Make sense. In its inception, capitalism was putting work as the source of value creation. Rental is about asking money while nothing is produced.
The message is all confusing today because the people talking about the value of hard work are actually the ones who want to get huge returns from investment while paying as little as possible for the work done. Their end goal is to avoid working themeselves. Smith would despise them just the same.
At last constant surveillance is deemed a problem, which is why ultra-rich have their privacy protected, while you, peons, keep being monitored.
Alternative answer: "We understand your issue and will fix it as time and priorities allow. Please note that customers paying for support always get higher priority. Given MS contributions to the project, this ticket was ranked 42nd in our priority list.
Have a pleasant day! FFMPEG support team"
Scientists have not been hyperbolic. If anything, so far, they've been very cautious abut their statements.
I still remember reading headlines about "likelihood of global warming" then "probably caused by human activities" because 90% level of confidence is not enough, you need more data until you can reach 95% or 98% confidence before boldly writng "most probably".
But in their "probably" they predicted we would see more floods, droughts, violent storms, all of these happening one after the other causing devastation.
And Ô surprise: we see floods, droughts and storms following each other and causing devastation. Yet our leaders will claim "no one could have predicted all of that would happen at once!".
Now they start telling us our civilization could collapse ("could" must be what? 75% confidence level???)
We're going to spend 20-25 years claiming they exagerate, another 20-25 years saying "well, they maybe right, but we can't change things too fast because that would be unreasonable and the people would not accept it".
By the time, we will start reading articles stating no matter what we do now, we can only push out the end a bit, but we're doomed. And the first reactions will be "those damned scientists always exagerate and use hyperboles".
The N9 was killed by Stephen Elop, the new CEO coming straight from Microsoft with a mission: get Nokia bought off by MS.
Right from the start, he ran an explicit counter-advertisement campaign against the N9 and Meego. Whatever commercial success it would be, this would be the first and last device running MeeGo from Nokia, and there would be no support for MeeGo.
Nokia was to embrace Windows mobile OS, that turned out to be a total disaster. But indeed, after he tanked Nokia, it became cheap enough to bought by MS, as Nokia got both cheap and undsirable by any other big player due to its binding to MS bad mobile OS, and Elop got his VP status back there.
This is a shame in the history of mobile phones and OS!
Later, some former Nokia would start their own phone company reusing part of MeeGo. Jolla was born.
I'm sorry if that's harsh, but my feedback would be: drop that chart!
It's daunting, it's going to freak out many newbies. Too much choice kills the choice.
You have one "default" at the bottom, Mint, so stick to that. Tell the newbies they can switch anytime to something else once they're a bit more comfortable with the Linux-world. And if I'm not mistaken, you can install and try the main DEs with Mint also. Or you can recommend Ubuntu, or any other newbie friendly distro. Just pick one and don't lose them over what they could see as an important difficult decision before they even get started.
He should borrow vast amounts of money from his loyal supporters: "Empty your lifetime savings accounts, I promise I'll pay everything back with interests!".
Then we'll see how much his followers really trust him when they need to put their own future on the line...
I kind of hope it's real. Down that path at some point they'll decide the whole Internet and all modern technologies are satanist and leave Internet for good. They can embrace the Amish lifestyle, it's a win for the rest of us.
Meta is unwilling to pay for anything. They don't pay taxes on their benefits in Canada either, after having swallowed almost 100% of the online ads business. But they'll keep talking about how good for Canada and Canadians they are.
"They trust me. Dumb fucks!" -- Mark Zuckerberg
They're not "defeated". They got exactly what they wanted. People leaving without having to lay them off through attrition.
Now that they think they have "right-sized" their workforce at no cost, they nicely offer to concede hybrid working to keep the rest of their employees.
We also had decades to prevent climate change from happening and look how well we tackle it now.
I'm confident we'll have a plan to prevent that collapse that's due within 100 years, but to keep it reasonable, its execution will be spread over 100 years, and we think about starting in 80 years providing everything goes well in the meantime.
Chill, you can see it's all taken care of!
