Rivalarrival

Because it is not cost effective. Simple as that.

The problem is that we don't have enough demand shaping to shift night time loads to day time, and we don't have enough storage to shift production to overnight. The result is that daytime generation is regularly going into negative rates (you have to pay to put power on the grid, which melts the returns on your investment into solar.

As far as problems go, it's a good one to have, as it will eventually result in lower prices for daytime generation.

1% tax on all registered securities, payable in shares of those securities. The SEC just confiscates 1% of every position, and conveys them to an IRS liquidator. The liquidator sells them off in small lots over time, comprising no more than 1% of total traded shares. Securities with negative values are returned.

Once completely phased in, natural persons will be exempt on their first $10 million in registered securities. Corporate-owned securities will not be exempt: the are taxed from their first share.

We tax only the problematic portion of their wealth: their wealth-generating assets. We auction those assets off to the general public.

Surely someone really wants to impress a 20-something actress.

This is really just a messaging problem. If you asked the students and parents if they should renovate a communal bathroom into multiple, single-user unisex bathrooms, they would likely receive enthusiastic support. If you then asked if it were reasonable to use communal hand washing facilities in a public area outside the restrooms instead of a sink in every unisex bathroom, you'd still get plenty of support.

It's only when you start talking about "windows" that shit goes sideways. They could completely tear out the wall, and this plan would be fine: they would be single-user restrooms along a hallway, with communal sinks also in that hallway.

My town hosts public festivals all the time. They bring in a dozen portapotties and a hand washing station. Nobody seems to have a problem washing their hands in sight of the general public. That's basically what is happening here.

Not all communal restrooms have stall partitions suitable for that plan. Nor do they need them if the area outside the stalls is a changing area. The school does need to provide changing areas. Eliminating one unnecessarily doesn't make sense.

The Republicans do, indeed, want to get rid of these bathrooms, and revert them to boys rooms. If they controlled the board, that is exactly what they would have. The fact that they have 5 different types of restrooms tells me the Republicans aren't the ones making the decisions; the board is accommodating the students.

The Republicans are using a law prohibiting coed changing rooms. They are claiming the area outside the stalls qualifies as a changing area, and they have precedence to support that designation. If it is a changing area, the gender inclusive restroom violates the law. They do, indeed, want it to fail, which it will do if the issue goes to court while that law is in place.

Unless they can prove that the area outside the stalls is not a changing area. Changing areas don't have public-facing windows. It can't be an illegal, coed changing area if it has a public-facing window.

Germany has unisex bathrooms.

That is exactly what they made here. Each stall is now considered a unisex bathroom, and the hand washing area is no longer a "changing area".

It is a place to shit and piss. If you want to change, knock yourself out. However in the US we have tiny doors that you can easily see around.

Does this particular room use typical semi-private partitions, or have they switched to some sort of wall or full partition that offers actual privacy? The photo shows only the window; it does not provide a good view of the stalls.

Read up on it some more, from a less biased source. The Republicans want this to be a boy's room. The law prohibits coed changing rooms. Be "inclusive" of multiple genders in a room that qualifies as a "changing room", and you violate the law.

Changing rooms don't have windows. Put in a window, and the area can't be considered a changing room. Since it isn't a changing room, the Republican argument fails, and they don't get to get rid of the gender inclusive restroom entirely. You still have privacy while you are using the toilet. You don't have privacy while you are washing your hands.

So in this case, you might want to figure out where your pig has been eating and stake a claim.

What you're describing sounds like a normal public toilet set up in my country

From the school restrooms I've seen depicted in various British TV shows, there isn't much physical difference. The only practical difference is that males, females, and various other genders might be washing hands in the same room at the same time. Now with a window to remind everyone that the sink area is a public space, and isn't to be used as a changing area.

That seems to be what they are going for here. Instead of using the space as one shared restroom with a hand washing station and 4 stalls, they are converting it into 4 private restrooms, with a shared hand washing station in a "public area" outside the restrooms.

So long as they build actual walls and use actual doors on the ~~stalls~~ "private restrooms", this isn't a completely terrible idea.