This should be marked as a bot account I think. They’re posting like crazy on the fediverse.

If it is the same as Belgium then I think you’re still personally liable for the other half (but not more than that).

I do not know the details of this story but they have indicated that they can not be competitive with Chinese imports based on current safety and human standards and costs (for electric trucks). Unions and good working conditions are expensive. Western manufacturers have an advantage in combustion engine and drivetrain expertise.

I doubt they want to destroy the world. They certainly want to continue running a profit. Competition lowers profits. But being really incompetitive means losing the market. Losing thr market means no trucks built by our human standards.

We should require imports to at least have been built on the same standards as hold in our market. We should speed up ecological efforts and demand good worker conditions, safety standards and ecological standards from every product that reaches our market.

The internet is great for connecting machines. HTTP(s) could even be used to transfer messages. Blockchain is good for maintaining a historical record. The farther down the chain you go, the harder it becomes to rewrite history. You pay for this feature by requiring everyone to permanently keep the whole shared historical record. Some workarounds for the permanent storage of the whole history exist but that’s blockchain in a basic form. The permanent record is a nice feature for things like financial transactions.

Blockchain bros tried to convince us blockchain is great for sharing information in an effort to increase its relevance. You may connect it for that reason. In their defence, blockchain can be used for data transfer, it’s just not that great at it.

Blockchain could be used to assert trust, but most problems have equally good or better alternative solutions for that. Very often these use digital signatures and public-private keypairs.

You may want to look at YaCy for a decentralised search engine.

It’s better than what they do today. Better is good. We just have to raise the bar every so often.

I don’t think it is realistic to go from raw materials to a fully built car at scale in Europe today but I’d love to hear otherwise. Bringing back manufacturing will take some time just as it took some time to move to China with their low wages.

Not saying you should buy new, but compare prices with Starlabs and Slimbook etc too when you’re at it. System76 and certainly frame.work are more on the expensive side. Slimbook has had a good spare parts catalog for my model, no idea about others. Maybe wait for a Canada-EU trade deal XD

I don’t study the market but I’m not counting on price drops in the coming 2 years. Real cost will likely go down only with inflation.

There are cases where it is actually necessary. An example would be to download personal documents from a government website. A proof of good behaviour would be one of those. Opening a bank account online is another one with current legislation.

I think it could go further, but this seems to be a well balanced step in the right direction. It is achievable. We can build from there if more os needed.

The text is short and many will not read the full content. More detail would be nice. This is great as a start for debate so the initiative would be a net positive. Get people on the band wagon and see who sticks around for another round.

Yes. Thank you for repeating that. It’s an imoortant message.

For many sectors that is sufficient, for some more research is needed. For example: it was (and is) a challenge for transport and that has already improved. Any switch has a risk factor. As the price of fossil fuels goes up and the risk of future availability/price increases, businesses will seek greener electricity based solutions over fossil fuel based solutions. So let’s send the message that fossil fuels are on the way out.

There may be a lot of money to lobby for fossil fuels, but there’s a lot of merits in choosing green energy so let’s keep doing that.

That sounds like a very reasonable argument but I fear everyone has such an excuse. The other sides have their own arguments. The poor will find it more just that they can get the corresponding funds. The richer without labour laws do not value them and will likely not care about the consequences but will findbthemselves worthy of the corresponding funds.

Net result: everyone keeps pumping oil, the price is low, renewables are less attractive.

The solution is to “just stop oil” regardless of the merits it has so it becomes increasingly attractive to find alternatives even in tougher sectors.

Decentralisation. I don’t want to fall in the same trap picking a huge platform which can only be ran by a large entity. Federation in Forgejo is taking quite long.

We made a PoC on top of Solid which does work so it is clearly possible, but the code quality is too low to trust the solution.

I love the argument you make here. I disagree, but it’s a direct, hard and positive set of statements.

Nuclear takes a decade to build, it concentrates power to a large actor, and we have issues with handling waste (including closing down the plantO. The risks are huge when in a war zone (see Ukraine) and when things go bad they go bad for many. Further, nuclear can’t rapidly scale up or down so it’s not great at handling fluctuations in demand, similar but less extreme than wind and solar without batteries.

Progress has been made. With each step we think it’s now really safe. But a few decades later it turns out we still had a bit more to learn. In the seventies they were telling us it was safe too.

