Ooops

Talking about ‘Gotland’ and a ‘maritime shadow war’ might provide some clues to what might happen to Russian ships trying to attack that island. *cough*

Just the the usual Russian posturing bullshit…

Obviously the Russian economy is now so well that they can sell discounted oil to NK as an act of friendship (although they never gave a fuck about them in past). Because it can’t be true that Russia is desperate and even getting just a small amount of money for their oilis better than nothing at all…

But that would solve something. And that’s not wanted.

So instead we will lament ballooning costs and build times for nuclear and invent narratives how that’s totally not caused by nuclear being a shitty alternative to renewables and storage.

This way we can spend another few decades on building a none-solution while just accidently also having sunk so much money already that changing to an actual solution doesn’t make sense anymore.

Oh, sorry. Were we expected to stop burning fossil fuels? Doesn’t seem to work for some reason, but don’t worry. Building nuclear will totally solve this. Any decade now… (And no, we totally did not build to little anyway, just to make sure it will never solve anything even if the unimaginable happens and build times and costs become manageable…)

But here is the fun fact: Basically all countries going for nuclear instead (with the exception of France, and even they need to scrap the bullshit about 6 new reactors and admit that the full set of 6 plus the 8 optional ones is their required minimum) are doing exactly that: having no actual plan for zero co2 emissions but just building some for symbolic reductions. If they actually had any workable plan they would need to plan and build much more (often by a factor of 10 even) just to cover the minimum base load for their projected demand in 2050+.

And no, what Germany got into this mess is intentional sabotage by conservatives to keep coal alive. Please look at these graphs and extrapolate the amount of renewables we would have if first the solar, then the wind power industry wasn’t destroyed intentionally via overregulation. Gas as a transition energy and switching the existing plans over to hydrogen used for storage is a perfectly well plan. Even with today’s gas prize as they -unlike other countries- don’t use gas for regular production anyway. It’s only used for short-term peak production to adapt to fluctuations. The actual problem is the screwed up European energy market that makes you pay the gas price for all energy, no matter how few (or much) you actually use.

Contrary to popular narrrative a potential gas shortage was never a problem for Germany’s electricity production. The problem was heating. And the bottle neck there is not electricity but the ability so get and install the amount of heat pumps needed alternatively (I have personally seen waiting times of nearly a year 5 years ago already…). We like do forget that Germany alone makes up nearly 20% of the EU in households.

That’s not how reality works. The remaining reactors produced less than 5%. But the money needed to keep them running for a few more years -especially as the shut down was planned for years, checkups and revisions were skipped, no more fuel was ordered- would have come from the same budget that is now paying for grid upgrades and renewable build-up. So keeping them running would have had a minimal impact of a bit less co2 now but a massive damage to the transition to clean energy for the next 10+ years. But that’s of course a fact we don’t want to talk about in media as that doesn’t fit the narrative of stupid Greens having killed nuclear for ideological reasons.

For reference: The shutdown of all but 3 reactors was decided a decade ago, planned for years and came into effect 2 weeks before that new government came into office… the ones they were left with produced -up to their shutdown- ~1,5% of all electricity in 2023. But sure… keeping them alive for the sake of having nuclear reactors (they basically did not have any value other than as a talking point) would have totally made sense… in some alternative reality.

Because the actual plan was to build-up solar and wind, then phase out nuclear and coal.

But the conservatives intentionally sabotaged solar power and wind (see here and here) and also blocked grid imporvements and extensions to keep their beloved coal alive. After more than a decade we should long be past the point to not need coal anymore (Just look at the graphs and extrapolate the amount of solar and wind without their de facto destruction of the solar (2012) and wind (2016) industry via overregulation), it’s still a big chunk of the produced energy.

Nuclear was simply phase out because the existing capacities were rediculous low (~5% of the production top), the shutdown was already decided and planned for years and keeping them few reactors alive would have costed rediculous amounts compared to their value. And completely restarting nuclear basically from scratch makes zero sense today, when you won’t need it in 15 years anymore.

This is pure and simple the result of corrupt conservatives pushing coal and their propaganda (killing 100k jobs in solar production to protect 10k coal miners for example). And instead everyone now eats up their propaganda again and blames the current government, not only for the problems but also for a nuclear pahse out that was actually decided and prepared since a decade ago.

Yes.

And the thumbnail links to kbin.social/media/cache/resolve/entry_thumb/…

Are you telling him he’s having fun on the internet wrong? :D

It’s worse… sometimes you forget your bag or go to buy something unplanned. And after a decade you have more reusable bags at home than you will ever be able to use up in your life.

