hurril

Growth is a little bit of a weasel word here though and you'll be well advised to research the difference between multiple expansion and underlying growth.

In the world of stock, we don't like multiple expansion as it's a sign that prices go up on grounds that are hard to reason about. Things going up without reason tend to come down for the same reasons.

Crypto has _zero_ growth. Crypto companies, however, that's a different story.

But sure, I'm sure you'll be right about what you perceive to be growth. There are still millions of gullible and half smart people waiting to get on board.

Haha, are you me?

While I completely agree with your sentiment, the problem is that of normalisation otherwise. If it's not such a big ask to require of you, that you accept side loading of apps for instance, then my efforts to keep making a stand on privacy grounds will increase exponentially.

I.e.: if it's normal to do side loading, then I become the odd man out for not wanting that on my device.

I'll have to tell my boss that, no, it's to do with security concerns in general that I don't accept HR:s fine app.

I would say that data defines as something that might convey information, might in the sense that there are one or more interpretations of it that are meaningful to something. This sentence has plenty of open ended terms, however.

Code is data that can be executed, provided that there is a something that offers an interpretation of it. It think we must claim that this interpretation is meaningful to something.

Executability is a semantic in the context of interpretation, which ties it all back into what data is again. Something something Apply/Eval.

So more open ended terms.

And before you made that transaction, everything was the same as afterwards. Except the trade in ownership. So what is your point?

> Actually this year many countries were pushing energy to France were most nuclear plants were not operational for maintanance and heat.

This is not in any way in contradiction to what I'm saying. In fact: this supports my case. Because the amount of nuclear power generation is down, prices surge. This is my point. Your point was the opposite, remember? More nuclar power will increase prices?

> Are you saying Vattenfall did not shut down ringhals because they said they are not commercially viable? You are directly contradicting their own words (In October 2015, Vattenfall decided to close down Ringhals 1 by 2020 and Ringhals 2 by 2019 due to their declining profitability, instead of, as previously announced, around 2025.[16][5] from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringhals_Nuclear_Power_Plant)

If you read what I said, I said that nuclear power was artifically made inviable because of extra charges and taxes. It was perfectly viable and economically sound before these.

> You mean they could not find investors on the open market because they deemed it too risky with questionable returns, without government guarantees. Is that not how the free market is supposed to operate?

Right, because the political climate is such in Sweden that there is risk in investing in this, there won't be any interest in investing in this area. I said this as well. A free market would work here but we don't have one. The reason for government guarantees at this point is as an offset to the perceived political risk. A nuclear powerplant is a 20-40 year investment and if there's a very large risk that a populist government were to negate this in 5-10 years, then noone wants to invest in it. This is where we are.

> HVDC has 3% power loss over 1000km HVAC has 6%, losses are not the problem. From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current You are correct capacity of those lines is a problem though, maybe some investments are in order?

Losses are part of the problem, yes more investment here is needed but this is not the biggest problem. Another commenter here mentioned the fact that because there isn't enough capacity to _receive_ the transfers, they can't be made. This is to do with the lack of inertial reserve(?) (svängmassa) after having switched off so many large powerplants over the years.

> What are the bad environmental consequences? Also offshore wind has a capacity factor of 60% that is similar to nuclear.

I'm going to have to call that 60% number.

The consequences are visual (i.e.: ugly), noice, birds as well as the fact that they are niether degradable nor recyclable because of the types of material needed. Do note, though, that I am in no way anti wind power.

> That just points to a huge market opportunity. If the wind turbines have to pay "huge" amounts when the wind is high, I just need to store that energy and make twice the money.

Right. So you need batteries, we need improved tech in that department, someone has to make them and this requires a number of let's call them "troublesome materials." "I just need to store that energy" is as reasonable a thought as: we just need to feed them, about starving people. That just-word there is quite powerful.

> Funny, usually it's the nuclear proponents saying it's all straight forward and the opponents are just ideologically motivated.

Well I am not one of them. You started out with the big I-word here and it is my honest opinion that it is better served the other way around, and for these reasons: a number of the problems we have in sweden with the power (and heat) generation is to do with the fact that we did turn away from nuclear power. The same can be said about Germany and both for the same reason: ideologically (or at least populistically) driven policies.

I'm not in love with nuclear power in the slightest. But it is one of the least bad solutions so we must really put away ideologically driven dreams and deal with reality. This is in regards to Sweden's current nuclear technology, which is to say, really old tech as it's basically from the 60:ies. Quite a lot has happend since and saying no to that without understanding the complexities and nuances to this and because Someone Puleaze think of the ch... environment? That's just poor judgement.

You make a number bad claims here.

The effect of not having enough planable energy production is that prices go up and that the energy industry starts gradually worse power plants. So you have the oil powered plants in the south, spewing out CO2. The reason why this "works" is because a number of countries in the vicinity have large needs for energy in the aftermath of having shut down their planable energy production. (Both coal plants and nuclear plants.)

The swedish nuclear plants were not shut down because they were not economically viable, this is as they say _fake news_. A special tax and a number of new fees were introduced by the swedish green party that prevented economic viability. Plus: further development of more modern technology was prevented actively and also indirectly because of political risk and a lack of stability for such investments.

