while cheaper in some contexts and somewhat scalable, renewables are nowhere near being as scalable or effective as nuclear, specially as tensions with China rise
Renewables are vastly more scalable and effective than nuclear.
You mentioned China. Last year, China brought more than 100x more PV on line than they did nuclear (on a rated power basis; levelized basis maybe 30x as much.)
Nuclear power which currently has zero new commercial reactors under construction in the US while backsliding as an energy source due to cost and construction timelines now apparently is "effective" and "scalable".
Renewables can be destroyed by a war, but it will not take ten years to rebuild and connect it again to the grid when the war is over. Is not only cheaper, but allows a gradual recover of the electric supply. With nuclear a recover is much more rigid and rushing it is potentially catastrophic.
ok but lol you are still obviously denying and acting blind to the fact that for many many years, that neither we will nor our lungs will get back, coal had to be ramped up and overused in Germany, Nuclear is safe and effective and until we actually solve the battery problem most of the world should switch to nuclear if we want to survive, Yale has tried to fit the numbers on many occasions but not even them can disagree that nuclear is required
> ok but lol you are still obviously denying and acting blind to the fact that for many many years, that neither we will nor our lungs will get back, coal had to be ramped up and overused in Germany
This simply isn't true. Coal use for electricity has been declining consistently in Germany and especially since the first shutdowns of nuclear plants (cca 2011). And the replacement was not natural gas as in e.g. the US.
Looks like coal usage for electricity production indeed only went up for ~3 years around 2011, probably we can consider that a mere blip within the downward trend.
Wind and solar indeed seem to pick up what nuclear used to bring to the energy mix. Gas usage is only slightly up over 30 years, which doesn’t look like it’s directly substituting nuclear — but surely it could have gone down had nuclear be kept around?
(Personally, I wish politics would have pushed harder against coal and simply ignored nuclear for a couple more decades. But political feasibility is important ofc, and I don’t know how hard of a sell that would have been in 2010.)
I don't know what would've surely happened. It's easy to think well if they did this not that all the positives would remain they'd just be better. I think life is more complicated than that.
In general what I think is people make a pariah out of Germany and its energy choices, but this is mostly based on false data, which tells me enough. The debate is riddled with false data which lead to even worse conclusions. In the end the numbers are positive and that's all what's important for me. There are better candidates for criticism when looked at individually or even globally, what the individual strategies accomplish on a global scale. So when looked at globally, the German energy transition has accomplished a ton. E.g. the 600TW of solar this year never would've happened without it, which more than offsets the 10-15GW of nuclear they switched off, most of which was past its retirement age.
curios honestly, why not and what do you think that actually merits filling a case? I am genuinely interested on hearing the mental gymnastics you do in order to hate consumers
The access was intentional. The botch was presumably an error, but that doesn't matter. What matters is the "authorization" issue. Was HP authorized to access the computer? Probably. Were they authorized to damage the computer? No. There's room for legal argument.
CFAA: intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss.
The point is that fighting this is a lose-lose for HP. Either HP has to argue in court that they have a contractual right to brick your computer, or they have to make you happy enough to drop the case.
Visualize the press coverage of HP arguing on the record that they have the right to brick your computer.
Yes - the CFAA as a criminal issue requires "mens rea", the intention to commit a crime. Very few laws (such as involuntary manslaughter) have exceptions to this.
If you break someone's shit by accident, they can still sue you, and people should probably sue HP, but you can't try to have a prosecutor bring them to a criminal trial under the CFAA.
No, but it usually makes it civil liability and not criminal liability. For the most part (there are exceptions), you can't accidentally commit a crime.
When I was younger, I used to believe that the antiquated image of the hipster or upper-class white Starbucks artist who owns a Mac was a cliché, an invention of the boomers. But as I have had to deal with some creative teams.
I have come to loathe and disdain this kind of person I did not think even existed a decade ago. The sad truth is that a lot of people of a certain demographic will prefer to die before even switching to Windows, let alone Linux or something open. And sadly, a small part of the tech world is the same; they think that their experience with Windows and Android more than a decade ago is reflective of how they work now. Thus, Apple could spit on their faces, and yet they will still like it. Sadly, nothing to do with people who just suck up to modern Apple.
