Terry O'Reilly is an ad man who has continuously run a show on CBC radio for decades, starting with O'Reilly on advertising, followed by age of persuasion, and now under the influence.
I remember listening to his show and he had some episodes that explained 2 things:
1. Advertising is conservative. Not politically conservative, but conservative in that it plays things very safe, and usually is the last one to the party on any given trend. They may have gone all-in on stuff like multiracial families and gay imagery, but only once it seemed like society had already long accepted it.
2. Marketers ended up getting some very strong signals around 2008 that the entire society was turning progressive and they should too. There were a couple of studies that ended up showing first that something like 70% of millennials were progressive, and second that something like 70% of people claimed that they would pay a premium for a brand that is seen as supporting causes, regardless of what those causes were.
So in that sense, the relatively recent failure of wokeness is something they're responding to in record time.
One thing everyone on every side needs to remember is that brands don't give a fuck about your cause. They're just trying to sell their products, and if coopting your thing will help them do that they will, and they'll happily use your cause up like a tissue and toss it away once it's no longer useful.
I remember listening to his show and he had some episodes that explained 2 things:
1. Advertising is conservative. Not politically conservative, but conservative in that it plays things very safe, and usually is the last one to the party on any given trend. They may have gone all-in on stuff like multiracial families and gay imagery, but only once it seemed like society had already long accepted it.
2. Marketers ended up getting some very strong signals around 2008 that the entire society was turning progressive and they should too. There were a couple of studies that ended up showing first that something like 70% of millennials were progressive, and second that something like 70% of people claimed that they would pay a premium for a brand that is seen as supporting causes, regardless of what those causes were.
So in that sense, the relatively recent failure of wokeness is something they're responding to in record time.
One thing everyone on every side needs to remember is that brands don't give a fuck about your cause. They're just trying to sell their products, and if coopting your thing will help them do that they will, and they'll happily use your cause up like a tissue and toss it away once it's no longer useful.
Barb the unbuilder -- can she fix it?
Barb the unbuilder -- drop that zero and getchaself a hero!
Barb the unbuilder -- drop that zero and getchaself a hero!
Interesting linguistic history on bears, the word "bear" isn't even the original word for bear. Its etymology is essentially "the thing we aren't even going to name right now" because people were scared that if you said the name of the thing that you might get a scary bear coming in tearing up your shit. The original name of a bear was closer to the latin ursus or greek word arktos, but it was called "the brown one" as a euphemism. Many northern european cultures made similar euphemisms.
Bears, particularly grizzly bears, are dangerous.
Bears, particularly grizzly bears, are dangerous.
Seems to me that any one of them could be self-serving or selfless.
It's like asking "what color is a car?" -- cars can be lots of colors.
It's like asking "what color is a car?" -- cars can be lots of colors.
I really want to build a little metal widget to melt together the new filament to the old filament to avoid situations like this.
Yeah, exactly. You can say some pretty ruthless words but some intonation and body language can make it perfectly clear you're not trying to be angry or malicious, whereas in text you have to try to express what you're saying, and for example if you were just giving someone a friendly reminder, you can hear someone being friendly but often "just a friendly reminder" comes off either being used in and ironic sense for a not so friendly reminder, or generally just have a little bit more malice to it then the writer likely intended.
It's one reason why sometimes it takes me 3 days to compose an email that I could have done over the phone or in person in 30 seconds, sitting there trying to figure out exactly the best way to express a tone that would just come naturally.
It's one reason why sometimes it takes me 3 days to compose an email that I could have done over the phone or in person in 30 seconds, sitting there trying to figure out exactly the best way to express a tone that would just come naturally.
Unfortunately I don't really have a choice in the matter. I was talking about how things are rather than how things should be.
Also, first of all we don't know that it is done against their will, and second of all we don't know just how bad whatever they would use the data's treatment against might be. Nobody wants a limb amputated, but sometimes that's just the treatment for a certain disease.
