How is being a heatpump (a reversible air conditioner) automatically more efficient?

If you have 2 units using identical design, but only add a reversing valve, I don’t see how the heat pump version would be any more efficient at cooling.

Why not?

Where I live it would be trivially easy.

Watch an Amazon driver pull into a development/complex, watch where he leaves packages and who doesn’t come to the door immediately, then wait till he drives away and go collect.

To tack on to this, with an example that is easier to grasp - I have my own cloud, comprised of machines at my house, my friends, and family.

Those machines provide backup storage for each other, over the internet (using an encrypted connection).

If I were to charge people for storage, I’d be little different than any other cloud storage provider (at the most basic level).

Your second point is why paying for such services makes a real difference.

Companies like storj.io, backblaze, or any other cloud storage/backup provider provide a service for a fee with (not really) clear usage rules. If you’re encrypting your stuff before it goes to the cloud, you’re pretty safe from scanning, and if you have a contract for a given space and bandwidth, the worst you’ll probably run into is overage fees.

The negativity is about like saying I should not exist.

It’s your choice to see it that way.

Lol, you’re a riot.

You can’t even see your own hypocrisy.

No one so far has said any meaningful reason why this has a place or should exist.

So now you’re the arbiter of a communities existence?

Talk about psychosis, with a little narcissism on the side.

Though odds are highest for carbon-based, simple from it’s abundance.

Thanks for this - a reasoned, easy-to-grasp explanation of missions, without a lot of technical jargon.

It’s this kind of writing that’s needed (from any technical field) for those not in that field to understand it. I’m in IT, and work diligently to provide this kind of explanation to decision-makers. It’s not easy, when in your head you see all the “but this” at the technical level. We have to sacrifice high-resolution detail to provide a “good enough” image for people to comprehend. Sometimes that means being “technically inaccurate” - which then gets unnecessarily criticised.

I wish magazines like Scientific American (which has seriously gone down hill) wrote like this more.

Are the links you added from the article or some others you found?

What kind of douchebag do you have to be to behave like this?

How many languages do you speak perfectly?

OP’s English is pretty damn good.