FastSync should be enabled when games have very fast render rates relative to the refresh rate of your monitor. G-SYNC is most effective when the render rate of a game is variable, and below the max refresh rate of your monitor. So both technologies can be active at the same time to deal with variable game frame rate scenarios. Wecan also choose to use might have + past participle to mean the same thing: He might have got stuck in traffic. He might have forgotten that we were meeting today. He might have overslept. Should have + past participle 1: Should have + past participle can mean something that would have been a good idea, but that you didn't do it. It's like giving advice about the past when you say it to someone else, or regretting what you did or didn't do when you're talking about yourself. CouldHave Should Have Would Have Exercise 1 Could have, should have, would have Exercise 1 Review how to use these past modal verbs here. Download this exercise in PDF here. Could have should have would have Make the correct past modal form (use could have / would have / should have + past participle) See all the modal verbs exercises here. Youhave to eat. You have to sleep. You have to get yourself some kind of shelter. These are examples of a necessary and healthy selfishness. So why should you ditch the guilt and feel good about putting yourself first? Here are nine reasons why from psychologists, doctors, and self-help experts who agree that sometimes you should be selfish. Mr Helling said he tips drivers between 10 and 20 percent the cost of the trip, based on the level of service. Julia Boyd, an international etiquette consultant, agreed. For U.S. rides, she Exercises 1 2 3. Complete the sentences using should, shouldn't and the words in brackets ( ). 1 You have a great job; you (change) it. 2 You (drink) so much coffee; it's bad for your blood pressure. 3 The government (help) people. 4 It's an incredible film. . These past modal verbs are all used hypothetically, to talk about things that didn't really happen in the past. Could have + past participle 1 Could have + past participle means that something was possible in the past, or you had the ability to do something in the past, but that you didn't do it. See also modals of ability. I could have stayed up late, but I decided to go to bed early. They could have won the race, but they didn't try hard enough. Julie could have bought the book, but she borrowed it from the library instead. He could have studied harder, but he was too lazy and that's why he failed the exam. Couldn't have + past participle means that something wasn't possible in the past, even if you had wanted to do it. I couldn't have arrived any earlier. There was a terrible traffic jam = it was impossible for me to have arrived any earlier. He couldn't have passed the exam, even if he had studied harder. It's a really, really difficult exam. 2 We use could have + past participle when we want to make a guess about something that happened in the past. See also modals of probability. In this case, we don't know if what we're saying is true or not true. We're just talking about our opinion of what maybe happened. Why is John late? He could have got stuck in traffic. He could have forgotten that we were meeting today. He could have overslept. We can also choose to use might have + past participle to mean the same thing He might have got stuck in traffic. He might have forgotten that we were meeting today. He might have overslept. Should have + past participle 1 Should have + past participle can mean something that would have been a good idea, but that you didn't do it. It's like giving advice about the past when you say it to someone else, or regretting what you did or didn't do when you're talking about yourself. Shouldn't have + past participle means that something wasn't a good idea, but you did it anyway. I should have studied harder! = I didn't study very hard and so I failed the exam. I'm sorry about this now. I should have gone to bed early = I didn't go to bed early and now I'm tired. I shouldn't have eaten so much cake! = I did eat a lot of cake and now I don't feel good. You should have called me when you arrived = you didn't call me and I was worried. I wish that you had called me. John should have left early, then he wouldn't have missed the plane = but he didn't leave early and so he did miss the plane. 