Nuclear plants consist mainly of a shitton of concrete (and only the best sort is good enough). The production of that concrete causes a terrible amount of carbon emissions upfront.
Actually, if you compare them to solar or wind at equivalent service, it's not that straightforward:
Renewables installed capacity is nowhere close to their actual production, nuclear can produce its nominal capacity in a very steady way.
Wind turbines also need a lot of concrete, and much more metal for equivalent output. Solar panels need a lot of metals.
Renewables need a backup source to manage their intermittency. It's most often batteries and fossil plants these days. I don't think I need to comment on fossil plants, but batteries production also has a very significant carbon emission budget, and is most often not included in comparisons. Besides, you need to charge the batteries, that's even more capacity required to get on par with the nuclear plant.
With all of these in consideration, IPCC includes nuclear power along with solar and wind as a way to reduce energy emissions.
10 years from now, you might be in a situation where the grid is unstable and capacity is insufficient in front of demand. You will also be facing potential renewal of existing solar panels, wind farms, batteries storage, etc.
If you lack capacity, any attempt at industry relocation locally will be a pipe-dream.
And at that time, you'll say either "it's too late to rely on nuclear now" or "fortunately we're about to get these new power plants running". You're not building any nuclear power plan for immediate needs, you're building for the next decades.
Meanwhile, one country will be ready to take on "clean production" and be very attractive to industrial projects because it already planned all of that years ago and companies will be able to claim "green manufacturing". That country is... China!
For many "lurkers" of reddit, the protest brought some attention to the issue and reddit's disdain for the moderators.
I think it helps with the migration if the communities are not taken by surprise when a mod declares a migration.
Half of the job is to fix issues with existing suff, the other half is to make working stuff more complicated and problematic (aka "upgrade"), so that we're still paid to do the first half.
Spez's comment on moderators showed the world he's not a tiny bit better than Marck "They trust me, dumbfucks!" Zuckerberg.
Yet so many people willingfully trust him with their most personal sensitive information until it's too late.
https://www.insider.com/nebraska-teen-sentenced-jail-abortion-police-facebook-2023-7
Even with that, you still don't see FB users running away from the private data collection and resell platform.
It will be very hard for some moderators to leave because they put so much work in reddit, and leaving would force them to admit they were used by someone who despised them the whole time, and there is no hope he would ever change.
It's similar to women who can't leave their violent companion: they want to believe in something that does not exist, and will stretch their perception of reality to avoid admitting they're wrong.
I do not despise the moderators who won't leave. I pity them.
With all that said, this remind me I wanted to permanently delete my reddit's account. I won't contribute to a BS "users" numbers...
So, if you don't know yet what you're doing, I wouldn't host anything critical yet, but I'm using:
And so far, very few troubles. It's a layer on top of Debian to ease self-hosting. Comes by default with email and XMPP server. You can add Nextcloud and many other services as you wish.
The main issue is probably less meat itself than the ginormous quantities we consume.
Most livestock farming is intensive, meaning they can't rely on grazing alone and need extra food sources, typically corn. They emit methane, a greenhousing gas on steroids.
That grain is produced through very intensive agricultural methods because we can't get enough of it. It consumes ridiculously large amount of water and slowly degrades the soils. Nitrates eventually end up in the sea, causing algea to proliferate while other lifeforms are suffocated. See the dead zone in Mexico's gulf.
71% of agriculture land in Europe is dedicated to livestock feeding.
The percentage must be similar or higher in America, and don't count North America alone: without grains from Brazil, we're dead. Period. So next time you hear the world blaming Brazil for deforestation, keep in mind that a large share of it is to sustain livestocks...
Cattle farming in the USA is heavily subsidized, by allowing farmers to use federal land for grazing for free (I believe something similar is in place in Canada?). The claim they "take care of the land" is absurd: nature has been doing that for millenias without needing any help. First nations have been living in these lands also without supersized cows herds and it was going alright. Farms actually prevent wildlife to take back its place.
But I wouldn't blame them. People in North America (among others, and I live in Canada, definitely me too) eat indecent and unhealthy quantities of meat, and that has to come from somewhere.
