No one seemed too interested in my suggestion but the more I think about it the more I like it. John Chambers, former chairman and ceo of Cisco. He lives right by Palo Alto headquarters. Here’s an excerpt from anFox Business article on his book he just put out a couple weeks ago, “
I agree when you look at a specific report you wonder what the reporter was really up to. Esp. from outside US, I can imagine the reports get sloppier & sloppier. That is still not the same as a lie.
Hmm. Listened to it. Seemed like one guy who was pretty well informed and another guy who basically took the role of vaguely amusing ignorant doofus. No new information for people who have been paying attention of course.
That used to bother me too, but simplifying GWh/hour begets GW (h=hour). Just saying. If someone does say GW for manufacturing capacity or run rate, the conversion to make it compliant is simply to put some time units back: GW -> GWh/hour. One can then convert the denominator and numerator as needed, such as /year or /quarter. You are right that a GW is a power measurement and GWh is a capacity measurement, and specifying a quantity of GWh per time would yield a capacity per time measurement which is not directly power, however, it is an error that is easy to correct. Because it is slightly incorrect to omit the h/h units as you point out, it should also spur the query if they meant GW or GWh, and if they meant GWh, per what unit (h, day, year, etc.); we could hear of people omitting way too many units and saying "xGW" for a GWh/year measurement that is completely different than GW by any measure.
What really bothers me is not the article, but the headline. Most of the articles I've read in papers and news sites have accurate information in the article itself, but the accompanying headline is grossly inaccurate. For instance the headlines for several articles about the SEC agreement made it seem that Elon was removed entirely from running Tesla when nothing could be further from the truth! Now I do see totally inaccurate conclusions and FUD on opinion pieces such as those featured on SA more than any other. But I would expect articles reporting facts in publications like the WSJ and NYT to also have headlines that reflect those facts and more and more they read like the National Enquirer. And that pisses me off like a fair thee well because that's all that many people look at. Those are the publications that I would like to see called out for their misleading titles.
Shortie borg collective.
