Understanding statistics and calling out reporting bias is a bannable offence on energy@slrpnk.net

https://slrpnk.net/post/17629839
"weasel" isn't an opinion there either, weasel words has a very specific meaning when it comes to reporting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
"up to" are exactly what is meant by weasel words, introducing enough ambiguity to make the claim entirely untrustworthy.
- Yeah. The best possible interpretation is that in 85% of the days measured (98/116), power was covered for 42% of the day (10/24), for an end result of 35% of power needs being covered over the time measured ((98/116)×(10/24)).
  But that is interpreting "up to" as meaning it was consistently hitting 10 hours each of those 98 days, which is definitively not what "up to" means. So we'll use 35% as our upper bound, being the most charitable interpretation.
  So if we assume that the 18 days not covered had 0 hours of coverage (only sane way they can't be counted when using the term "up to"), and make a complete assumption backed by nothing that each day counted as covered had 1 hour minimum of power needs met, then we can establish the lower bound.
  Worst case interpretation then becomes one day at 10 hours plus 97 days at one hour. (((1/116)×(10/24))+((97/116)×(1/24)))
  So lower bound of 4% coverage using the least charitable sane interpretation.
  So that statistic as written comes out somewhere between 4% and 35% of total energy needs met entirely by renewables over that 116 day period.
  Quite a different feel to that than 100% of the energy needs were met some of the time.
  Honestly, even 10% of the total needs met would be impressive, and for the sake of continued human existence we need to keep investing in renewables regardless.
  But misleading people shouldn't be acceptable just because it's for a cause we favor.
  
  I really appreciate you providing numbers on this, I was hesitant to set upper and lower bounds and get called out for making assumptions (which it isn’t!).
  As anyone can see from your comment the ambiguity in the articles claims are extremely unhelpful.
  All this only makes being banned for ‘arguing against facts’ even sadder.
  
  Getting off topic. Please stay on topic of whether the mod action was deserved rather than discussing the article itself
  
  From the linked study's abstract:
  This paper uses data from the world's 5th-largest economy to show no blackouts occurred when wind-water-solar electricity supply exceeded 100 % of demand on California's main grid for a record 98 of 116 days from late winter to early summer, 2024, for an average (maximum) of 4.84 (10.1) hours/day. Compared with the same period in 2023, solar, wind, and battery outputs in 2024 increased 31 % 8 %, and 105 %, respectively, dropping fossil gas use by an estimated 40 %. Batteries, which shifted excess solar to night, supplied up to ∼12 % of nighttime demand.
  (Admittedly, it was 3 clicks away. Here's a direct link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148124023309 )
  
  35% of power needs being covered over the time measured ((98/116)×(10/24)).
  can be higher. Daytime hours have higher demand, and stat can mean that demand was covered for x hours, instead of production equal to 10/24th of demand.
  So if we assume that the 18 days not covered had 0 hours of coverage
  unlikely. But a reason the spring period is being highlighted is that there is no heating or cooling demand. There is more room for improvement for sure.
- “up to” are exactly what is meant by weasel words,
  It precisely meant at least 10 hours, which would have been clearer. You attacked post for not achieving perfection, but it just claimed to achieve very specific metrics. No claim of perfection was made.
  
  It precisely meant at least 10 hours
  Not according to the paper the article was (loosely) based on.
  The average was 4.84 h/day and the maximum was 10.1
  You would know that if you had read the article and fact checked it against the source.
  This paper uses data from the world's 5th-largest economy to show no blackouts occurred when wind-water-solar electricity supply exceeded 100 % of demand on California's main grid for a record 98 of 116 days from late winter to early summer, 2024, for an average (maximum) of 4.84 (10.1) hours/day.
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148124023309
  Now that you have all the facts, if you would stay on topic and render judgement of PTB/YDI that would be great.

Dude what the FUCK, definitely PTB
I actually posted this same article, then after, it got crossposted to !energy@slrpnk.net:
https://ponder.cat/post/1405686
I fully support your counterpoint. That's the whole point of having a comments section. A comments section where you're only allowed to agree with things OP and the mods and admins and the article author think are the right way to look at it, is super weird and mostly useless. I posted the article because I do think it's a significant milestone and a lot more power generation than I would have expected, but you have a perfectly valid point about the weasel-y-ness of how it's being presented.
For anyone who takes seriously the assertion that OP is a troll, I would ask you to take a look at these comments:
https://lemmy.world/comment/14659486
https://slrpnk.net/comment/13059408
They take part in controversial topics, but I don't really see any bad faith of any kind. If they are a troll, they are playing the marathon long game with it.
- Its is always nice to see a well reasoned response! I agree it's a good thing that renewables are playing an increasingly important role in energy grids, but misrepresentation of that role helps no one.
  A comments section where you’re only allowed to agree with things OP and the mods and admins and the article author think are the right way to look at it, is super weird and mostly useless.
  It really doesn't help when the poster and the mod are one and the same. Too many people take dissenting opinions as a personal attack.
  You are correct I do not shy away from sharing my opinions regardless of how controversial they may be in some communities, and I think that's mostly healthy for online discourse.
  
