To the degree that kind of tracking significantly matters to you, there are alternatives that scale better and are more under your control.
Personally, I doubt stripping the URL is going to meaningfully impact Google’s ability to track through Youtube. There are well paid, well funded, bonus motivated professionals who spend years throwing data science and computational expertise at the problem. They own search, the most popular browser, and handle a lot of DNS requests.
Never mind that people tend to remain logged into their Youtube accounts, their Google accounts, and operate from the same handful of IP addresses through ISP’s who are happy to monetize data.
Privacy theater is like security theater only less effective.
There are companies working on two blade design, which has other benefits. You can try to get rid of balance problem with mechanical design and software:
We had the Growian two blade designs and its successor the Monopteros single blade design in the 80s. They were pretty famous back then and looked spectacular because of their sheer size and the unexpected asymmetry. Unfortunately they are almost forgotten now.
It would be like trying to mop outside in a rainstorm. Reducing the creation of pollution is much easier than trying to catch it after the fact. Outside of indoor situations. Windfarms as they are today do far more for air pollution by just reducing coal and gas burning.
That has to do with the physics of harmonic vibration.
It's not that you can't make even numbers of spokes balanced, it's just marginally easier to do odd numbers.
Back in ye-olden days when things sucked there were more manufacturing benefits to it too but these days (this century) that doesn't really matter because even the sloppiest casting factory in china has their stuff figured out.
Perhaps that's an overly cynical take? It doesn't read like AI slop to me, more like an overview of the video. As someone who finds it hard to get solid answers online anymore, I found this article genuinely informative (though, of course, the video provides the most value.)
the point of the article/website appears to be to collect useful resources. as such it probably works better than trying to find and select useful videos directly.
TL,DR: three blades (1) are a good balance of torque against drag at different speeds, (2) help reduce unbalanced forces compared to two-blade turbines, and (3) provide visual balance, smoother motion, and quieter operation to improve community acceptance.
Does anybody dispute that renewable energy was more expensive than coal & natgas in 2011? At this point, those windmills are sunk costs and the only relevant cost is the maintenance costs. Which are not insignificant, but they're lower than the price of fuel for thermal plants.
2025 costs for renewable are very different than costs were in 2011-2013, making that document irrelevant.
Imagine thinking the fossil fuel industry and politics had nothing to do with this utter bullshit report. What a wonderful world you must live in, ignorance is bliss.
The 2015 Australian Senate “wind turbines” report wasn’t neutral fact-finding, it was a politically driven hit job.
The inquiry was stacked with senators openly hostile to renewables (John Madigan, Bob Day, David Leyonhjelm, Chris Back). At least one (Back) had direct ties to the oil & gas industry via Shell. Others were aligned with think tanks and lobbying groups that consistently push fossil-fuel interests.
The report’s Chapter 7 hand-wrings about “subsidies” and “market distortions” while ignoring wind’s documented benefits: lower wholesale prices, emissions abatement, and diversification. It selectively cites contested modeling, downplays contrary evidence, and then leaps to prescriptive recommendations, like cutting subsidies, tightening planning laws, and federal overrides, which just happen to chill wind investment.
Even Labor senators filed a dissent, accusing the majority of misrepresenting evidence and overreaching. Meanwhile, fossil-fuel lobbyists have long had privileged access to Australian policymakers through donations, revolving-door appointments, and consultancies (McKinsey, IPA, Barton Deakin, etc.).
This wasn’t about “evidence”, simply it was about protecting fossil incumbents and kneecapping a competitor.
The actual content, https://youtu.be/pgqkti7yePk?si=stH2p71kNKy79WK0
> https://youtu.be/pgqkti7yePk?si=stH2p71kNKy79WK0
PSA: the si, as well as pp, parameter is used for tracking.
If possible consider trimming them when copy-pasting.
To the degree that kind of tracking significantly matters to you, there are alternatives that scale better and are more under your control.
Personally, I doubt stripping the URL is going to meaningfully impact Google’s ability to track through Youtube. There are well paid, well funded, bonus motivated professionals who spend years throwing data science and computational expertise at the problem. They own search, the most popular browser, and handle a lot of DNS requests.
Never mind that people tend to remain logged into their Youtube accounts, their Google accounts, and operate from the same handful of IP addresses through ISP’s who are happy to monetize data.
Privacy theater is like security theater only less effective.
It’s still a basic courtesy.
BS. If you want to play make believe, that’s fine by me. However I don’t find it intellectually interesting.
I read this article two weeks ago (I would swear that it was on HN) and I was driving yesterday in the south of France, among plenty of wind turbines.