Also, first of all we don't know that it is done against their will, and second of all we don't know just how bad whatever they would use the data's treatment against might be. Nobody wants a limb amputated, but sometimes that's just the treatment for a certain disease.
I ended up reading up about it a few years back while doing research for a post on the fediverse, and I was pretty surprised at it as well. The thing is, sometimes it is the only option, but it's the sort of thing that you do after years and years of trying every other thing.
At this point it should just be assumed they're always out to get you and steal everything you have and if you can live in a FOSS ecosystem you should.
I wonder if zoomers or gen alpha know who that is?
It'd be kind of weird considering the guy as I think dead of old age now.
It'd be kind of weird considering the guy as I think dead of old age now.
The immense amount of corruption that we are getting to see clear as day because the establishment thinks that everyone is on their side and so agrees with what they're doing is incredible.
Obviously we kind of have to take Trump's word on the threat to imprison his son, but given what we've already seen why wouldn't we? 6 months of releasing violent riders back into the streets for one side of the political spectrum, and apparently Donald Trump ends up getting every single one of the indictments that should have belonged to the rioters slung right at him. Magically somehow law and order matters when it's a hated political opponent.
As for a fake dossier, we now know that the Steele dossier was fabricated for the purposes of trying to mess up the election, so if they would probably develop a fake dossier for one trump, why wouldn't they do the same thing for another?
Obviously we kind of have to take Trump's word on the threat to imprison his son, but given what we've already seen why wouldn't we? 6 months of releasing violent riders back into the streets for one side of the political spectrum, and apparently Donald Trump ends up getting every single one of the indictments that should have belonged to the rioters slung right at him. Magically somehow law and order matters when it's a hated political opponent.
As for a fake dossier, we now know that the Steele dossier was fabricated for the purposes of trying to mess up the election, so if they would probably develop a fake dossier for one trump, why wouldn't they do the same thing for another?
Why would they have a parade for june 19th nowhere near June 19th? Is this really what he's saying it is?
The only thing that's really notable is that he realizes what the wind is blowing like outside of the room he happens to be in at the moment. There aren't a lot of people in the Hollywood or Washington bubble who find themselves outside of the room they're in often since it's a really nice room.
Sorry for the long post, but it's the answer followed by some pontification about related stuff.
To answer that question, let's look at each, where it came from, and what was its downfall..
Eugenics: It is a theory based on evolution that essentially says you can engineer the human species into becoming a better human race. Although evolution is sound science, the problem with eugenics is that it's tied up in politics. Who gets to choose what is a superior human? In the times it was in vogue, what individuals considered the "superior human" was people like themselves. You can't play God and succeed. We know today that many things we used to think made humans inferior can actually be traits that cause survivability. For example, sickle cell trait gave people in Africa increased protection against malaria, and traits that look bad can be highly survivable such as traits that skew people towards obesity can cause humans to survive famines which are surprisingly common on timelines going back mere centuries. Its political expediency is ultimately what made it popular, and its downfall is that it was self-evidently used in anti-scientific ways to legitimize the state's treatment of people.
Prefrontal lobotomies: It is based on a theory that if you damage a specific part of the brain it will improve behavior. There is some science behind it, and early on it had some clinical success. It is something that actually can help in very specific cases as a last resort and is even used today. The problem is that it is incredibly easy to do, essentially requiring someone with minimal training to insert an implement through the socket of someone's eye and tapping it a bit with a hammer. What ended up happening instead is that state run mental health hospitals started using it as an "off switch" for disruptive patients as dramatized in the famous movie "One Flew over the Cuckoo's nest". Private practices tended to make use of the procedure after years of trying other treatments, whereas public medicine used the procedure shortly after patients were admitted. Ultimately, public mental health facilities ended up completing something like 96% of prefrontal lobotomies because performing a technique that could make people compliant was easier politically than asking the public to pay more tax to fully fund the mental health system. Its ease and political expediency is ultimately what made it popular, and its downfall is that it was0 used in anti-scientific ways to simplify the state's treatment of mentally ill people.