  It really doesn’t help when the poster and the mod are one and the same. Too many people take dissenting opinions as a personal attack.
  Jesus Christ. That shouldn't be allowed, honestly. If someone doesn't have the maturity to handle someone telling them they are wrong in the comments section, I think they should literally be required to go and fetch a separate person to get a distinct opinion on it and do the moderation for them and not be allowed to touch the buttons.
  Non-whites have never been police, never talked to police, never voted for the Evil Party and shouldn’t be included at all in advice to not be evil, misguided or duped.
  Note: 16% of black voters and 43% of latino voters in the U.S. voted for Trump.
  If you need a /s at the end of that comment to get the sarcasm you are really really bad at reading context cues.
  I think I am, yeah. Edited the original reply now to turn it into a sidenote :D
  Hahah fair enough
  (Comments from OP are in bold.)
  If there's one thing I have very rarely seen trolls do, it's clarify a misunderstanding and then laugh it off once everyone is on the same page again. Honestly, I also thought your sarcasm was a little hard to detect, just because there are some crazy opinions on the internet. But in retrospect it's clearly sarcasm, and you're clearly approaching the conversation productively and making a salient point through the sarcasm. Actually, your exact point was one reason I made a whole separate post of my own about interacting with the police, instead of just reposting that fairly-good-with-some-caveats advice. The comment about white people left a bad taste in my mouth as well.

PTB.
What you're saying is accurate and relevant; you are clearly not trolling, contrariwise to the claim in the modlog. Your tone isn't even impolite, it's simply dry. And it's geared towards the article, not towards other users.

I remember seeing that post, this is an absurd and harmful reaction by the mods to misinformation being called out. Shame on them.
- Headline is not misinformation. It does show progress with renewables. That we have yet to reach perfection is not an argument to "nuke all renewables from orbit". Headline was not scummy/misleading for boasting about progress made so far, and comment was overly aggressive about how it fails to achieve "full success".
  Renewables can be growing faster, but growth rate is all you can ask from it, instead of instant perfection.
  
  I am fascinated to find one of the dedicated troll accounts coming in to spend some time debating with multiple people with mostly reasoned conversation on this topic.
  Go look at this person's history. I defy you to find some other instance of them calmly debating on any topic with this many messages or with this level of thought and responsiveness. Mostly, they are busy getting banned from !world@quokk.au, !pleasantpolitics@slrpnk.net, !meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works, !politics@beehaw.org, !news@lemmy.world, for tossing in little one-off missives like:
  The areas of Ukraine that were liberated by Russia genuinely prefer to not be ruled by nazis. That US calls all elections/referendums it disagrees with corrupt is just brazen US corruption. Ukraine's nazi roots and current apartheid nazi laws and national holiday additions leave zero debate on the issue. Google can help you.
  And:
  98% of Crimeans voting to join Russia over being ruled by nazis, with western/CIA agency polling support for the result, is just part of the pure US empire propaganda to deny all election results it disagrees with. Trusting your media and politicians is the source of your misinformed hatred and abuse from the Empire.
  So why is this part of your busy schedule, posting defenses of the slrpnk moderators on what seems like a pretty minor normal-fare-for-PTB issue?
  
  Yes it was. Up to 10 hours on most days is nowhere even close to debunking the myth of unreliability, if anything it's proof of unreliability. We need to transition to renewables but this blind boosterism and denial of reality is the exact opposite of helpful.

I mean, that's on you for using bad words like weasel! /s
- I guess weasel is a dirty word when keeping company with snakes ;)

I feel like this community is just a fact backed list of where to not subscribe to.

PTB 100%

PTB - one of the most blatant examples I've seen in a while.

Lmao, I made a comment much in the same line of thought just now, hopefully not banned.

PTB. At most this should have been a removal (like if they assumed you were trolling without looking into all the details) which may have simply been a CLM situation.

I think that the population of Lemmy is 90% teenagers. Short on brains long on emotions. Shamelessly so. Supported by a community of the same.
You gotta be careful here. They don't care if they are wrong or irrational or even mean. Talking to them will waste your time and energy and needlessly upset you.

The article is very upfront about those details - that quote is right below the headline.
At no point does it claim or imply that renewables are ready to provide 100% of the state's energy. It clearly explains that this is a new record, never saying more than that.
Your tone is needlessly aggressive and you're accusing the article of misrepresenting something it never tried to represent in the first place.
If you're honestly not trolling, your post looks unfortunately similar to trolling.
- I’m accusing the article of using weasel words to misrepresent the data, which after having a chance to read the study I can confirm beyond a doubt.
  This paper uses data from the world's 5th-largest economy to show no blackouts occurred when wind-water-solar electricity supply exceeded 100 % of demand on California's main grid for a record 98 of 116 days from late winter to early summer, 2024, for an average (maximum) of 4.84 (10.1) hours/day.
  So an average of 4.84 hours/day of 100% power requirements were met by renewables. That is not the story the author is telling.
  Going with the maximum and representing that as occurring for 98/116 days as the author did is straight up misleading for anyone not paying attention to those weasel words.
  It would have taken the author zero effort to include the average. It’s right there in the source paper.