cedilla

It's a book, not a demonstration.

In any case, North Koreans are not taught that South Korea is just like any other part of North Korea. The idea that the North Korean people and leadership are all buffoons who make the weirdest of lies possible is already Orwellian enough.

People want a lot of stuff in Firefox. However, people also seem to neatly bin all features into either "obviously necessary part of a web browser" and "obviously extraneous nonsense" when what they really mean is "things I personally want" and "things I personally don't want".

In Germany it could be computer fraud, which criminalises entering incorrect data into a computer system for financial gain. I don't know if "watching a different set of shows on Netflix" would qualify.

Labour shortages makes finding scabs hard.

If there were that many, why do people only list the same handful again and again? And where are all the /operators/ of those websites complaining? Is it possible that installing an XSLT processor on the server is not as big a hassle as everyone pretends?

Again: this is nothing like Flash or Java applets (or even ActiveX). People were seriously considering Apple's decision to not support Flash on iPhone as a strategic blunder due to the number of sites using it. Your local news station probably had video or a stock market ticker using Flash. You didn't have to hunt for examples.

> Any system accessible with a firewall exception is not "air-gapped" by definition.

I completely agree. Maybe I should have put "air-gapped" in quotes.

Sure there are examples of websites using XSLT, but so far I've only seen the dozen or maybe two dozen, and it really looks like they are extremely rare. And I'm pretty sure the EU parliament et. al. will find someone to rework their page.

This really is just a storm in a waterglass. Nothing like the hundreds or tens of thousands of flash and java applet based web pages that went defunct when we deprecated those technologies.

If I had a dollar for each time I was told that they would get me a firewall exception to get to the air gapped system...

It does make it much easier to do stuff but kinda defeats the purpose.

Probably. We keep watching all kind of stuff after getting baited into it. AI slob is annoying, but we do want to know what chefs do about sticky pizza dough, or what that secret in the pyramids is, or how the kid reacted to what the cat did, or (insert your guilty pleasure here).

Many governments and public bodies used Flash, ActiveX and Java applets, but I'm certainly glad we got rid of those.

This would need to be tested. There's a lot going on already during normal take-offs. Now you're in a situation where the engine fire alarm is going off, probably a few other alarms, you got so many messages on your display that it only shows the most urgent one, you're taking quick glances at 50 points in the cockpit already.

And how would the cameras even work? Are the pilots supposed to switch between multiple camera feeds, or do we install dozens of screens? And then what, they see lots of black smoke on one camera, does that really tell them that much more than the ENG FIRE alert blaring in the background?

Maybe this could help during stable flight, but in this situation, when the pilots were likely already overloaded and probably had only a few seconds to escape this situation - if it was possible at all - I can't imagine it being helpful.

If you work near water you should be wearing a life vest. Especially if it's an area that may be hard to get to or where other dangers are around or if you're alone.

If, when asked why most mathematicians are men, from the whole universe of possibilities there are only two reasons that come to your mind: women are emotional, or it's random chance - then I have really bad news about your talent for male rationality and critical thinking.

What an absolutely hilarious idea that appeals to emotion are a uniquely feminine way to tackle a problem, while men just go on and make logical arguments, which I assume they then scrutinize rationally to be convinced by the most rigorously argued-for one.

I thought you were referring to that. But what's so bad about highly profitable places receiving less subsidy? Framed that way it's not as outrageous, right?

There's no malicious encouragement to build wind power where it does not make sense.

But why are there subsidies anyway? Well, all forms of power are subsidised, nuclear power the most, and renewables and coal about to the same tune (in Germany). Also, the electricity price is very low in Germany. Often lower as in France. You know, neither coal plant operators nor wind power operators profit from the extremely high consumer price point. So even though wind power is the cheapest form of energy to produce (in Germany), even it can't break even all the times, which is a scary prospect for investors.

You're mixing up historic costs with current costs. As an illustration: the moon landing cost just $25 billion dollars, the Manhattan project even just $2 billion, what do you think a project of these scales would cost today?

You're also mixing the status quo with your (unclear) desire of how the world should be. Germany spent the last 80 years to build up an energy grid built on coal – nuclear peaked at 30%!. Of course they emit more CO2 today compared to the French!

But if anything, that's an argument for why Germany should start agressively building out renewables (aggression there was abandoned 20 years ago by the Merkel admin).

> 3 trillion or more till 2045

Looking at decades is a surefire way to get big numbers. But depending on your starting points (I guess 1999 during SPD/Greens coalition), that's just €60 billion per year. A lot of money but not exactly shocking.

> The idea to produce wind in the south of Germany is part of such madness.

Even the state of Bavaria - not exactly known to be mad for wind power - classifies more than half of its area as containing locations suitable for wind power. Of course that's nothing compared to Lower Saxony, but that's why they aim for total installed capacity of just 6 GW by 2050 (source for all that is the Bayrischer Windatlas issued by the, again, very sceptical of wind power, CSU government of Bavaria).