Bloodletting: A practice derived from medical treatises developed by the ancient Greeks. Those treatises suggested that the body contained a number of humors, and it is the balance of those different humors that where the primary determinant of a person's health, and so many issues were caused by an excess of one of those humors, and so various treatments sought to reduce the excess. Now there is a rational basis for this idea, just imagine if you're sick you feel like you need to throw up, and if you didn't know what the body was doing you might assume that for some reason the body was producing an excess of vomit. After all, once you successfully vomit you often feel a lot better. I think another bile is essentially feces as it moves through your digestive tract, and so a lot of the time medical issues do boil down to trying to remove excess feces from your digestive tract. One is green bile, phlegm, which obviously forms in your lungs, nose, throat, and sinuses when you are sick or as a protective mechanism for the regular basis, so too much green bile obviously feels like crap you have a runny nose or you're all stuffed up and coughing. The final of the biles is red bile, or blood, and it was assumed that certain illnesses were made better by releasing the excess blood that you had. So there was obviously a rational basis for this theory, but what really made it prevalent for a long time was the fact that there were religious taboos against digging into the human body to figure out how it worked. It wasn't until just a couple hundred years ago that rather than just trying to come up with treatments based on things that had a rational basis we started studying the body and trying to figure out what was actually wrong. That, paired with a new understanding of germ theory ended up leading to the development of treatments that actually resolve problems rather than symptoms. Once we did that, we realized that many of our treatments were wrong, and the case of something like bloodletting where people would end up being cut up on a regular basis for something that had no therapeutic value, it was considered downright barbaric.
So now we come to the matter at hand. What we know from her scientific basis he's pretty limited, but everyone kind of agrees something is going on, people have some kind of thing going on where they want to behave in a certain way, and they long to look a certain way, and that there's a dissonance between that desire and reality. But we also have is a political philosophy in postmodern neo-marxism that really wants there to be no such thing as the biological. Given a political and almost religious conviction that everyone is exactly the same, it is an extremely convenient belief to think that unalienable parts of a person's biology can be changed. Therefore, when someone wants to be changed politically and philosophically the right thing is to just do it for them, regardless of whether it's empirically and scientifically the right thing to do.
In this way, it is in many ways like the three things that I mentioned. Like eugenicism, the primary purpose of the intense attention paid to this certain thing is to advance the political cause rather than medical treatment. Like the prefrontal lobotomy, handing someone a bottle of pills (or even setting up an appointment for a brutal surgery, although the surgery itself is a current-day miracle of impressive skill and knowledge) is something relatively easy to do, and for certain aspects of the state it is convenient. Like bloodletting, it has a limited scientific basis, and mostly lives in the minds of the philosophers rather than in real empirical studies, and there are quasi religious taboos which have limited good study on it. Given the limited basis for the treatment, the highly politicized nature of its selection, and the fact that we end up engaging in Acts that would be considered atrocities at all points in human history if they aren't being done to help people, that's why I think it's likely that after the current era is over people will look upon the transiting as kids the same way as these other treatments, if not worse.
It's interesting to note that each of them could actually be helpful under certain circumstances. Though rare, prefrontal lobotomies are still very occasionally done. For some very rare conditions, removing excess blood is the modern treatment, and for people with rare genetic disorders, they may willingly choose to not have kids knowing that the future will not have as many opportunities for that disorder. In the same way, there may in fact be a small number of individuals for whom gender affirming therapy is the objectively correct course of action, but the political nature of what's going on right now will sour the whole enterprise.