2 We can also use should have + past participle to talk about something that, if everything is normal and okay, we think has already happened. But we're not certain that everything is fine, so we use 'should have' and not the present perfect or past simple. It's often used with 'by now'. His plane should have arrived by now = if everything is fine, the plane has arrived. John should have finished work by now = if everything is normal, John has finished work. We can also use this to talk about something that would have happened if everything was fine, but hasn't happened. Lucy should have arrived by now, but she hasn't. Would have + past participle 1 Part of the third conditional. If I had had enough money, I would have bought a car but I didn't have enough money, so I didn't buy a car. 2 Because 'would' and will can also be used to show if you want to do something or not volition, we can also use would have + past participle to talk about something you wanted to do but didn't. This is very similar to the third conditional, but we don't need an 'if clause'. I would have gone to the party, but I was really busy. = I wanted to go to the party, but I didn't because I was busy. If I hadn't been so busy, I would have gone to the party. I would have called you, but I didn't know your number. = I wanted to call you but I didn't know your number, so I didn't call you. A Nobody volunteered to help us with the fair B I would have helped you. I didn't know you needed help. = If I had known that you needed help, I would have helped you. Try an exercise about these past modals here. Last year, the Biden administration set an ambitious new goal for the USA to deploy 30 gigawatts GW of offshore wind capacity by the year 2030, increasing US offshore capacity more than seven hundred times over. The UK already has 15 GW of offshore wind, more than 300 times as much as the USA and our experience should be a terrible warning to UK’s electricity prices are the highest since records began in 1920 and are now amongst the highest in all Europe. One reason for this is obvious slightly less than half our electricity comes from gas-burning Combined Cycle Gas Turbines CCGTs and gas now costs £90 per megawatt-hour MWh, nearly five times higher than normal. CCGTs are cheap to build around £650m per GW and operate. In normal times they would generate electricity at a total cost of £40 per MWh. That’s now risen to nearly £150/MWh, thanks to Vladimir Putin and his impact on the gas that’s not the whole story. The other reason why British electricity is so expensive is because we have so much wind power particularly, so much offshore wind power. Bad though the current situation is, we would be an even worse state if we had built even more offshore wind, as the British government plans an example, the offshore wind farms Hornsea Two and Moray East were completed in 2022 with capital costs of £ billion per GW and £ more than four times the cost of CCGT capacity. They’re expensive to maintain, which is not surprising since offshore windfarms have all their many generators mounted at the top of 200-metre tall masts far away from land. Estimates of maintenance costs are as high as £200m per GW installed, per annum. The nominal cost of offshore wind generation is £170/MWh – noticeably higher than that for CCGTs, even in these dire times of high gas other factor to bear in mind is that not only is wind capacity extremely expensive to build, wind farms do not deliver anything like their rated capacity over time. This is bad news for the customer, because the higher the capacity factor – that is, the higher the percentage of the rated capacity the powerplant actually delivers over time – the cheaper the energy. In 2022 the UK’s onshore and offshore windfarms operated with a capacity factor of 33 per cent. In 2021 it was only 29 per It gets worse. Like most other renewable generation technologies, wind power is unpredictably intermittent and highly variable. Also, since wind turbines are not synchronously connected to the grid, they provide no “grid inertia” – more on that shortly. Wind turbines cannot be asked to deliver energy when it is required, and their output changes rapidly. These failings must be mitigated and costed, and users have to pay for these costs on top of the price of the 2021 the UK annual grid balancing costs reached £ billion, £150 per household. For context, back in 1995 when we didn’t have much wind power the balancing cost for the grid was a mere £250 million per annum. A large, and growing, contribution to these costs is constraint management, as when a wind farm producing electricity which isn’t wanted – perhaps when it is windy in the middle of the night – is paid not to put that electricity into the problems and costs don’t stop there. Our transmission grid system was originally designed to link generation centres close to sources of fuel coal, gas and load centres such as cities. Now our generation sites are moving further away from load Our grid transmission system has to be expanded to connect the new renewable generators, which is bad enough when they are on a remote hilltop and worse still when they are out at sea. The National Grid estimates that on current plans this work will cost £46 billion – £1,533 per household – to there’s grid inertia. The British grid is termed an island grid, which means that we are solely responsible for controlling the grid frequency between tight limits so that things plugged into the grid will work as expected. Frequency control becomes easier as the inertia of the grid system increases. Grid system inertia is a key measure of how resilient the system is in response to transient changes. Inertia is the sum of the energy stored within the rotating mass of the machines generators and motors connected directly to the system. Low system inertia increases the risk of