Given that the Prime Minister appointed an ideologue Greenpeace activist as the head of Climate policy, I too am skeptical that Germany has reversed its decision.
* Germany has no prime minister, Germany has a chancellor.
* The prime minister didn't appoint her, the cabinet did.
* She is not head of climate policy, she is a special envoy for climate policy as part of the federal foreign office. This is a diplomatic position. That means such decisions are out of scope here entirely.Non-computer sciences and engineering comment sections are full of people speaking their guesses with authority.
Especially in a multi cluster, kustomize, istio, argocd, Jenkins on bare metal over multiple physical data centers.
To me with intermediate data dev ops knowledge this is quite a level of complexity.
Any idea why this is the case? I wonder, because I would expect most engineers to have had a university education that taught them respect for the complexity of things around us in the first place. The realisation alone of how little one really knows about one's own subject after several years of study should make one very cautious when it comes to subjects one has only heard about in passing. Or is it simply that an overwhelming majority of modest people simply remain silent, and that is why a few uninformed who rush to judgement stick out?
Technical people with some knowledge of a topic will often find themselves on the peak of mount stupid (see comic).
In other words, knowing just enough to feel like you know a lot, not knowing enough to realize how much you don't know.
And... well university education often doesn't succeed in teaching people to estimate their knowledge on a subject appropriately. "I don't know but I want to know more!" isn't a very common outcome when a topic comes up. I think it really has to do with people who spend a lot of time being the most knowledgable one on most topics around getting used to just having an answer whether or not it's correct.
Edit: I searched to find a dictionary for word connotations, best I found in a couple mins is https://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/~ychoi/connotation/
But you are right, it's not a thing you'd really say about somebody you liked.
When you're so rabidly anti-nuclear that you ignore the fact uranium is 1.5 million times as energy-dense as coal, you are an ideologue. Uranium has so much energy per kilogram you could fuel the world's reactors by shipping it via airplane.
There's plenty to criticize about the environmental damage of uranium mining. Carbon emissions is not one of them.
It's my opinion this choice to attack nuclear energy by casting it in whatever critical light is trendy rather than its actual weaknesses demonstrates Morgan is against nuclear energy for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with its actual dangers, hence she is doing little or no risk/reward calculation, and that her future choices will not be based on human energy needs and accurate assessments of nuclear technology and industry.
The arguments they make is that producing electricity and most usage of electricity are bad for our planet and thus we should use less electricity if we want to preserve it (and as a result wouldn't need to add extra nuclear or coal capacity).
This part is often forgotten which results of thinking they want to replace nuclear by coal, which would be absurd.
I imagine it's probably hard to imagine that someone would think that seriously from a US perspective (one of my US based colleague asked "when are you getting AC in Europe??" when here many people are wondering if the Americans are going to stop being crazy with their freezing AC ^^)
Unless they have ideas about how people and society can continue to accomplish all of the things we want to, using less electricity, this is not a serious argument. It's simply ideological fluff, advocating for people to embrace a lower standard of living for nothing in return.
If a person advocates against cleaner sources of energy on the grounds that "we should just be using less energy", then I don't think they are a serious person and they should be ignored. Let them go live their hippie life on a commune somewhere and free up the space for the adults to talk about real solutions.
But there are also plenty of things that can be done to reduce energy consumption without impacting anyone's little confort. Regarding thermal confort the obvious solution is to improve insulation so they wouldn't have to heat or cool as much and might even save money in the long run
The anti-nuclear-power movement started 60 years ago. Imagine what our past would look like now if instead we had replaced all coal and gas with nuclear back then. Is there a chance we would have had more disasters? Sure. But it's impossible to know. What we do know for a fact is that coal and gas emissions are killing the planet.
We have a problem with CO2 emissions and here you are talking about better insulation in homes to reduce power usage. We have a great, direct solution to reduce emissions by orders of magnitude. But no, let's continue to burn gas and coal, just use less of it.
This is why I say anti-nuclear isn't a serious position.
It's not hard to imagine, I'm French and we did replace most things with nuclear back then ^^
The result is that right now we are purchasing (probably coal made) electricity to our neighbors because around 50% of our theorical nuclear capacity is unavailable either for maintenance or because we don't manage to cool them enough with the current heat :)
Nuclear is certainly a good thing overall but not the obvious and only solution to all problems as some would like to believe.
Of course there are many upside to it too (low carbon emissions and not from Russia among the obvious ones)
But it's pretty rare to find balanced and nuanced speech on the topic unfortunately, and I don't find the anti nuclear side to be any worse than the pro nuclear side on this.
> Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.
Not sure about Greenpeace though, they are a bit messed up.
Nuclear is carbon friendly, might even be climate change friendly but its a long way from being environmentally friendly.
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/issues...
"Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants."