> refrigerator which uses many times as much power and definitely has 100% uptime.
Except that the making-cold mechanism of fridges have nowhere near a 100% duty-cycle. You probably wouldn't notice if it didn't even meet two "nines" of uptime.
In fact, that's how frost-free freezers work, by taking advantage that fact to run a heater(!) for some number of minutes several times a day. A defrost timer that does 10 minutes every 8 hours reduces compressor uptime to 98%.
> Am I unusual, or is this an absurdly high electric bill?
You're unusual.
Or, rather, her bill is high, though not absurdly so, especially if it includes more than just the per-kWh charge (e.g. a fixed/per-meter charge or even additional utilities like water) and if it's her only household energy source (i.e. no natural gas, propane, or heating oil).
Virginia gets warm and humid in the summer and cold (enough) in the winter. Using resistive heating can really jack up an electric bill. The absurdity of that form of heating is at least debatable.
$34 in the summer mean 170kWh, which is remarkably low. It implies no AC, no or very light use of appliances like a dishwasher, clothes washer, or dryer, and either little use of hot water (or "cheating" with a gas-fired water heater).
A single 100W light bulb (remember incandescent bulbs?) left on 24x7 would use 73kWh in a month.
That there, is enough, though. It's not as if you could choose not to pay for that portion and pay only for the energy.
As such, the rate could go up without bound. (Well, bounded by competition from off-grid systems that are 2-6x as expensive in the long run and have a huge up-front cost).
I think you're getting closer to a more useful definition of "toxic" here than your original comment where you asserted "There is one clear side that is wrong".
The problem with this latter/original assertion is that you are at once acknowledging that there are "sides" and, therefore, a debate to be had but at once shutting it down as not worth having. Obviously, with this comment, it's clear you don't actually believe that, though.
> They are looking to spread hate.
Here's where I think you get closest to the root of what I think is the real origin of online toxicity. For lack of a better term, I think it's trolling for emotion.
I'm not convinced that even what you're saying, that they're looking to spread "hate", is strictly true, but I do agree that they're looking to invoke a strong emotional response, whatever that may be.
I'm pretty sure that some trolls don't even believe in the "side" they claim to support. The message doesn't even have to stand up to rational scrutiny, so it need not even have a true side.
> Hate is not a political opinion. Hate is not worth tolerating.
To the extent that such strong emotional response serves to shut down conversation, it's toxic, and I agree it's not worth tolerating.
However, I think it's dangerous to apply such broad labels, especially if it's focused on the opinions (e.g. racism) rather than the behavior (e.g. appeal to emotion).
Except that the making-cold mechanism of fridges have nowhere near a 100% duty-cycle. You probably wouldn't notice if it didn't even meet two "nines" of uptime.
In fact, that's how frost-free freezers work, by taking advantage that fact to run a heater(!) for some number of minutes several times a day. A defrost timer that does 10 minutes every 8 hours reduces compressor uptime to 98%.