rapid system changes, which may then lead to disconnection of load or generation and then system instability. Apart from tree-burning biomass stations and hydro generation, renewables plants bring no inertia to the grid as the proportion of renewables rises, system inertia falls and the risk of major problems such as blackouts have attempted to reduce the issue of intermittency by expanding our connections to the European electricity grid – the hope being that the wind will be blowing somewhere else even if it is not blowing here – but we’re still exposed to periods when wind generation across the whole of Europe falls near to nothing. And these connections do not help with inertia and stability either because few of the connections to the continent are synchronous In 1995 the problem of grid frequency stability required provision of rapidly responding generators capable of changing their combined output at a rate of GW per second in order to deal with fluctuations. With the arrival of so much unpredictable wind power, that figure has now increased almost tenfold to GW per second!Extra services like very rapid response gas generators, required in order to make it possible to connect renewables to the grid, add between £30/MWh and £50/MWh to renewables’ cost. Thus the true cost to the customer of offshore wind generators is actually between £200/MWh and £220/MWh, much more than CCGTs even in these times of ruinously high gas out CCGT production will therefore increase domestic electricity prices it seems that CCGTs will be phased out much sooner than planned. The government has proposed an expansion to 60 GW of offshore wind by 2030 capital expenditure £122 billion and solar to 70 GW by 2035 capital expenditure to 2030 £30 billion.This is extremely unwise we still have no way of storing electricity at scale and the planned transitions of home heating and transport to electrical power are progressing weakly and may yet stall completely. Creating such a large solar generation fleet raises the nightmare scenario of early summer mornings, with little demand and the vast majority of generation being solar with zero inertia massive grid collapses would be all but a certainty. Vast amounts of energy will be generated only to be expensively constrained off and probably wasted, and the scenario of unmet demand – with attendant blackouts – will become UK grid is simply not able to cope with the proposed amounts of we simply cannot afford all this. If we add the costs of an even more extended National Grid, this programme of wind and solar generation expansion will cost £232 billion – more than £8,000 per household this decade – all to be paid for by the suffering energy user. It should be emphasised that these figures do not include the costs of the huge energy storage industry which will also be necessary, whatever that may turn out to be hydrogen or ammonia or something even more dangerous and expensive. Heat pumps and switching to electric vehicles could lift total costs above £1 Americans should look at the British renewables disaster and give thanks that today they have hardly any offshore wind. And they might, looking at the UK, recoil with horror from the plans of the Biden administration especially as most US offshore wind will need to be floating offshore wind rather than built on the seabed, and so even more either nation would like to reduce carbon emissions and/or reduce its dependence on fossil fuels supplied by unsavoury overseas regimes, an immediate measure would be to build new, modern, high efficiency CCGT plant which would immediately cut the need for gas and reduce emissions without requiring vast, expensive alterations to the grid and special measures so that they don’t cause it to collapse. We should also begin building new nuclear plant with some genuine urgency, as that is the only genuine, affordable, practical way to seriously cut emissions and achieve secure energy Capell Aris PhD has spent his career in the electricity generation sector. He is a former Fellow of the Institute of Engineering and Technology KHERSON, Ukraine AP — The rescue volunteer holds out his hand, but the dog, stranded on a floating island of debris in a southern Ukrainian city inundated by flooding, is too traumatized to approach. Volodymyr Holubnichii offers the scared animal some food; the dog sniffs and relaxes.