By the very definition of “wet” water actually isn’t…

Yes, I have lived under a rock where India bought Russian military for years and is now working hard to become their new biggest trading partner… such close allies.

What you are talking about is: it could be worse and they could be openly hostile.

Yes, but ignoring their issues doesn’t make them a close ally. Just another one roughy affiliated, that knows it can do whatever without consequence other than strongly worded letters.

Yes, they have a choice. Ignoring India’s issues including that they in fact increase trade with Russia massively is not what stops them from going on like this.

but because the Germans as a people are idiots

Which is easily explained when pensioneers (and soon to be pensioneers) have the absolute majority and give a fuck about anything but their pensions and everything staying as it was.

(For reference the 50/50 split of voters by age is quickly approaching 60…)

But encrypting already encrypted HTTPS data is largely irrelevant (for that simplified analogy) unless you don’t trust the encryption in the first place. So the relevant part is hiding the HTTPS headers (your addresses from above) from your the network providing your connection (and the receiving end) by encrypting them.

Unless of course you want to point out that a VPN also encrypts HTTP… which most people have probably not used for years, in fact depending on browser HTTP will get refused by default nowadays.

Nope, this is simply framing because the coal lobby pays millions to sell you the lie of how there is no way around coal and you should give up on reducing it.

In reality the majority of G20 countries are decreasing coal emissions steadily and with a goal to completely phase it out in years. But there are countries included in those 20 that increase coal instead (for example China is up 30% since 2015, India up 29%). And countries like South Korea and Australia while not increasing coal (but also being slower in reductions…) are just rediculous far ahead in emissions per capita (> 3t) thus having a much higher impact on the overall statistics.

Non-Internet analogy:

You communicate via snail mail with someone. Both ends know the address of each other. So does the postal service delivering your mail. Everyone opening your letter can read (and with some work even manipulate) the content. That’s HTTP.

Now you do the same, but write in code. Now the addresses are still known to every involved party but the content is secured from being read and thus from being manipulated, too. That’s HTTPS.

And now you pay someone to pick up your mail, send it from their own address and also get the answers there that are then delivered back to you. The content is exactly as secure as before. But now you also hide your address from the postal service (that information has the guy you pay extra now though…) and from the one you are communicating with. That’s a VPN.

So using a VPN doesn’t actually make your communication more secure. It just hides who you are communicating with from your ISP (or the public network you are using). Question here is: do you have reasons to not trust someone with that information and do you trust a VPN provider more for some reason? And it hides your address from the guy you are communicating with (that’s the actual benefit of a VPN for some, as this can circumvent network blocks or geo-blocking).

Long story short: Do you want to hide who you are communicating with from the network you are using to access the internet? Then get a VPN. The actual data you send (and receive) is sufficiently secured by HTTPS already.

This here is the actual problem of nuclear power. And it’s happening in a lot of countries.

People either promise new nuclear because it gets them votes without any actual intend to go through with their plans. Or they really plan to build them but then -for cost reasons- the plans aren’t even on the right scale to cover the needed base load in 2 decades+, given the projected increase in electricity demand via electrification of industries and transport for decarbonization.

And then people talking about this bullshit level of driving future energy plans against a wall are called idiologically damaged idiots fearing nuclear. Nope, the actual “fear” is people trading in basic math and reality for populist rhetoric…

Just be happy that Sweden has an above average amount of potential for hydro power (so there is at least an alternative without sufficient nuclear base load) and not that many anti-renewable morons (another trend nowadays with the pro-nuclear crowd still, for some rediculous reason or another).

Oh, believe me: There are so many messy BIOS and UEFI implementations out there that you can definitely deactivate it in the BIOS for some. Which just introduces even more mess where hibernation triggered on the OS level then fails.

They actually don’t. They try and it works for some time. And then the next Windows update intentionally fries their dual-boot. Then they go back to Windows.

Or they understood enough about the details and how to minimize the risk (basically running Linux with an linux boot manager that then chain-loads Windows boot files from another disk, so Windows is mostly oblivious about the other OS… and even then Windows likes to screw with the efi record) that they are mainly running linux. And later they tend to ditch Windows completely of just keep a virtual machine if they really need it for some proprietory stuff.

At least those scenarios above cover 95% of all people “dual-booting” I know…

In comparison, dual- or triple-booting Linux is indeed a bit less problematic. But the same thing applies: You mainly run one. And given that Linux distributions are all nearly the same, with just a few differences in pre-configuration and defaults, there’s not much point to it.