biehl

Well, I looked up "Mankala model", so for TVO and Olkiluoto the investors and the consumers are largely the same - which means that the investors/consumers will just directly over-pay for the electricity, by having a larger total cost (mostly the capital costs) than what they could have paid by buying the electricity on Nordpool. Or conversely, they will never recoup their investment if they just sell the energy on Nordpool.

Finland doesn't guarantee prices for nuclear for some period? That sounds unlikely. The Hinkley Point plant in the UK was recently guaranteed a very high "strike price" to get it built

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...

And those "subsidies" are free market! In Denmark power generators submit competing bids on the lowest required guaranteed price when building new wind power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horns_Rev#Horns_Rev_3_offshore...

The (spot)-market price on Nordpool is mostly related to variable costs, and doesn't really cover construction and other fixed costs.

That energy generators need a higer price than spot-price doesn't really warrant calling it "subsidies".

In Denmark land-wind is the cheapest (LCOE) energy.

Yes, that is the first thing I look for too! reviewable.io, is the only other I know of that handles this.

Ouch. Sounds likely, but I went looking too :(

And even worse. There seems to be distinct mindsets where some people care about sustainable things like soil-quality, erotion and product quality and other people seem to care distinctly less about these things.

I think the current GMO-reality is harmful because it seems to cater to the people who care less about sustainable practices. And possibly even promote anti-sustainable thinking.

For that reason I avoid GMO products. There is simply no reason for me to support the kind of farmers who don't care about sustainable practices. And right now GMO seems to be a strong signal about that.

I got the Dell XPS 13 in 2013 and I was pretty satisfied. Great screen, speedy disk etc. In ubuntu 16.04 the touchpad works great, and I think the latest XPS models have larger and better touchpads.

Linus also ended up buying an XPS 13 recently :)

https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/VZj8vxXdtfe

Possibly. I don't really use debuggers often enough to use keys ...

I recently updated and played with Ubuntu 16.04 on my 2013 Dell XPS 13. Everything worked surprisingly well.

Two finger scroll, tap to click etc. It is fast and smooth.

However, I don't need 32GB RAM enough for that to be a deciding factor between eg. a Dell XPS 15 and the new MBP 15".

I think of myself as a pretty regular software developer, and the new MBP sounds like it matches my priorities pretty well.

    # Thinner and lighter
    # Good specs
    # Able to drive 5K monitors (QHD retina)
    # Touch ID
    # I love a large track-pad

Also I don't seem hit by the claimed negatives.

    # I don't realistically use more than 16GB RAM in daily work
    # I don't use function keys
    # I don't use VI :). I do use ESC for modals though.

The price is a bit high, but I can wait a refresh-cycle for lower prices.

The difference in value should be the "synergies" that combining the companies will yield.

You mean "Considering how most of his current businesses exist with some subsidies to slightly counter the massive government subsidies to fossile fuel companies and polluting-car externalities" ?

I've run Sourcetree for the past three years, and I'm running the Sourcetree beta for Mac right now.

Just as a data-point: I'm quite satisfied with the UI changes. The UI is pleasing and functional.

For the work that I use Sourcetree for, it is not broken left and right. It is not broken at all. For staging files, browsing branches, browsing stashes, switching branches, doing the occational cherry-pick it works fine. It works really great for doing fine-grained (line or chunck) staging.

> organic is [...] often a proxy for higher quality in general, but that's not universally true.

Agree.

> Modern inorganic farming methods are necessary for feeding the world. If the whole world switched to organic farming, there would be cataclysmic mass starvation.

Most certainly false! By reducing meat consumption or increasing labor intensity organic agriculture could easily support the whole world.

For many of the places where food security is needed the most, increased soil quality, as supported by organic agriculture, would help a lot. http://www.unep.org/pdf/SmallholderReport_WEB.pdf

Yes. Leaning new technologies (and using them appropriately) is probably a valid indicator of something to hire for. But certainly not the only one. A personal project might show of better indicators - design skills, communication skills etc

That doesn't seem like a practical distinction. If eg. a grant is to "promote the progress of science" on some topic, then accepting that the research is communicated only on posters, in narrow circles, or orally would not seem to fulfill the purpose of the grant (compared to full, written publication, available for everyone to read).

Yes. I looked for that too. Those are the screens that bring by far the most value for me in gui clients... (instead of "git add -p")

My two main arguments for "cleaned up history" are

1) Reviews are much more enjoyable when the commits reflect the final understanding of the problem rather than false starts etc.

2) Looking back through history is much more enjoyable when the commits reflect the final understanding of the problem rather than false starts etc.

Same here. I granted Ingress access in Nov 2015

Nice comment here https://storify.com/KyleSiler/dupuis-on-sciencemagazine-sci-...

Yes, if all of those things were non-rivalrous, and had neglible marginal cost.

Possibly. For Pfizer that would surely mean eliminating patents on medicine.

Apple for example, that would mean eliminating patents on software and hardware, copyright on software, design-patents etc.

One good reason to tax corporate profit is that (large) corporate profit is a market failure (lack of competition) - and a profit tax can help lessen that failure.

Others pushed back too - and were bought off eg. Barnes & Noble and SuSE/Novell.

I find it very likely that many "politicians and lazy academics" actually already know it to be false that patents is a cost-effective driver of innovation. However, it is just so darn easy to count patent and claim something like "innovation is rising" or "patent count is falling, we have to hand out more patents so innovation can be seen to rise" etc.

But they provide a lousy and expensive filtering.

So-called "high impact" journals suffer more retractions. http://peterdedmonds.blogspot.dk/2015/06/retractions-and-hig...

Society is most definitely well-served by completely decimating [legacy publishers] economic model. Legacy journals stand in the way of progress and they are laughably inefficient in what they do (filtering / online storage / layout (really!) )

My experience is similar, however more like: Groovy === happy developers

Or "How did companies perform when absolute and relative CEO pay was lower in general"?

Legacy science publishers are one of the best examples of copyright fail - how times have changed such that the current rules are no longer aligned with reasonable goals of current society.