Another thing (which I won't get into much here) is I think the near future will be much poorer, and much more conservative. Moon and Whatifalthist on youtube have made videos which help explain why the future will be poorer in their videos on population collapse or why the next century will look like the 30 years war, and as for why it would be more conservative, it seems logical -- the more "progressive" stuff includes killing your babies in the womb, not having kids due to climate change, moving to dense urban environments that tend to be high stress and anti-natalist, as well as stuff like child sex changes which sterilize their victims -- If you have two groups, and one of them is trying to survive and thrive, and the other is trying to commit suicide, of course the former will build the future no matter how much power the latter has in the present. Think of it like the process described in "idiocracy", but instead of intelligence, it's political affiliation which research shows is somewhat correlated to your parents.
At the moment, many western countries are importing many Muslims. Progressives seem to falsely believe that Muslims are progressive because most of them are beige and anyone who isn't a straight WASP is considered progressive by default in proportion to the amount they're not that thing, but Islam has been a highly conservative religion since the end of the Islamic golden age, and there's little evidence to suggest that's going to change because some western progressive tells them to. I'm sure you can find individual Muslims who are western progressives since populations are made of individuals and there's variation within such, but I'm talking about populations as a whole from a statistical perspective, and what happened after the Islamic golden age should be a warning to all of us. I don't think the future will look like anything even the most "far right conservative" among us wants to see.
To answer that question, let's look at each, where it came from, and what was its downfall..
Eugenics: It is a theory based on evolution that essentially says you can engineer the human species into becoming a better human race. Although evolution is sound science, the problem with eugenics is that it's tied up in politics. Who gets to choose what is a superior human? In the times it was in vogue, what individuals considered the "superior human" was people like themselves. You can't play God and succeed. We know today that many things we used to think made humans inferior can actually be traits that cause survivability. For example, sickle cell trait gave people in Africa increased protection against malaria, and traits that look bad can be highly survivable such as traits that skew people towards obesity can cause humans to survive famines which are surprisingly common on timelines going back mere centuries. Its political expediency is ultimately what made it popular, and its downfall is that it was self-evidently used in anti-scientific ways to legitimize the state's treatment of people.
Prefrontal lobotomies: It is based on a theory that if you damage a specific part of the brain it will improve behavior. There is some science behind it, and early on it had some clinical success. It is something that actually can help in very specific cases as a last resort and is even used today. The problem is that it is incredibly easy to do, essentially requiring someone with minimal training to insert an implement through the socket of someone's eye and tapping it a bit with a hammer. What ended up happening instead is that state run mental health hospitals started using it as an "off switch" for disruptive patients as dramatized in the famous movie "One Flew over the Cuckoo's nest". Private practices tended to make use of the procedure after years of trying other treatments, whereas public medicine used the procedure shortly after patients were admitted. Ultimately, public mental health facilities ended up completing something like 96% of prefrontal lobotomies because performing a technique that could make people compliant was easier politically than asking the public to pay more tax to fully fund the mental health system. Its ease and political expediency is ultimately what made it popular, and its downfall is that it was0 used in anti-scientific ways to simplify the state's treatment of mentally ill people.
Bloodletting: A practice derived from medical treatises developed by the ancient Greeks. Those treatises suggested that the body contained a number of humors, and it is the balance of those different humors that where the primary determinant of a person's health, and so many issues were caused by an excess of one of those humors, and so various treatments sought to reduce the excess. Now there is a rational basis for this idea, just imagine if you're sick you feel like you need to throw up, and if you didn't know what the body was doing you might assume that for some reason the body was producing an excess of vomit. After all, once you successfully vomit you often feel a lot better. I think another bile is essentially feces as it moves through your digestive tract, and so a lot of the time medical issues do boil down to trying to remove excess feces from your digestive tract. One is green bile, phlegm, which obviously forms in your lungs, nose, throat, and sinuses when you are sick or as a protective mechanism for the regular basis, so too much green bile obviously feels like crap you have a runny nose or you're all stuffed up and coughing. The final of the biles is red bile, or blood, and it was assumed that certain illnesses were made better by releasing the excess blood that you had. So there was obviously a rational basis for this theory, but what really made it prevalent for a long time was the fact that there were religious taboos against digging into the human body to figure out how it worked. It wasn't until just a couple hundred years ago that rather than just trying to come up with treatments based on things that had a rational basis we started studying the body and trying to figure out what was actually wrong. That, paired with a new understanding of germ theory ended up leading to the development of treatments that actually resolve problems rather than symptoms. Once we did that, we realized that many of our treatments were wrong, and the case of something like bloodletting where people would end up being cut up on a regular basis for something that had no therapeutic value, it was considered downright barbaric.