The hydro power is in the north and cannot be transported to the south for a number of both technical reasons (too much losses with lines that long) and a lack of capacity.

The wind power has to be stored in batteries (or other similar technology) in order for there to be energy available when there's not enough wind blowing. These are problems that are actually hard to solve and that also have plenty of bad consequences for the environment. Not being able to acknowledge this is the real ideological fallacy here.

In fact: there is already "too much" wind farm capacity in relation to storage capacity and immediate power needs, as is evident when the price drops way below viability for the plants themselves (and sometimes into negative territory.) When this happens, the wind farms run huge losses _and so does all the other plants_. And when there is no wind, the wind farms rack up losses again.

Energy management in Sweden is a lot more complex and nuanced than thinking that what's happening now in regards to a want for nuclear power production is some sort of bad ideology.

I also did that (and Turbo C++). Very fond memories!

My experience from my previous $work was that things never quite got completed. I really tried arguing for a more sprint-based approach but they didn't like what they expected to be undue overhead. I disagreed since ... well, you can't have a conversation about overhead if $thing is not even done, can you?

Yeah, I've tasted all of those pain points myself. At $work our app developers expect a working API with all the new routes and endpoints from day 0. We manage this, of course, since we're all adults by simply talking to each other. But... yeah.

This is nothing but a bad strawman from start to finish.

Sprints are not made to help organize things, they're a tool to get more predictable deliveries. Their very short nature forces participants to construct tasks that are easier to estimate and therefore complete on time with a higher probability.

This certainly adds overhead to an idealised scenario where people take the shortest reasonble route often enough and that is the tradeoff. Plus: people actually seldomly take the optimum routes in the first place.

Nobody has to like it, this is probably not the best method and maybe it's not even good. But the author misses the point completely.

Plus: they're often even worse than the wholesale because what they think they know about me is basically always pure nonsense. (Other than offering me an ad to buy the book I just fckn bought.)

That's a user error because there very much is something wrong with the language. The error is that it deals in truthy and falsy rather than a strict true^false dichotomy. So 1 is just as truthy as 2 is. And -234123 for that matter.

Oh, the Europe Country. I live in a country in Europe too and we do have a problem with cold calls. There was an attempt at regulating it, there's also a service you can subscribe to that supposedly hinders this.

Doesn't work though because there are lists of phone numbers and addresses that can be bought that still give you access. And if you're considered a customer, which is extremely loosely defined, they can call you.

Sure, it's far from as bad as it seems to be in the US but my personal threshold is 0.

Are you telling me that it would be impossible for the phone companies to do away with this problem? That they're not making any money from it?

The keyword here is network effect.

That mortgage is paying off the people that built the house. What remains after that is to pay for the landlord's food and medicals. Take the landlord and the house away and where do you live now?

You have a problem with autodiallers calling you to talk about auto insurances? Just throw away your phones, problem solved.

Ugh, this makes me genuinely... I was going to say sad, but... I don't think I have a word for this.

You are also missing the point and in the same way.

You are at A, you want to go to C. We are debating which B to pick between:

1. a filesystem + implementing library over that to cover the interface between A and C.

2. Postgres (which is the same as above - just not invented here)

Now, both of you are imagining a world where #2 somehow implies more complexity and also more second order effects than #1 would.

Nobody uses all of Postgres, but the cost of not using more than 1% of what's available is hardly larger than implementing that 1% yourself for most use cases. And please don't make the misstake of thinking that I'm trying to sell Postgres over any other database product - this is all to do with the worse is better idea that so many of you cultivate.

That's a cop-out answer. You're making the claim that simply using the filesystem compared to going with Postgres somehow has less complexity and fewer (or lesser) second order effects, but you don't even indicate how come. So here's my question:

how come?

That too and I don't think I'm even done with that, myself :)

What I meant is the step away from the notion that things are objects, stuff gets done with methods, methods are available via mixins/ inheritance/ magic, etc.

I've seen the notion of using values and pure functions as data oriented programming recently but never understood what that moniker adds.

This sounds to me like the journey into functional programming. I've experienced the same thing myself.

Which is why people that consider them selves capitalist and market economists tend to dislike subsidies.

That is not madness and not bad either. It's just not capitalism. (I am not claiming that it is anti-capitalism or anything of the sort. It's a proverbial pear in response to: is this an apple?)

Didn't even know that was possible. But yes: huddling and sharing screens in slack actually deserves some credit because that always works well. (Jesus C. - I just gave software credit for working.)

In my mind Slack does not add one iota to mIRC 4.5 (?) which fit a single 1.44M diskette and came as a single executable. That shit started before the MouseUp event was even fired on pre-pentium hardware. What in the name of something holy happened?

It's an incredible piece of crap on an M1 Max too. It's by far the heaviest piece of software I run on it, and that's counting games and heavy Scala and F# development. A flippin video chat :)

Slack, which is also an incredible pos, feels snappy and lightweight in comparison.

X people decide how many F-bombs a film can have before it gets an R rating.

Which value of X is reasonable here? 0? 1M?

Capitalism to wait for a state subsidy? Yeah, no :)

Some parts of this is not completely dissimilar to shouting at the weather instead of planning and dealing with clothes. Everything is a trade off.

So sad there's only the one small town.