I was recalling the article as I was driving and -- surprise -- a two-bladed one appeared suddenly (two, actually).
This was the only time I saw two bladed wind turbines and could makr intelligent comments about why 3 and not 1 or 2 :)
So thank you!
There are companies working on two blade design, which has other benefits. You can try to get rid of balance problem with mechanical design and software:
https://youtu.be/GbeFYLI8zYg?si=32wECCs05c4rRfs6
We had the Growian two blade designs and its successor the Monopteros single blade design in the 80s. They were pretty famous back then and looked spectacular because of their sheer size and the unexpected asymmetry. Unfortunately they are almost forgotten now.
There were a few 0.5MW NedWind 40/500 just out of Medemblik, decommisioned in 2016 though
Reminds me of Dyson, who makes zero-blade fans.
https://www.dyson.com/air-treatment/fans-heaters
These aren't zero-blade fans, they are normal multi-blade impellers that are piped into a duct.
Yes and this reminds me of Dyson fans vs the 15 $ fans video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS0oFmzU06g
Air purification would be a useful feature in windfarms, though.
It would be like trying to mop outside in a rainstorm. Reducing the creation of pollution is much easier than trying to catch it after the fact. Outside of indoor situations. Windfarms as they are today do far more for air pollution by just reducing coal and gas burning.
iirc, the submarine Красный Октябрь ("Red October") did pioneer a bladeless hydro fan propulsion system that scared NATO :)
In some ways, a single blade is the most efficient. Not very good mechanically though!
Is it related to automobile wheels always seeming to have odd-numbered spokes?
That has to do with the physics of harmonic vibration.
It's not that you can't make even numbers of spokes balanced, it's just marginally easier to do odd numbers.
Back in ye-olden days when things sucked there were more manufacturing benefits to it too but these days (this century) that doesn't really matter because even the sloppiest casting factory in china has their stuff figured out.
There are plenty of six spoke wheels?
AI slop produced by someone that needed to meet word count criteria.
Perhaps that's an overly cynical take? It doesn't read like AI slop to me, more like an overview of the video. As someone who finds it hard to get solid answers online anymore, I found this article genuinely informative (though, of course, the video provides the most value.)
Parts of the article repeat other parts of that article.
If you're saying that was done by a human, rather than by AI - then things are even worse.
the point of the article/website appears to be to collect useful resources. as such it probably works better than trying to find and select useful videos directly.
TL,DR: three blades (1) are a good balance of torque against drag at different speeds, (2) help reduce unbalanced forces compared to two-blade turbines, and (3) provide visual balance, smoother motion, and quieter operation to improve community acceptance.
[flagged]
Does anybody dispute that renewable energy was more expensive than coal & natgas in 2011? At this point, those windmills are sunk costs and the only relevant cost is the maintenance costs. Which are not insignificant, but they're lower than the price of fuel for thermal plants.
2025 costs for renewable are very different than costs were in 2011-2013, making that document irrelevant.
Imagine thinking the fossil fuel industry and politics had nothing to do with this utter bullshit report. What a wonderful world you must live in, ignorance is bliss.
The 2015 Australian Senate “wind turbines” report wasn’t neutral fact-finding, it was a politically driven hit job.
The inquiry was stacked with senators openly hostile to renewables (John Madigan, Bob Day, David Leyonhjelm, Chris Back). At least one (Back) had direct ties to the oil & gas industry via Shell. Others were aligned with think tanks and lobbying groups that consistently push fossil-fuel interests.
The report’s Chapter 7 hand-wrings about “subsidies” and “market distortions” while ignoring wind’s documented benefits: lower wholesale prices, emissions abatement, and diversification. It selectively cites contested modeling, downplays contrary evidence, and then leaps to prescriptive recommendations, like cutting subsidies, tightening planning laws, and federal overrides, which just happen to chill wind investment.
Even Labor senators filed a dissent, accusing the majority of misrepresenting evidence and overreaching. Meanwhile, fossil-fuel lobbyists have long had privileged access to Australian policymakers through donations, revolving-door appointments, and consultancies (McKinsey, IPA, Barton Deakin, etc.).
This wasn’t about “evidence”, simply it was about protecting fossil incumbents and kneecapping a competitor.
Sources: - APH: Senate wind report, Chapter 7 - https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/sen...
- Labor dissenting report: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Sen...
- RenewEconomy critique - Chris Back’s oil/gas background: https://reneweconomy.com.au/senate-wind-report-slammed-as-re...
- InfluenceMap on fossil fuel lobbying: https://influencemap.org/pressrelease/Unearthed-Australia-St...
- Guardian on McKinsey fossil fuel conflict: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/06/mckin...