Ever since there was a glimmer of hope that costly reactors could get built again there has been a weird amount of positive posts about how great nuclear is. I don’t think we know how to store anything for 1000 years because we have not had the necessary structures in place for so long yet and thus we are de facto finding that out.

Batteries are not cheap. But solar and wind are! I think, based on what I’ve read, that that is a great path forward. It is safe, and it puts power in the hands of the people. No need to buy uranium from the next slowly corrupting regime. No need to get threatened by a company that they’ll ahut the plant down. You have read other things and believe nuclear is the right way. No CO2, safe, good power delivery, limited space use. Neither of us is calling the shots on these decisions.

I guess one will clearly be better than the other based on geography and available workforce.

If we can continue to choose the least impactful and most distributed and cheapest long-term (including plant cleanup, windmill recycling, solar panel recycling, nuclear waste storage, battery recycling) then we’re on a good path. I hope we can do that whilst subsidizing research on all these fronts.

The way I’ve used it is more that the text gives an explanation and a structure regardless of what the framework requires. It’s not the exact algorithm per se but it could if it’d ver very complex for some reason. It ends up reading like a book with code snippets in it which turns out to run the application.

I also generally edited the code directly and indirectly and then detangled or tangled such that the files were in sync.

I agree with that to some extent. It was probably not the engineers’ task, but as I’ve read in the past, our models of the seventies were not that far off. They did not plan for it probably because they were asked not to, or perhaps they (like many others) did not want to believe in the doomsday predictions, or perhaps they (like many others) believed it would be solved by science by now. The warnings were there though, we chose to ignore what was coming at us if we did not change our ways.

My point is that by stating the reactor could work, you imply that there’s a trivial solution: stop protecting nature to have nuclear electric energy in France. You could state explicitly that we should or should not. By leaving it open it feels to me like we’re pretending nuclear is ready for the climate change ahead of us if only we could get way with that stupid nature. An argument could be had I suppose.

As a side-note: It did make me wonder if you could work with complete evaporation. Not dumping any water back. That would also be horrible for nature but I don’t know if anything in the system has to run at less than 100C.

To my knowledge, but I did not look this up, these constraints were known at design time. I don’t recall these changing. Hence the statement may be true, but pointing at the known constraint after the fact shifts the blame to nature conservation rather than infrastructure and climate change. This at a time where climate change focus is of utmost importance.

Hence, albeit factually correct, it is disingenuous to give it the focus.

If these constraints were added in the past 10 years then that could be considered different depending on the reasons for the change.

What has changed are the water levels and base temperatures. Our environment has changed and the infrastructure has not been adapted to it. Luckily we have other tools for generating electric power ready to be rolled out.

That twists it to “protecting nature raises your electricity bill” where it’s just that that the plant, when built, did not take into account water levels could drop this low. As if they assumed climate change wouldn’t be this influential or something.

Quick back of the napkin calculation assuming evolving tech.

9ft is about 3m.

A 100kW wind turbine needed a tower height of 30m.

That’s a factor 10 difference.

If we could assume the tower needs to scale linearly in width, depth, and height, that would make a pole cost difference of 10x10x10 = 1000.

I did not make this up but 100kW/1000 is 100W so it would be on par with a 30m high pole.

The wind blows substantially stronger higher up so I’m not comparing to those on purpose, and this was easy to calculate. I also don’t know the cost or real size of this 9ft pole. If it doesn’t need blades it’ll be even lower and it might be cheaper. Perhaps it can be scaled up too.

This would make for a great phone wallpaper if it were a bit taller.

offlineimap and a few others do this. You don’t need to search for a Google specific tool but the tags might not map that well to folders, though if you treat them as folders it’s certainly imported. These tools are designed to take your (full or partial) mailbox on the go so you can work offline, hence they support incremental bidirectional syncing. Tools like offlineimap see quite some use so they should work as expected.

I love how that last picture doesn’t have artificial lighting but rather a box standing in the back, some visible cables, a boom arm waiting to be mounted, and a great choice of headset.

So real instead of an artificially clean room with professional lighting for the camera shot. Much appreciated.

Did you mount this on feet for a standing desk and is that a challenge with the weight of the slab? Looks great!

