|
i.e. a communist move to exterminate (9)
I'll be out of communication from 09:30 UK time until late afternoon, so fingers crossed for a quick solution! 
|
|
|
|
|
i.e. a communist move RED ACTED to exterminate
REDACTED
Whoops! Missed the count ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
i.e. a communist move RED ACTION to exterminate
REDACTION
(Forgot it was 9, not 8).
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I was about to post but didn't have the heart as your first post was so close. I think Derek is away all day again.
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
I think I probably need a ![Java | [Coffee]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
But... but.... but....
where does "i.e." come into it?
|
|
|
|
|
"i.e." - Id Est - "that is", or "specifically".
So "Specifically a communist move" - "Red Action"
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, still not got the hang of CCC yet, and this may be a stupid question, but.
Why not just "communist move"? 
Did the inclusion of "i.e" help in some, (secret?), way?
|
|
|
|
|
Not really, no - I think I ignored it. 
You'd probably have to ask the setter ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
The clue must include the definition at either its beginning or end, so that's why exterminate is in there. I don't think i.e. was needed. But an indicator is usually included to hint that the solution involves an anagram, or initial letters, or consecutive letters, or a word that sounds similar, and so on. Here's a description of Types of cryptic clues[^].
|
|
|
|
|
 yes, it was essential to getting the correct answer!
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, well since I really don't want to do it tomorrow as well, you can have that.
My intended answer was ERADICATE:
i.e. a = I E A
Communist = RED
move = ACT
to = "hidden" anagram indicator
exterminate = ERADICATE So yes, the "i.e. a" was significant! I was aware of REDACT(ion) and was going to have "Russian performs censorship" but thought that was too easy, so added the extra to make eradicate and strengthened the definition. Not sure "redaction" counts as "extermination" as strongly as eradication... ?
modified 13-May-21 11:10am.
|
|
|
|
|
That explains why i.e., a, and to weren't superfluous. But to as a "hidden" anagram indicator is new to me.
|
|
|
|
|
That's because it isn't one - I think he used move as the indicator for the anagram and action
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Russian performs would only give you redacts - I've never seen actions used for censorship - I too arrived at redactions as it fitted the clue perfectly. Ah well you both sort of won
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
A much better clue than yesterday Derek 
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Musk is no longer taking Bitcoin for his cars ... he just found out mining uses a lot of energy ... and fossil fuels.
Setting the stage for his next move (a "cheaper" currency).
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: he just found out
Seriously!
He doesn't care sh*t for the environment, he just think it's time to cash in.
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: he just found out mining uses a lot of energy
The debate about energy consumption, for Bitcoin Mining, has been running for years. I doubt he just found out. More likely he's playing the market. Remember when he was making false claims about Tesla, to run up the price? The guy is a con-artist.
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how much "energy" his Tesla manufacturing plants consume....compared to say, Bitcoin mining.
Musk is off his rocker on this one, for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: I wonder how much "energy" his Tesla manufacturing plants consume....compared to say, Bitcoin mining.
Not quite a relevant comparison since, like it or not, Teslas are a product of the manufacturing vs. nothing is the product of bitcoin mining.
There is a good question to consider: except for those Teslas (and all electric-only vehicles) that happen to get charged from Soloar/Wind/Hydroelectric/nuclear/&etc., they most likely use more energy than a regular vehicle. Why you may ask?
Well every step in anything you do has an efficiency of less than 100%. Charging the vehicles with electricity produced from fossil fuels thus waste energy for this extra step (rather than burning fuel where its used: the engine). Added waste are power line transmission losses. All it really does is centralize the pollution (which has some value locally but not globally).
That being said: hybrids, which don't have to be plugged in, save energy if you consider the excellent fuel economy. As for hydrogen fueled vehicles? At this point, there is more CO2 pollution from producing the hydrogen (typically from oil conversion) than from use at the vehicle.
Last thing: it shows good insight that you consider the manufacturing process. Consider: does a solar cell, during it's lifetime, produce more energy than it cost to produce? Purifying silicon, starting from sand, is a very very energy intensive process (like aluminum production).
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah - I understand - knowledge really hurts you head.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
You touched on something that I've wondered how it all shook out. You'd think that someone would put all this down and list the pros, cons, and costs. Then you could see which problems you could solve and move forward with the best solution. Unfortunately, money gets involved and everyone is just using salesman speak (conning) the next person to put money in their pocket...
|
|
|
|
|
The product of bitcoin mining is a completed transaction, at the lowest cost.
Concentrating pollution is beneficial overall on a global scale. The reason is that the expensive removal technologies only have to be in a few places, and the removal can be done on an industrial scale. Let me illustrate with an example. Consider that Hg is widely acknowledged to be a bad substance and great efforts were made to remove as much of it as possible. When CFL light bulbs were introduced we were sold on the value proposition of saving energy to save the environment. Except for that little bit of Hg that was in each CFL, which eventually would find its way back into the environment, like a micro pollution event. Wouldn't you agree that dealing with mercury in a power plant is more efficient than setting up a whole new recycle stream in an attempt to remove microscopic amounts from a glass bulb that needs to be broken first?
Most of these green energy attempts are sold on the basis hiding the overall cost, or shifting the cost to tax payers. There is this power plant in England that is touted to be the largest biomass powered of its kind. An example for the future no less. Where does the fuel come from? Oops! That is not a question that is helpful for the cause. Because it shows the false premise that you were sold.
Everything we do has benefits and costs. The costs aren't always visible when politicians are involved, but if you go looking you will find them.
But wait there is more....
"The IEA assembled a large body of data about a central, and until now largely ignored, aspect of the energy transition: It requires mining industries and infrastructure that don’t exist. Wind, solar and battery technologies are built from an array of “energy transition minerals,” or ETMs, that must be mined and processed. The IEA finds that with a global energy transition like the one President Biden envisions, demand for key minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth metals would explode, rising by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900% and 700%, respectively, by 2040.
The world doesn’t have the capacity to meet such demand. As the IEA observes, albeit in cautious bureaucratese, there are no plans to fund and build the necessary mines and refineries. The supply of ETMs is entirely aspirational. And if it were pursued at the quantities dictated by the goals of the energy transition, the world would face daunting environmental, economic and social challenges, along with geopolitical risks."
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
