Part of the issue there is that for a large number of people the 'few times a year' are major holidays when everybody else wants to tow their house-sized RV and boat to the lake for a day or two. The rental fleet just isn't big enough to service the surge demand.

FTA:

The so-called plug-in systems involve routing the direct current generated by the panels to an inverter, which converts it to an alternating current. They can then be plugged into a conventional wall socket to feed power to a home.

So, yeah, almost certainly illegal in pretty much any grid-powered home in the US.

The basic problem is that if the grid power goes down the inverter can back-feed the grid enough to electrocute the people who are working to fix it.

Utilities require an approved isolation system of some kind that prevents that happening. They are pretty strict about this for various other technical and political reasons too, but evidently it is mostly a safety concern.

I've got some good locations at home for panels, and about 500W in panels that I use for camping, but the equipment I'd need to handle easily and safely consuming the power at home is kind of expensive (just running an inverter and a battery for an isolated system is easy enough, I've got all that, but it's not cheap to seamlessly connect it to my home power system). Would love to have a safe and approved system like what is described in the article.

He has claimed the bathroom sink as his bed. While this is very convenient for petting the cat while using the toilet, he tends to sleep in the morning and evening which is also the most likely times I want to brush my teeth.

Fortunately, the kitchen sink is just around the corner, so it is not necessary to disturb the adorably sink-napping cat.

Me either. However, I look forward to Legal Eagle breaking down the highlights.

About 15 years ago I saw an independent film at a local theater and it turned out that the guy who made it was couch-surfing the country showing the film at small theaters and was staying that night with a friend of a friend, so after the showing we went over to the friend's place to hang out and talk.

The guy who made the film was pretty cool and told us lots about the process. Basically he spent a year and all his time and money on it, borrowed money from everyone he knew, and pulled favors from all his friends and their friends to get access to locations for shooting, costumes, props, etc.

What it came down to was that at that level there is no process. You just call in every favor you can, make lots of promises you can't keep, max out your creative problem-solving abilities, and hope like hell you can get it done enough to show before you completely run out of money and friends.

While we enjoyed the film quite a lot the dude was not terribly happy with it (all he could see at that point were mistakes and limitations), and was beyond broke (that's why he was couch-surfing his way through the cities he was showing in, he could barely afford transportation to the next city).

Film making technology has come a long, long way since then, so you could probably make a similar quality film much easier and cheaper now (I wouldn't be surprised if the expensive cameras he was renting at the time are outclassed by what you can do now with a nice phone and a second-hand Canon). But the rest is probably pretty similar. Lots of dollar-stretching and creative problem-solving.

More like 375 million years, about the middle Devonian period.

Tangentally: for millions of years after plants started using lignin as a structural material the decomposers couldn't break it down very effectively, so for like 60 million years lots of that tough plant material stacked up into deep layers and eventually turned into coal.

It's not a bad plan if you can die of old age while the plates are still spinning.

need to be taught how to feel.

And before that you'd need to convince a lot of us that that would be more useful than the current situation.

a couple years ago I asked an ER doctor to just let me die

Did they let you die?

Yep, I don't think badly of Google mostly because I don't think of them at all. While I was deleting my Reddit account a decided I'd try moving off of big tech companies products as much as practical and even after almost 20 years with GMail as my primary mail host I just don't have anything else left in their ecosystem. Over the years I've used a lot of their products, but they kept killing them off (Picasa, Google+, Code, Reader, various chat clients), so I've found mostly self-hosted alternatives.

I guess they're still making money hand-over-fist so whatever they're doing it must work for them, but none of it is useful for me.

Yep, that's why it was interesting. Celebs are mostly boring and already have access to platforms if they want to talk to people.

I want to hear from people who I'd normally never get to listen to and who want to share details of their interests.

What you are describing about Twitter wasn't my experience with it at all. I just followed my friends, interesting people I met at events, etc. I wasn't looking to be connected to influencers or whatever was the popular chatter of the moment, and I freely used the block feature to filter out people who posted stuff I wasn't interested in. It worked just fine like that. Decent experience (too shallow for my preference, due to the nature of the platform, but not unpleasant).

I feel like most social media platforms are, to a large extent, what you make of them. Like my Facebook feed is pretty nice. It's about 60% family and friends that I like, 20% interest groups (kayaking and hiking mostly), and 20% ads for stuff I'm interested in (mostly authors right now). There's none of the toxic bullshit that a lot of people complain about.

So yeah, I agree with the 'follow people you are interested in' advice, but that's not unique to Mastodon or Lemmy or whatever.