“Don’t be scared,” Holubnichii soothingly tells the animal, which eventually accepts a leash and being carried to a volunteer with Animal Rescue Kharkiv, spent days cruising the flooded streets of Kherson city after the Kakhovka dam collapsed on Tuesday and submerged entire towns. He is one among the organization’s 70 volunteers determined to rescue as many animals as possible, plucking them from the rooftops and garages of flooded homes before they die of dehydration and flooding has killed civilians, ruined crops, displaced landmines, and caused widespread environmental damage. Kyiv accused Moscow of blowing up the Dnieper River dam and its hydropower plant, which the Kremlin’s forces controlled. Russia in turn blamed Ukraine for the by the river, southern Ukraine’s Kherson province is an important fault line in the war that started with Russia’s invasion of the neighboring country more than 15 months ago. Russian forces withdrew from the western bank, including the regional capital also named Kherson, but part of the eastern side remain under Russian occupation..Ukrainian authorities scrambled to evacuate stranded residents officials on both sides said at least 14 people died in the flooding and thousands others were homeless, while tens of thousands were without drinking water. Upon hearing news of the flooding, Holubnichii immediately thought of the animals. “All life should be valued,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if it’s an animal or a person or something else.”Animal Rescue Kharkiv’s volunteers, based in northern Ukraine’s Kharkiv province, began packing their gear. By Wednesday morning, they were in the Kherson region looking for animalsSo far, they have saved 107 animals since the dam’s collapse 45 dogs, 36 cats, five kittens, 18 chickens and three goats that will go to shelters across Ukraine. Many were pets of evacuated civilians, according to Yaryna Vintoniuk, a spokesperson for the non-governmental organization. From rescue boats, the team reached remote areas of Kherson and extract animals from rooftops, apartments and garages of submerged homes. On Thursday, the volunteers came under Russian shelling as they worked. The animals, unwillingly abandoned by their panicked owners, were terrified. Some barely had the strength to get up. Holubnichii picked up a small dog that was trapped under the floating rubble and nearly unconscious. He heard the barking of another dog and made his way to the animal, stuck on a rooftop of a flooded home.“Don’t be afraid, giant,” Holubnichii said in a soft voice. The NGO founded eight years ago is 90-year-old Valentyna Timofeevna’s best hope for being reunited with her dog and cat. Timofeevna had to leave her pets behind when she was evacuated from her home. Weeping, she wonders if they will be found alive. “Maybe they are already dead,” the woman wailed. A volunteer tried to comfort her, telling her not to rush to conclusions. should have been, Should have had Video Lecture Link Should – चाहिए {V1} chaahie V1} Should be – 1 होना चाहिए hona chaahie – {Should be + Object} 2 क्रिया को कर रहा होना चाहिए {Should be + V4} kriya ko kar raha hona chaahie {Should be + V4} 3 क्रिया को किया जाना चाहिए {Should be + V3} Passive kriya ko kiya jana chaahie {Should be + V3} Passive Should have – 1 पास होना चाहिए {should have + Object} paas hona chaahie 2 चाहिए था {should have + V3} chaahie tha Should have been – 1 होना चाहिए था hona chaahie tha- {Should have been + Obj.} 2 क्रिया को कर रहा होना चाहिए था {Should have been + V4} kriya ko kar raha hona chaahie tha {Should have been + V4} 3 क्रिया को किया जाना चाहिए था {Should have been + V4} Passive kriya ko kiya jana chaahie tha{v3}passivai Should have had – पास होना चाहिए था paas hona chaahie tha {Should have had + Obj.} Should – चाहिए {V1} chaahie{V1} मुझे जाना चाहिए। I should go. mujhe jana chahie. राहुल को खेलना चाहिए। Rahul should play. rahul ko khelana chahie. हमें देखना चाहिए। We should see. hamen dekhana chahie. Should be होना चाहिए hona chaahie सलीम को घर पर होना चाहिए। saleem ko ghar par hona chaahie. Saleem should be at home. अयांश को स्कूल में होना चाहिए। ayansh ko school mein hona chaahie. Ayansh should be in school. तुम्हें मेरे साथ होना चाहिए। tumhen mere saath hona chaahie. You should be with me. तुम्हें मेरे साथ नहीं होना चाहिए। tumhen mere saath nahin hona chaahie. You should not be with me. क्या तुम्हें मेरे साथ होना चाहिए? kya tumhen mere saath hona chaahie? Should you be with me? अयांश को इस वक्त पढ़ रहा होना चाहिए। ayansh ko is vakt padh raha hona chaahie. Ayansh should be studying at this time. सचिन इस समय खेल रहा होना चाहिए। sachin is samay khel raha hona chaahie. Sachin should be playing right now. राहुल को राम के द्वारा अमेरिका भेजा जाना चाहिए। rahul ko ram ke dvara america bheja jana chaahie. Rahul should be sent to America by Ram. गिटार बजाया जाना चाहिए। gitar bajaya jana chaahie. Guitar should be played. हमें पैसे दिए जाने चाहिए। hamen paise die jane chaahie. We should be given the money. Should have– पास होना चाहिए paas hona chaahie मेरे पास पेन होना चाहिए। mere pas pen hona chaahie. I should have a pen. राहुल के पास किताब होनी चाहिए। rahul ke pas kitab honi chaahie. Rahul should have a book. हमारे पास पैसे होने चाहिए। hamare pas paise hone chaahie. We should have money. तुम्हारे पास कुछ होना चाहिए। tumhare pas kuchh hona chaahie. You should have something. तुम्हारे पास कुछ नहीं होना चाहिए। tumhare pas kuchh nahin hona chaahie. You should not have anything. उसे जाना चाहिए था। use jana chaahie tha. He should have gone. हमें खेलना चाहिए था। hamen khelana chaahie tha. We should have played. तुम्हें लड़ना नहीं चाहिए था। tumhen ladana nahin chaahie tha. You should not have fought. Should have been—–होना चाहिए था hona chaahie tha आपको स्वार्थी होना चाहिए था। aapako svarthi hona chaahie tha. You should have been selfish. राहुल को घर पर होना चाहिए था। rahul ko ghar par hona chaahie tha. Rahul