Now, simple math will tell you: if everyone in the world was consuming meat in the same quantities as us, there would'nt be enough suitable land on Earth to grow the corn that needs to go with it.
Another thing is not all meats are equal in terms of pollution. From the worst to the least bad, in equivalent kgCO2 per kg of meat you can actually eat: -Veal: 37 -Chicken (intensive, in cage): 18 -Beef: 34 -Pork: 5--7 -Duck, rabbit, pork: 4--5 -Chicken ("traditonal, free range): 3--4 -Egg (for comparison): <2
You can appreciate the orders of magnitude!
There are only 2 ways out of this:
One can be done today, starting with your next meal. We don't need meat every meal, we don't even need meat every day, but it is true that going full vegetarian force a certain gymnastic to get all the nutriments one need.
The other solution is barely getting there, so there are still unknown (food quality, resources consumption, etc.) and the economics may not help it taking off.
The third (and let's face it: current approach at national level everywhere on this issue) option is to do nothing and keep going as if the problems didn't exist. This is guaranteeing a famine in the coming decades. When we'll fail to feed our livestock, and it will start dying, it will be too late to turn around and get the whole agriculture sector to transition. These things take many years.
We're trying to reduce our meat consumption at home, or to favor the least impacting ones. We still eat too much meat, but I hope we can gradually improve.
You mean like asking a fair share of Lemmy's instances ads revenues to be given to media companies?
Reddit was quite abrupt and efficient triggering a migration towards decentralized alternatives (ie: Lemmy). Twitter was taking way too much time to push users to the fediverse (Mastodon, Pleroma, etc.). Elon doesn't like to be the second, so he's rushing the enshitification of the platform to stay ahead of Reddit.
What's interesting here is they no longer need to hack and crack devices through loopholes and backdoors schemes.
All the data they need are already collected by private corporations with the pro-active collaboratron of the users themselves ("Click here to agree to the terms and conditions").
Assume the communication with the app it through Internet. The car must have a 4G chip (too early to see 5G in cars, I think?). So no matter what you pay, it won't work when 4G is retired. With marketing pushing to get new standards always faster, 4G may not last another 20years.
Anyway, bear in mind that once you subscribe, they will most likely collect detailed data about how you use the features and sell that as well...
This is a complex issue, not just because storing radioactive material is complex, but because the "waste" are not a uniform single material. Some have a decaying process of 300 years (90% of the waste, actually), some have a much longer one.
In the beginning of the nuclear era, some wastes were... dumped in the ocean (it's as bad as it sounds). This is fortunately no longer the normal practice. Some dedicated storage sites are used to store them depending on their lifetime.
The latest solution is geologic storage (some caves were found with waste from naturally occurring fission, eons ago, radioactivity never escaped, so let's just... do that?). A site was identified in Finland with a hope it can store them for 100,000 years (of course, we don't have any reference that would last that long...). And the good thing is the storage is "reversible" for the first 100 years (if we change our mind/find better, we can still retrieve the waste during the first 100 years).
Finally, and that will resonate with @Waryle@lemmy.world comment: France had a 4th generation prototype reactor called SuperPhenix. Particularity of a 4th gen reactor is it can use some wastes to produce more energy. SuperPhenix being a prototype, it suffered from many issues through its lifetime. But at the end, it had a 90% uptime, and though it wasn't generating a lot of power (that was never the goal, remember: development...), some reports were recommending to keep it up so that it could have processed part of the existing nuclear waste.
To appeal to the ecologists party allied to the socialist Prime Minister at that time, SuperPhenix was definitely shutdown in 1997. And now, the same ecologists use the nuclear wastes issue as a big reason to push back any plan on nuclear power.
Ok, so obviously, you're not well aware of how the new European open market works, and why France ended up paying part of consumer's bills.
France uses to have a state-owned company, EDF, producing and distributing electricity in France. EDF had a monopole. France had the cheapest electricity of Europe, and EDF was profitable. Sink that in, when you say nuclear is expensive:
EDF was delivering the cheapest electricity of Europe and was profitable.