So now we come to the matter at hand. What we know from her scientific basis he's pretty limited, but everyone kind of agrees something is going on, people have some kind of thing going on where they want to behave in a certain way, and they long to look a certain way, and that there's a dissonance between that desire and reality. But we also have is a political philosophy in postmodern neo-marxism that really wants there to be no such thing as the biological. Given a political and almost religious conviction that everyone is exactly the same, it is an extremely convenient belief to think that unalienable parts of a person's biology can be changed. Therefore, when someone wants to be changed politically and philosophically the right thing is to just do it for them, regardless of whether it's empirically and scientifically the right thing to do.
In this way, it is in many ways like the three things that I mentioned. Like eugenicism, the primary purpose of the intense attention paid to this certain thing is to advance the political cause rather than medical treatment. Like the prefrontal lobotomy, handing someone a bottle of pills (or even setting up an appointment for a brutal surgery, although the surgery itself is a current-day miracle of impressive skill and knowledge) is something relatively easy to do, and for certain aspects of the state it is convenient. Like bloodletting, it has a limited scientific basis, and mostly lives in the minds of the philosophers rather than in real empirical studies, and there are quasi religious taboos which have limited good study on it. Given the limited basis for the treatment, the highly politicized nature of its selection, and the fact that we end up engaging in Acts that would be considered atrocities at all points in human history if they aren't being done to help people, that's why I think it's likely that after the current era is over people will look upon the transiting as kids the same way as these other treatments, if not worse.
It's interesting to note that each of them could actually be helpful under certain circumstances. Though rare, prefrontal lobotomies are still very occasionally done. For some very rare conditions, removing excess blood is the modern treatment, and for people with rare genetic disorders, they may willingly choose to not have kids knowing that the future will not have as many opportunities for that disorder. In the same way, there may in fact be a small number of individuals for whom gender affirming therapy is the objectively correct course of action, but the political nature of what's going on right now will sour the whole enterprise.
Another thing (which I won't get into much here) is I think the near future will be much poorer, and much more conservative. Moon and Whatifalthist on youtube have made videos which help explain why the future will be poorer in their videos on population collapse or why the next century will look like the 30 years war, and as for why it would be more conservative, it seems logical -- the more "progressive" stuff includes killing your babies in the womb, not having kids due to climate change, moving to dense urban environments that tend to be high stress and anti-natalist, as well as stuff like child sex changes which sterilize their victims -- If you have two groups, and one of them is trying to survive and thrive, and the other is trying to commit suicide, of course the former will build the future no matter how much power the latter has in the present. Think of it like the process described in "idiocracy", but instead of intelligence, it's political affiliation which research shows is somewhat correlated to your parents.
At the moment, many western countries are importing many Muslims. Progressives seem to falsely believe that Muslims are progressive because most of them are beige and anyone who isn't a straight WASP is considered progressive by default in proportion to the amount they're not that thing, but Islam has been a highly conservative religion since the end of the Islamic golden age, and there's little evidence to suggest that's going to change because some western progressive tells them to. I'm sure you can find individual Muslims who are western progressives since populations are made of individuals and there's variation within such, but I'm talking about populations as a whole from a statistical perspective, and what happened after the Islamic golden age should be a warning to all of us. I don't think the future will look like anything even the most "far right conservative" among us wants to see.
Geez I wrote too much on this one....
