It’s just a guy talking 99% of the time and the few visuals that are in the movie are not required to understand the story. I’d just listen to it like a podcast. The guys voice and pronunciation probably beats text to speech from a blogpost with images.
But MS had nothing to do with both the testing and rollout?
It’s a broken 3rd party component. Croudstrikes testing and rollout procedures were inadequate.
There are ways to somewhat fix it for circuits with a single use.
Fixing the same example: A 16A breaker for the solar feed in, a single 16A breaker for all the consuming appliances on that circuit. And another 16A breaker on the feed in for that circuit is an example that is sometimes used in the Netherlands to add a feed in to an existing circuit with a single outlet connected to it. Meant for washingmachines for instance.
This ensures that the circuit on all circumstances has a maximum current of 16A flowing over any wire by also measuring the outgoing current of both feed in circuits. But if you have multiple outlets you’d still need to stiol measure at a single place or use low enough breakers per outlet that the total stays below the 16A. Which the UK might have if I recall correctly.
Then again this is not a normal setup and requires change in the electric circuit of the home. Which most consumers won’t even realize. Like I said, if everyone keeps to the fine print this thing probably has and limits the extra plug-in solar panels to 1 per circuit, it’s unlikely to actually cause issues because of overdimensioning of the wires. And the safety margin built in which is likely how they have gotten approval. But ignoring or not reading that text and plugging multiple in on the same circuit can and will cause a fire hazard with heavy consumers on the same circuit.
The breaker only sees the current flowing through the breaker though. Not the additional current provided by the solar panels since those don’t flow through the breaker. So it will pop later then that the cables are rated for, therefore introducing an overheat and fire hazard.
Yep, I’m not exactly sure on the technical details but it works with multiple inverters. Otherwise having a street full with solar panels on every roof would still be a hazard if the power went out at a distribution junction for said street and repairs would have to be made.
If there is no powerplant feeding some energy, all inverters should shut off. Fixed installs and plug and play variants alike. I’m actually amazed that there are parts in the world where this isn’t common.
Surprisingly, no. Most inverters in the EU must come with island protection. Meaning that if there is no AC from the grid it immediatly switches off the inverter or the battery, there is no stand alone operation.
There are some systems that allow it but they are rare here and require the mains side to be fed trough the inverter itsself ensuring it’s never back feeding into the grid when there is no power with the same island protection, or less commonly there is a transfer switch of some kind also eliminating the issue. And either should obviously have a main kill switch on the breaker board for emergencies that also switches off the in home power with 1 action.
But most importantly, either of those options is not plug and play and will require an electrician that hopefully does know what he’s doing.
The cables in your walls are designed for a certain maximum current before they start to heat up. This current is limited by your breaker.
Now if you introduce a plug in solar setup your current is limited by your maximum breaker capacity + whatever your solar setup can generate.
So if I’d use the specs from the article and apply it to a normal dutch home situation: 16A breaker, + 800W at 230V, which means ~3.5A = 19.5A max. which is probably still fine for short durations.
But now some genius doesn’t read the fine print and hooks up 2 or 3 on the same circuit. There is no electrician that tells him that’s dangerous because it’s all self installed and he doesn’t know any better. And all of a sudden you are up to 26.5A and you got glowing, smoking wires in your walls…
I have been using a MacBook trough work for 7 years now and I think I actually clicked shutdown once this year too keep the battery at ~80% during my 1 month holiday. Otherwise I maybe reboot it once every month or two to fix some weird homebrew upgrade issues. And that’s it. The thing is just “on” in deep sleep, forever.
If the Mac mini’s behave similarly to the MacBooks, the standby energy usage is so low it’s probably easier to just keep it in on/standby/sleep all the time and just wake it by keyboard or mouse. And because Apple develop their own hardware, standby and sleep actually work reliably. So they probably intend for you to only use that power button for a hard reset. Even shutting it down and moving it, plugging the power back in wil probably start it up again. Just like opening the lid on my shutdown MacBook also boots it before I even touch the power button. Even a keypress or mouseclick will probably turn the damn thing on.
Yes it’s an odd design choice, but in regular day to day use it probably won’t matter. Especially if you realise that its not a windows machine that needs to shutdown or reboot often.