A decision from the European Union was taken to force all members to switch to an open market. French government at the time was conservative, so they happily went along with it. Everyone "knows" that private sector always does better than whatever has "public" or "state" in its description.
But how would you introduce competition when virtually no one else produces any electricity? How to kickstart it? That's where bright people went very very creative.
Production and distribution of electricity was split as separate activities. EDF spinned off the distribution part of its work. In parallel, a quota of nuclear production was allocated to new companies, "electricity suppliers", so that they got something to sell at an affordable price.
That's where it starts to be interesting: to guarantee a margin to electricity suppliers, so that they would make enough money to invest in production, the daily price of electricity on the market is set to the marginal cost of the most expensive power plant that's turned on. Do you follow me? If today, 99% of electricity is coming from a nuclear power plant, but you need to start a coal power plant to provide the last 1%, all 100% of the electricity that day is billed at the cost of the coal power plant! I am not kidding, I am not making that shit up!
Why prices exploded since last year? Well, you've heard about gas prices, right? Every day a gas power plan is turned on with gas prices through the roof, 100% of the electricity that day is billed at the cost of the gas power plant. That's why France started subsidizing the consumers bills, because most of them could not afford a x6, 7, 10 on their electricity bills.
But at least, we do have competition now, don't we? Well... not on the production side...
No condition on investment was given to the electricity supplier. Read that again. Guess what happened. Electricity suppliers were buying most of their electricity at a cheap regulated cost from EDF and selling it with a big profit to consumers, all while producing nothing themselves. Why would they?? Money is trickling down to them for free!
Even better: as they were more competitive than EDF, thanks to having 0 maintenance and 0 investment to make, and cheap electricity to resell, their customers base grew. Then they found out that they were not getting enough cheap electricity, and they faced a dilemma: buy a larger share of electricity from other real producers, that would have increased their cost, or cap their customers base (or of course, invest in production, but who wants to do that, right?).
They did neither of these. They pleaded to the current government to get MORE cheap electricity from EDF. And the government did that: forced EDF to allocate more of its cheap nuclear electricity to them, increasing the quota. Needless to say that if EDF needed more electricity for their own customers, they were answered that they could buy the more expensive electricity from outside, or invest in more capacity. Makes sense, right? The exact opposite of what the system was supposed to do.
Now, the very best part: when gas price exploded, even the small fraction of electricity bought by the electricity suppliers impacted their cost. It was unacceptable to them. So they raised their rate to be above EDF, or even outright cancelled contracts with their customers, so that customers would go back to EDF (EDF cannot refuse contracts, and is not allowed to adjust its own rates). But... electricity suppliers do not have to give up on their quota from EDF... so...
EDF had to buy back the electricity EDF produces, to companies producing nothing, at the rate of the market, of course, not the rate at which EDF is forced to sell that electricity to these companies. So it's even better now. EDF sells them electricity (which is a virtual sale, electricity still goes from EDF plants to households like it did before). These companies sell it back to EDF with a big margin. Dream business, isn't it?
So France does not subsidize bills because nuclear is too expensive.
France literally subsidizes a scam scheme, in which most of the money going to parasitic companies producing nothing.
Based on https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/120114/how-does-facebook-fb-make-money.asp 39$/user/year for Facebook & Messenger alone. In a country of 5-6M people, let's say 5.5M, with 70% of the population being users ( from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/584917/facebook-users-in-norway-by-age-group/ ), that gives ~3.85M users * 39$ = 150.15M$/year, 12.5M$/month, or 417k$/day. Norway is a rich country, so one should assume a Norway user's revenue is higher than the 39$ average.
So, 100k$/day is certainly a decent figure for Norway's operations, meaning a local Facebook senior manager must be in panic right now. But Would that local senior manager have any power to change anything given Norway is such a small market but yielding would set a precedent for all other EU members? That's what is at stake!
This might be an unpopular post but so'll be it: Mastodon is the existing proof that Meta could kill Mastodon any time.
Mastodon was using a protocol compatible with GNU Social: OStatus, but some features were quickly added without consideration for other implementations.