Wind is one that can be useful, but is variable and so isn't going to be great for baseload, just supplementation. For that reason, saying a certain % power is generated by wind or solar is a bit misleading because it implies if you increased your install base by the inverse % then you'd be able to produce all your power that way, when in reality you'd just be producing excess power on the good days and you'd be burning gas on the bad days. By contrast, hydroelectric consistently runs some jurisdictions 100% 24/7/365 -- Manitoba, Quebec, and Norway being examples.
As I've mentioned in other cases, jurisdictions with high levels of hydroelectric tend to have low electricity cost, and this has a double effect on reducing carbon emissions -- the low carbon emissions of electricity generation means electricity is better, and the inexpensive electricity will offset use of fossil fuels for home heating or industry. With already mature technologies such as electric rail, streetcars, and trackless street cars, inexpensive electricity can also break into transportation sectors.
for that same reason, it's important to choose green strategies that will reduce electricity costs. If you end up in an Australia situation where electricity costs go from some of the least expensive on earth to some of the most expensive on earth, then it might feel really good, but people will switch to fossil fuels because they can't afford not to.
In Ontario Canada, the IESO (one of Ontario's power industry regulators) has some really good data on hourly electricity generation: https://ieso.ca/power-data
The second tab is the one with the power mix.
Today the majority of baseload in the province was mostly nuclear, a good chunk was hydroelectric, there was a pittance of biomass, and a decent chunk was wind which lasted all day, but if you go back to June 3-9, you'll see that the nuclear and hydroelectric continued to provide consistent baseload generation every day, but on June 3rd the wind was as little as 5% of the consistent level we saw today. On those days, the difference was made up by running the gas power plants. The solar power is interesting in just how little there is (it appears that there is a lot more installed capacity connected to local grids rather than transmission grids), but also the characteristic of the generation.
The characteristics of each form of electricity generation are fairly interesting seen through the lens of the data.
Some people point to potential battery systems to mitigate the problems with solar in particular, but also wind to an extent, but just look at Ontario -- I can't help but think that the amount of batteries required to store 20GW of electricity overnight (so it's not entirely correct since solar is sinusoidal not off/on) but let's say 240GWH of storage) and then enough wind/solar to produce enough electricity during production periods to charge those batteries would be absolutely absurd, and have a cataclysmic environmental impact compared to finding some more big rivers for some run of river dams or places a traditional hydro dam could be built.
That being said, chemical batteries are probably just not the right choice, but pumped water storage might be... The largest pumped water storage system in the world is the Bath County pumped storage station, and at 24GWH of storage and a maximum generating capacity of 3GW, then 10x of these roughly 3.85 Billion dollar facilities could store power overnight for just the province of Ontario, and the physical footprint of that facility is surprisingly small for the amount of power it can store. (By contrast, the largest battery electric storage facility in the world is orders of magnitude smaller)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station
A big difference between chemical and pumped water storage systems is that water is essentially eternal, whereas chemical batteries die in a decade or two and so even if you make the investment you'll need to redo everything shortly afterwards, and depending on the battery technology it may or may not be recyclable -- lead acid batteries are highly recyclable, but lithium batteries are significantly less so.
For longer term issues like no wind, you might need much more storage -- rather than storing enough energy for the day, you might need enough for a week or a month, which would take an overwhelming investment and turn it into something virtually impossible for the economy to support (I suppose maybe they could store a lot more instantaneous energy by just building bigger reservoirs mind you so you wouldn't need to increase the costs by 14 or 60)
And then there's the fact that you'd need to build enough intermittent energy generation to charge the batteries or fill the reservoirs in addition to running things at the time, so at that point you'd need potentially need not 100% but 200% or more of the total amount of energy generation.
So all of that suggests it makes sense to try to build sources of energy that can handle baseload sources and consistently provide electricity every day. The 40 billion dollars to build the pumped storage system alone could potentially produce enough hydroelectricity to power the entire province and much of the nearby US states.