should have been at home. आपको मेरा दोस्त होना चाहिए था। aapako mera dost hona chaahie tha. You should have been my friend. धोनी को खेल रहा होना चाहिए था। dhoni ko khel raha hona chaahie tha. Dhoni should have been playing. उसे पढ़ रहा होना चाहिए था। use padh raha hona chaahie tha. He should have been studying. उसे राहुल के द्वारा भेजा जाना चाहिए था। use rahul ke dvara bheja jana chaahie tha. He should have been sent by Rahul. हमें कुछ दिया जाना चाहिए था। hamen kuchh diya jana chaahie tha. We should have been given something. हमें कुछ नहीं दिया जाना चाहिए था। hamen kuchh nahin diya jana chaahie tha. We should not have been given anything. Should have had – पास होना चाहिए था paas hona chaahie tha मेरे पास पेन होना चाहिए था। mere pas pen hona chaahie tha. I should have had a pen. राहुल के पास किताबें होनी चाहिए थी। rahul ke pas kitaben honi chaahie thi. Rahul should have had books. तुम्हारे पास गिटार होना चाहिए था। tumhare pas gitar hona chaahie tha. You should have had the guitar. Also Read All Modal Helping Verbs in English Grammar I Examples and Use in Hindi Tenses Learn Tenses in English Grammar with Examples in Hindi Conjunctions Conjunction In English Grammar Conjunction In Hindi Prepositions in English Grammar With Examples In Hindi Learn Use Of Prepositions Interjection Interjections Examples Interjection In Grammar Spoken English Guru Android App Link English Tense Chart, Tense Types, Definition, Tense Table dictionary work for practice check their meaning in the first place not only … but also as a matter of fact in like manner in addition coupled with in the same fashion / way first, second, third in the light of not to mention to say nothing of equally important by the same token moreover as well as together with of course likewise comparatively correspondingly similarly furthermore additionally although this may be true in contrast different from of course …, but on the other hand on the contrary at the same time in spite of even so / though be that as it may then again above all in reality after all in other words to put it differently for one thing as an illustration in this case for this reason to put it another way that is to say with attention to by all means dictionary work for practice check the meaning of these phrases at the present time from time to time sooner or later at the same time up to the present time to begin with in due time as soon as as long as in the meantime in a moment without delay in the first place all of a sudden at this instant in the middle to the left/right in front of on this side in the distance here and there in the foreground background the center of adjacent to opposite to for thus because the then hence consequently therefore thereupon forthwith accordingly henceforth notably including like to be sure namely chiefly truly indeed certainly surely markedly such as IMPORTANT LINKSBooks, eBooks & Web Courses 10M+ YouTube 6M+ Android App Facebook M+ Instagram 150K+ TRENDING BLOGSTENSES VERBS TRANSLATIONS PREPOSITIONS DAILY USE SENTENCES VOCABULARY PRONUNCIATION PHRASAL VERBS TIPS n TRICKS INTERVIEW Q&A PUNCTUATION MARKS ACTIVE PASSIVE DIRECT INDIRECT PARTS OF SPEECH SPEAKING PRACTICE LISTENING PRACTICE WRITING PRACTICE ESSAYS SPEECHES अगर आपको ये आर्टिकल पसन्द आया हो, तो इसे अपने दोस्तों के साथ WhatsApp, Facebook आदि पर शेयर जरूर करिएगा। Thank you! – Aditya sir I'm often facing a situation where "should + to be" form takes place. But from Grammar modal verb "should" takes a verb without particle "to". Here examples of cases "should + to be" The notification should to be sent by registered mail. source Internal dialogue to that and broader ends should to be fostered. source "should + be" Both were unacceptable and should be rejected. Itinerants should be treated like all other Dutch citizens. source pdf The question is what is the difference between 2 cases? grammarmodal-verbs asked May 10, 2018 at 823 Ilya ZlobinIlya Zlobin851 gold badge1 silver badge5 bronze badges 6 The first two sentences are ungrammatical. Can you tell us their source? May 10, 2018 at 838 There are a lot of examples. You can find those having typed "should to be" in the search box of Google search engine on the news tab May 10, 2018 at 1011 Well, that's surprising! I have never encountered the passive construction "should to be + past participle" before . But there are indeed examples in Google that appear to have been written by native speakers. I'm interested to know what's going on here. May 10, 2018 at 1037 I'd put money on people using a thesaurus incorrectly; "ought to" and "need to" are perfectly valid, but "should to" is never correct. May 10, 2018 at 1115 "Ought to be" or "sure to be" are fairly common, but on the few occasions I've read "should to be" I've taken it to be a typo, or some odd dialect. May 10, 2018 at 1136 1 Answer "Should to" is never correct. Modal verbs are followed by the infinitive of another verb without to. The exceptions are ought to and used to. Source Oxford Learners Dictionary answered May 10, 2018 at 848 SomethingDarkSomethingDark1,7521 gold badge15 silver badges17 bronze badges

should should be should have