But so far, down to particle physics, nothing seems compatible with the idea of an out of body soul that is able to process this information.

searching altavista for phpbb forums using a version vulnerable to a given exploit or using cross site scripting waiting for someone to bite it, and then upload 99 shell everywhere you would gain access.

It really felt like having superpower.

I know because I watched and enjoyed the shows as a kid and most people at the time liked him. The only person I knew back then who didn't like the man was my dad (a sailor).

What I mean is the name is still strong enough to attract some interest.

I bet you're doing something throughout the day. Maybe not making toast, but cooking, ironing, heating, cooling, watching TV etc. I'm not sure you can rely on any excess energy being available for storage if you're not connected to the grid.

>The idea behind individual solar energy is not consuming it real time but associating it with a storage solution to allow bigger throughput.

If that's the idea then you are exposing a major issue with solar. Namely: in order to rely solely on solar (+battery), you need a solar deployment that covers your energy needs now + energy to charge battery for when the sun isn't shining (taking into account the associated loss of storing and retrieving power from battery). This means that you need to oversubscribe/over capitalize solar to charge up the battery (which then lowers your total efficiency) in order to bridge daily and seasonal variability in solar output. This means that you need generation capacity that probably exceeds the surface area available to what a typical house or apartment can provide and explodes your costs.

This has major implications for large scale solar+battery deployments because at that scale, there is no grid to fall back on (which is why solar ALWAYS needs reliable backup generation - which is typically gas or biofuels). This is why solar+battery is never going to be cost-effective because you're always going to be forced to over-build infrastructure that will sit idly doing nothing most of the time.

This doesn't even touch on the fact that there is no actual battery technology that keep enough load to power a modern city overnight, much less to bridge seasonal variability at that scale (where the battery would be expected to keep enough energy for weeks at a time).

I'm sure there are plenty of such people, but those people don't really factor when you take into account the society as a whole. The vast majority of people and businesses cannot live off grid.

The same culture you can find in Holywood, where hundreds of successful movies with unrivaled popular impact were produced.

I could blindfold myself and throw darts at a board. The fact that I hit the board sometimes doesn't mean that the blindfold isn't an impediment.

Many more movies fail before even reaching the screen. Just because we see some success doesn't mean that the culture isn't an impediment to success. Perhaps a different culture would produce many more successes.

We would need a lot more data before we could draw any such conclusions.

Edit: I see that's exactly what you're saying from your reply; "...such culture is not an impediment to success." I disagree; we cannot draw that conclusion from the data.

Extra edit: Oh, your answer has vanished.

Given how long the movie industry has been around and how many studios have gone bankrupt through competition, I would think that any cultures that significantly impeded productivity would have been stamped out by now.

A movie studio is generally either very successful, or soon dead; there's not that much middle ground. So relatively small optimisations (such as not creating a hostile work environment that drives away employees) may not have much of an effect on survival.

How many of the other competitors were blindfolded?

How many of the other movie studios have this culture?

"I would think that any cultures that significantly impeded productivity would have been stamped out by now."

Evolution doesn't always lead to better final outcomes. In a culture of dickheads, being a slightly bigger dickhead can give a personal advantage. Soon, everyone is a raging dickhead. The same applies to companies. The same applies to species (although with them it's not so much "raging dickhead" as "some small individually advantageous feature").

You're moving the goalposts. Are Riot "dickheads" here? Maybe. That's a very different argument from saying that their culture makes their games worse.

Those people that solve Rubik's Cubes while blindfolded, maybe?