Wind is one that can be useful, but is variable and so isn't going to be great for baseload, just supplementation. For that reason, saying a certain % power is generated by wind or solar is a bit misleading because it implies if you increased your install base by the inverse % then you'd be able to produce all your power that way, when in reality you'd just be producing excess power on the good days and you'd be burning gas on the bad days. By contrast, hydroelectric consistently runs some jurisdictions 100% 24/7/365 -- Manitoba, Quebec, and Norway being examples.
As I've mentioned in other cases, jurisdictions with high levels of hydroelectric tend to have low electricity cost, and this has a double effect on reducing carbon emissions -- the low carbon emissions of electricity generation means electricity is better, and the inexpensive electricity will offset use of fossil fuels for home heating or industry. With already mature technologies such as electric rail, streetcars, and trackless street cars, inexpensive electricity can also break into transportation sectors.
for that same reason, it's important to choose green strategies that will reduce electricity costs. If you end up in an Australia situation where electricity costs go from some of the least expensive on earth to some of the most expensive on earth, then it might feel really good, but people will switch to fossil fuels because they can't afford not to.
In Ontario Canada, the IESO (one of Ontario's power industry regulators) has some really good data on hourly electricity generation: https://ieso.ca/power-data
The second tab is the one with the power mix.
Today the majority of baseload in the province was mostly nuclear, a good chunk was hydroelectric, there was a pittance of biomass, and a decent chunk was wind which lasted all day, but if you go back to June 3-9, you'll see that the nuclear and hydroelectric continued to provide consistent baseload generation every day, but on June 3rd the wind was as little as 5% of the consistent level we saw today. On those days, the difference was made up by running the gas power plants. The solar power is interesting in just how little there is (it appears that there is a lot more installed capacity connected to local grids rather than transmission grids), but also the characteristic of the generation.
The characteristics of each form of electricity generation are fairly interesting seen through the lens of the data.
Some people point to potential battery systems to mitigate the problems with solar in particular, but also wind to an extent, but just look at Ontario -- I can't help but think that the amount of batteries required to store 20GW of electricity overnight (so it's not entirely correct since solar is sinusoidal not off/on) but let's say 240GWH of storage) and then enough wind/solar to produce enough electricity during production periods to charge those batteries would be absolutely absurd, and have a cataclysmic environmental impact compared to finding some more big rivers for some run of river dams or places a traditional hydro dam could be built.
That being said, chemical batteries are probably just not the right choice, but pumped water storage might be... The largest pumped water storage system in the world is the Bath County pumped storage station, and at 24GWH of storage and a maximum generating capacity of 3GW, then 10x of these roughly 3.85 Billion dollar facilities could store power overnight for just the province of Ontario, and the physical footprint of that facility is surprisingly small for the amount of power it can store. (By contrast, the largest battery electric storage facility in the world is orders of magnitude smaller)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station
A big difference between chemical and pumped water storage systems is that water is essentially eternal, whereas chemical batteries die in a decade or two and so even if you make the investment you'll need to redo everything shortly afterwards, and depending on the battery technology it may or may not be recyclable -- lead acid batteries are highly recyclable, but lithium batteries are significantly less so.
For longer term issues like no wind, you might need much more storage -- rather than storing enough energy for the day, you might need enough for a week or a month, which would take an overwhelming investment and turn it into something virtually impossible for the economy to support (I suppose maybe they could store a lot more instantaneous energy by just building bigger reservoirs mind you so you wouldn't need to increase the costs by 14 or 60)
And then there's the fact that you'd need to build enough intermittent energy generation to charge the batteries or fill the reservoirs in addition to running things at the time, so at that point you'd need potentially need not 100% but 200% or more of the total amount of energy generation.
So all of that suggests it makes sense to try to build sources of energy that can handle baseload sources and consistently provide electricity every day. The 40 billion dollars to build the pumped storage system alone could potentially produce enough hydroelectricity to power the entire province and much of the nearby US states.