You're really just decade old fud against renewables. Do you really think that in the whole of 70 thousand square kilometres of Bavaria there are no points where the wind is strong enough 150 m above ground to produce power profitably? Because that's just not true. And 6 GW, by the way, are just one to four thousand modern turbines. Across the largest state of Germany. There's nothing mad about that at all.

I don't know what the name of the internet law is, but I think it goes something like: when someone tells you about a regulation and how outrageously stupid it obviously is, they probably misrepresented it or frames it in an adventurous way.

In this case, there is no "increased subsidies for less feasible regions". And if you know anything about the region, it's very implausible. Southern states are generally not forerunners for wind power, with Bavaria's governing party being downright hostile. They are not increasing subsidies, that's for sure.

My best guess is that this refers to either differences in subsidies between the states - Lower Saxony has lower to no subsidies because building wind turbines is popular and profitable there without additional funding. Bavaria meanwhile probably lacks experts and has to bring them down from Lower Saxony or NRW, increasing building costs even at locations just as suitable as in Lower Saxony. So yeah, they might still have state subsidies, but not because they want wind power where it's infeasible. You wouldn't find an operator for that.

Another guess is that maybe this about the process for bidding on subsidies. This is a method where for large-scale projects operators can bid on executing projects not just with money but also by the amount of subsidies. For off-shore power, that subsidy often goes negative now, i.e. it's practically a license cost now. That does indeed mean that less desirable projects, which are probably less ideal for power generation, receive more subsidies, but that's a far cry from building wind power in "infeasible" locations.

Electricity prices are only very tangentially related to production cost. As you say yourself, grid costs are a factor.

> France has lower electricity prices

France has incredibly high subsidies for nuclear power, and it's still not enough. And their newest power plant cost 20 billion just in construction for a paltry 1.6GW, and to even begin new ones they need to subsidy them with 100€ per MWh (which is about thirty-three times the subsidies wind power recieves in Germany).

If anything, France is a nice example of how it's maybe nice to /have/ a fleet of nukes, but Germany does not have them nor do they have the time to build up reactors. Even if there were politicians interested in paying for them (because the free market sure isn't).

Why wouldn't you build wind turbines in Southern Germany? "Generally less wind" does not mean "wind power is infeasible", which it is absolutely not. There are fewer good spots, but that's why, say, the state of Bavaria aims for less than one fifth of the total capacity than the state of Lower Saxony, despite being almost twice as large.

It's also not "aggressively" subsidised at all. It's actually about 0.3 cents per kWh actually produced, which is basically nothing compared to fossil power subsidies (8.6 cents per kWh using gas, or 20 cents per kWh using coal), and let's not even start talking about nuclear power (34 cents per kWh)

Wind power is so cheap compared to fossil and even a bit cheaper than solar, so maybe Germany should start expand it agrresively.

Speed bumps work but putting big flower pots in the way is even better. It forces people to slow down without giving them the feeling that they get slowed down for no reason.

We humans are so easy to trick.

Why would the future value of the company not benefit you? Do your shares get stolen or cease to exist? I assumed you were to sell them.

There's no reason to speculate about who the future shareholder will be, nor is there any good reason to just assume that favouring short-term gains will favour the current shareholders more. It's also unknown if a shareholder would prefer long-, mid- or short term gains.

Favouring short term gains over anything else is obviously wrong – Amazon could sell AWS for 5 billion dollars tomorrow, but I don't think you'd argue that this would be in their interest at all, even though it's just giving priority to current shareholders over more distant ones.

Yes – "with rightsholders who want their characters generated by users. "

So it's not about reimbursing "rightsholders" they rip off. It's about giving a pittance to those who allow them to continue to do so.

Sorry, trying to give a pittance to them.

Fish was weird at first, with it's insistence on `or` instead of `||`, and `and` instead of `&&`. Since they relented on this, there's not much non-POSIX weirdness for me. From time to time I'll try to `export` something, but fish just reminds you what to do instead. 3rd party integration is excellent now, too.

When I write scripts I'll just target /bin/sh, or /bin/bash if necessary. Never saw a reason to write zsh or fish scripts.

All that anti-phishing training that taught us to look closely at the URL and now it's all just safelinks.protection.outlook.com

Funny how the article starts with someone using AI — to develop more AI stuff.

This reminds me of web3, where almost all projects were just web3 infrastructure or services, to the point that the purpose of most start-ups was completely inscrutable to outsiders.

I'm having lots more hope for AI though.

It's federalistic. It's a bit drastic - but I guess no one could imagine one state having 66 times the population as another in 1789. Other federal states compensate for that - for example, in the German Bundesrat, each state gets 3 to 6 seats according to population.

A problem for the US is that /both/ chambers of parliament are skewed that way.

If you had asked me yesterday, I would have bet money on a treasure chest already being an official emoji.

In principle yes, but of course they don't have to. It's their own choice to have bespoke drawings. They also could just refuse to add the new emoji and just show �.

This is currently becoming a smaller and smaller problem with charging infra growing fast.

I guess it will become an issue again when "car" becomes synonymous with "EV" and there's a sudden spike in EV registration, but who knows when that tipping point will occur.