So when per-post privacy were introduced, for example, they were very public on GNU Social, because their devs had no idea this was coming. And GNU Social was blamed for it.
Instead of having more users, GNU Social is now (almost?) dead. Of course it's not just because of the above. But it wouldn't have been set back so much without Mastodon.
Now, Mastodon is opensource, has more features and some compatible implementations. I run Pleroma myself. But why would one think Meta could not cripple them both?
I wouldn't set expectations too high though: for the retirement bill, there were many protests, millions of people in the streets, all surveys showing a very strong reject by the people, and the reaction was basically: "I got elected, I do whatever the f**k I want!".
Short of a revolution, nothing can change their mind. I'd rather push other parties to include this in their program for the next elections: repel this absurdity.
So is it better to start a nuclear project and hope it can start reducing coal & NG emissions 10 years from now? Or is it better to add solar and wind capacity constantly and at a fraction of the price per MWh?
It's better to do both!!
Nuclear is not more expensive than solar and wind. And today's paradox is solar and wind are cheap because oil is cheap...
Besides, comparing the 2 is totally misleading. One is a controllable source of electricity, the other is by nature an unstable source, therefore you need a backup source. Most of the time, that backup is a gas plant (more fossil fuel...), and some other time it's mega-batteries projects that need tons of lithium... that we also wanted for our phones, cars, trucks etc. Right now, every sector is accounting lithium resources as if they were the only sector that will use it...
And then you have Germany, that shut down all its nuclear reactor, in favor of burning coal, with a "plan" to replace the coal with gas, but "one day", they'll replace that gas with "clean hydrogen" and suddenly have clean energy.
There was a time when nuclear was the right choice, but now it is just not cost effective nor can it be brought online fast enough to make a dent in our problems
So we'll have very very exactly the same conversation 10 years from now, when we'll be 100% renewable but we'll have very frequent power outages. People will say "we don't have time to build nuclear power plan, we need to do «clean gas/hydrogen/other wishful thing to burn»". And at that time, someone will mention that we will never produce enough of these clean fuel but ... How many times do we want to shoot ourselves in the foot??
I think you’re forgetting that once the waters from a dam break dry up you can rebuild…a nuclear accident has the potential to poison the land for generations
In the years to come, we're going to lose much more land just because it won't be suitable for human survival, and that will be on a longer scale than a nuclear disaster. Eliminating fossil fuel should be the sole absolute priority, and nuclear is one tool to achieve it.
Looks like it's happening already. Natural disasters are on the rise, costing billions, insurance companies start bailing out of some area. I was also wondering if international help would come back every year to address a fraction of the wildfire in Canada, Spain, Italy, Greece, and soon pretty much everywhere.
Pretty sure the cost of the disaster is soon going to be unbearable and we'll start abandoning places and infrastructures instead of rebuilding (not officially, of course, we'll just "push back until conditions allow to rebuild" and forget about it as more disasters will occur).
It will be a slow death, though.
Any sources on any of that? That’s a lot of „you just know that“ information, and I do consider myself well informed. I am not from France though.
Hmm... sources, yes. In something that's not in French is a tad more difficult, but I found these:
https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/france-mandates-edf-sell-100-twh-power-under-arenh-scheme-2023.html https://www.reuters.com/article/france-electricity-regulator-idUSL8N1PR6H5
I found that one about EDF regaining customers, losing money in 2022. It includes an addendum: the quota it has to sell was set back to 100TWh. But sorry, you'll have to use a translation service... https://www.leprogres.fr/economie/2022/10/27/pourquoi-edf-gagne-des-abonnes-mais-perd-des-milliards
neither of those points addresses the costs of energy production I quoted above. Those are, to the best of my knowledge, approximately correct. It may very well have been that nuclear was competitive in the past, it isn’t anymore.
I am all but convinced any of this will last. Pressure on solar panel has increased, it is deeply connected to the semiconductor's industry. In the coming decades, it will raise questions on water usage, minerals, etc.
Wind farms occupy very large surfaces, and they already compete with other usage of the land. Dismantling them is problematic too: a large body of concrete is left behind in the ground.
getting scammed by some middle man seems to be a fate that all modern democracies share, though who the middle man is varies country by country :-)
Unfortunately, can't but agree, though it's infuriating every time.