As a neighbour, I’d like to thank you for helping EU production of BEV and making people believe in it.

Germans are so hard on Germany. I only hear negativity online from Germans.

Maybe you can start building from what you already have? Working from the ground up is what the rich like because it means accepting worse worker conditions. Don’t fall for that trap.

I honestly think German car manufacturers have done their fair share when looking at manufacturers with heritage. Almost no one did as much!

BMW made the i3 at the time of the Tesla Model S. It was rushed, too expensive to produce, but it was good for its time. It is still a blast to drive! It is light on its feet with a great chassis. They made the i8 in tandem which helped make electric cool and accepted from a driver’s car perspective. The iX is fugly but it’s apparently amingst the most comfortable cars. It wasn’t a financial success and BMW took a different route after but their electric cars are good driver cars for today’s abysmal standards.

Mercedes created a whole separate platform for electric cars. If you look at the EQS prototypes you’ll see that it was gorgeous. The production car is great but very very ugly. People believed Mercedes was going to go fully electric whether Mercedes meant it or not. Their offering after rebates of the EQB was cost-effective when compared to the Ioniq 5. That is a lot of car, great! It alsl sold a lot of those. Innovation on the CLA means it’s very frugal. Mercedes did its part.

These are expensive cars, sure. But some have sold a lot and they moved the industry.

VW publicly turned around their whole company. They didn’t sell but they made everyone believe that they were buying their last combustion engine car. That is a hige driver in today’s market. The roof workers here were laughing when one of them said “I’ll never drive electric” because they were sure there would be no other option. That is a big change. Execution of the ID3 was bad, but no one complained when Ford used the exact same steering wheel in their cars. The electric Porches seemed to sell well to an audience that really wanted to hear the flat six. The Audi etron took the market of rich people who wanted to drive electric but did not want to be seen as such. VW was dragged through the mud for the emisions scandal that everyone in the industry was participating in.

The Germans made BEV feel premium and the future we should all long for. Milking that market failed and backfired.

Compared to KIA and Hyundai that’s not impressive, they executed better coming from a lower positioned brand and making it more chique. Ford created a model 3 clone with the Mach E. That’s ok but not great. Attaching the Mustang name to it made people believe Ford found this to be important. They didn’t move it as far as Mercedes, BMW, VW at all. Their EU BEV offering was essentially based on VW’s chassis 2 years ago? Maybe still today? They failed at producing the F150 lightning. They did net up a new team and were publicly struggling to re-school their engine designers to stay relevant. Most US based manufacturers seem to have missed the mark. The Nissan Leaf made great progress but was not as technologically sound as the i3, many leafs of the day don’t work anymore. They were dull and for people who cared about the environment, not for people who cared about car culture (whether we like it or not, it’s a thing). Nissan just stopped innovating. Jaguar had a great offering but is essentially Chinese and stopped innovating on the platform so are now behind. Stellantis did the Citroen thing of quirky cars which seems to have somewhat worked out? Their 45kmh BEV sold well. Mostly to 16 year olds who should have been cycling but it sold. They kept the lower end of the market with basic innovation. Renault came late with a sensible offering but is there now. They certainly did not create that early belief in a transition. Toyota? The Prius was very important but then nothing. Subaru? Nope. Mitsubishi? Made the i-Miev which was a hit for being a BEV at the time, it was not a great car but not expensive by today’s standards. Battery replacement is a challenge. They did not continue on this path.

Tesla made the most positive moves for BEV. Much hated now, but we have to give that to them. In an industry where no one thought a new manufacturer could stand up, they created a car brand that made BEV cool. It came with its own blend of quality control issues and challenging worker conditions.

The Chinese leapfrogged the market with the intent of leapfrogging. Heavily subsidised to enter the market, ready to push other players out. They focussed on electric know-how and it worked. Again, not an established manufacturer and different worker conditions.

German execution was not fast enough. The established manufacturers are not well equipped for disruptive events. We must remember that people were not ready to switch. It was and is expensive. But in the grand scheme of things, I find German manufacturers to have been an important piece of the puzzle in the switch. I hate the lobbying for combustion engines and would rather hear about lobbying for BEV R&D. We should ensure worker conditions can stay or improve whilst producing what we need to limit climate change.

Go Germans. Please produce BEV driver cars.