for a few hours depending on energy loss in the space.