I consider the marginal cost thing to be one of the best acts from the EU. Maybe not in France, but overall it rewards the most efficient energy producer massively, which currently is solar. Those companies can use the excess money to reinvest.
They don't reinvest (in France, I mean). They just cash the money. Keeping EDF as a state-owned monopoly has been working great for France for decades. The same model works great in Québec. There was no need to change it. EDF being state-owned, you can require it to invest in whatever you want: give it target on renewables, etc. What we have here instead is parasitic companies. Crushing majority of the production investment still comes from EDF, and their investment capacity is fading as their finances are gutted in the name of an "open market" ideology.
All bills targeting your freedom are labelled "child porn" or "terrorism".
After terrorists attack in France, state of emergency was declared, special powers to restrainesuspicious powers at home. We MUST protect people frometerrorists, right? If you're against that, which side are you on? Very first usage of the power: restrain non-violent eco-activists to their home so that they don't disturb the COP.
That pattern repeats over and over. They're counting on you being sensitive to "child porn", I bet you the initial list will include "eco-terrorists" sites (label used on anyone attending a climate protest they tried to prevent), political activists sites (you try to be anonymous on Internet? That's SO suspicious!).
I'm sorry for what happened to you, but ri seriously doubt this bill is really intended to prevent that.
So you admit that Israel just carried out a terrorist attack in Lebanon? Or is bombing and killing citizens is terrorism when "they" do it, not when "we" do it?
I use to say "all extremes call for their opposite". Since almost no information ever transpires about this whole scandal, the opposite is to release all the names to the public. It was to be expected. If we were trusting the justice system, this would seem inappropriate. But we have what we have, and making the whole list public is the only guarantee we have that not one of the "bad" guy can escape public's attention. That of course, is valid only if the list is comprehensive and some names have not already been taken out.
It is indeed unfortunate that a lot of people who didn't deserve and didn't want any bad attention will get some.
I'm not saying I agree with the move. I'm saying it was to be expected.
[Edit made: grammar & missing words]
Let's be real: who would work hard to make ONLY millions instead of billions? Most people would obviously rather stay poor.
Theyve had to start shutting down nuclear reactors in summer when water levels get too low,
This is a fake news. Period.
Some reactors had to REDUCE THEIR OUTPUT because otherwise they would exceed the temperature increase they're allowed to cause in the river, this to preserve life in the river. No reactor was shutdown because of a low water stream.
What happened last year is a systematic defect was found in an external protection layer, and the decision was made to fix all the reactors having the same potential defect at once. The work took longer than expected, and that caused France having very limited capacity for months, causing worries about power outage.
Not to say it could never happen in the future, but it didn't yet.
I really wish they had opened all of the system.
I mean: what is it they can still lose? I'm pretty sure a few licenses are not making them break even. Do they fear some third parties would copy the OS and release phones with it? Would that not be a sign that other companies trust in the OS and help them land bigger contracts?
/e/ managed to get a business off with a full opensource stack, without building the phones themselves. What prevents Jolla to try the same approach?
They could have been the main developers of the true Linux opensource phone OS. Instead, they're going to get passed by Plasma Mobile, and then they'll have nothing left to offer.
That's why you get "don't put living animals in the microwave oven" in the instructions.
If Tesla didn't explicitely wrote "don't put your f***ing finger in the way on purpose after multiple attempts to close it!" he may have a chance.
He will plead a trauma from the loss of trust in his beloved car brand and the credibility damage on his Youtube channel and ask for M$.
For example:
There are others. Plenty of small/medium businesses just don't have the resources to develop small computers and the matching software stack. In that regards, the RPi is an appealing choice.
It IS literally a Linux distribution, based on Debian with a layer on top of it for easy admin and managing applications. So you don't install it on Linux, you just install it.
Mozilla downsizes as it
refocuses on Firefox and AIdrops multiple products and layoff 60 so that its current budget can accomodate the stratospheric compensation of its new CEO.