> Consent is implied in the usage of the product.
No it isn't implied.
1,824 karma · joined March 6, 2023
No it isn't implied.
Of course it isn't. The search alone is unusable. Instead of fixing it someone on the team sneaked in a second search that almost behaves like the old one
You can ask the users. You can apply some common sense (which 1Password team increasingly doesn't). They can look at the support forums listing the many issues (especially with UX) which are condescendingly dismissed. Etc.
It isn't about decomissioning.
> I showed actual numbers above.
You didn't. You clumped together different types of waste and pretended they are all the same.
> We have HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WE DON'T HOW TO DEAL WITH in Germany alone.
And as it has been repeatedly shown to you, 97% of that waste poses no problem, and we know how to safely dispose of it. And the High Level waste we also know how to safely dispose of, and how to safely store until disposal facilities become available.
This is literally in the document I showed, you pretended you read, and couldn't be bothered top make an effort to understand it.
What you're doing is spreading FUD, pure and simple. And yes, politicians are just as susceptible to FUD and populism.
Funny how these hard numbers don't answer a simple question: where does Germany get its power on a quiet night like April 15th (answer is simple: buring coal, gas, and biofuels).
> BTW with what did France replace its failing reactors last year?
Last year it's "failing" generators were taken of for planned maintenance. The actual failures accounted for 0.18% loss in power.
No, it shows that people believe in bullshit and actively hurt their own clean power generation capabilities due to decades of FUD.
And yes, however many renewables you build, you still have no answer for intermittent power generation.
> We also know that nuclear will have no meaningful impact in fighting climate change because it is too expensive and too slow to build.
Strange how some countries build them relatively fast (China can builds 1 reactor in 6 years, building several reactors in parallel, see Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant) while e.g. in Europe after three decades of FUD, scremongering and underinvestment, we not only believe they can't be built fast enough, but can't build them either.
The market will always look to extract the highest possible price from the consumer.
> If there is trade, then because this is cheaper overall (and in general this helps buyer and seller).
Strange how "cheaper overall" fantasy is "consumer energy prices have quintupled in the past few years" in reality
Propaganda cuts both ways. For example, you completely ignore the reality that the sun doesn't shine at night ad that the wind doesn't alway blow. So Germany shut down its nuclear plants an now is burning coal to compensate.
Someone literally advocates for rolling blackouts in a sibling thread because renewable generation is intermittent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35675328
This is a good comment describing the current situation https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35660884
Average means nothing when the output is zero (at night).
> a solar plant with a nameplate capacity of 1GW is roughly 15-17x cheaper than a 1GW nuclear plant
And produces zero electricity at night.
Of course it isn't. Almost none of the renewal proponents take those costs into account.
> A solar farm with a nameplate capacity of 1 GW is about 5% of the cost of a 1GW nuclear plant. The need for overbuilding pushes the price up to roughly 20% of the cost.
Are you sure you added all the requirements to the picture?
E.g. Two weeks ago there was a quiet night in Germany. Solar was at 0%. Wind was at 5%. You'd need to overbuild wind 400% just to compensate for some of the power needed then.
> Adding all the necessary storage to provide peaking can push it all the way up to ~80% of the cost of a nuclear power station.
Ah yes. The magical non-existent storage.
> Storage is kind of a moot point anyway these days. Most grids don't even have enough nameplate capacity to supply 100% of demand for even 1 day a year.
Funny how storage is moot, so Germany is burning coal during the night to compensate for solar, and for wind on quite nights, because they shut down their nuclear power plants.
Yes, I did. So?
> Why did you find this interesting if you are aware that the sun doesn't shine constantly all day and night?
Whatever you're trying to ascribe to me exists only in your imagination.
Let me quote my comment again:
" And I'd love to see all the calculations [for the cost] that include the need to overbuild, the need for storage etc."
Yes. You linked the study. It does quote the need to overbuild solar by a factor of 3.4. What's the cost?
Lightning was introduced in 2012. So you're trying to say that it was competitive for just a year?
Of course that's bullshit.
> High power charging standards were around since 2012 at least.
And those standards (multiple) are? You're probably referring to Power Delivery which was finalised the year Lightning was released? Or the finally upgraded versions of Power Delivery that only appeared with USB-C (that mess of a standard where you don't even know if a cable is capable of doing anything)?
"Many different standards" means "no standard".
> that apple just ignored.
Apple ignored them because none of them were standards until very, very late
We both can both underestimate and overestimate the size
> That lightning cable on iOS is stupid, it only benefits
Apple has had exactly two connector types.
USB has 14 connector types. On top of that USB didn't even have a power delivery standard until after Apple shipped lighting, and didn't have things like fast charges etc. until USB-C.
And USB-C is in itself a big mess of a standard where you can't even be sure if a cable support features you need.
So, no. Lightning benefited Apple's customers immensely.
I haven't played a single AAA game since then. Only indies :)
Indies are on a roll, there's one for any genre and gameplay style.
Oh yes. Games is the category that got hit the hardest by the race to the bottom.
It's called being pragmatic
> will have to allow for more flexibility in what apps are allowed to execute
Of course it won't. There will be 1% of apps that do something that HN crowd will perhaps care about.
The rest will be apps that try to circumvent privacy and security, and/or chase their own goal. Note how much speculation there is about Meta going the side-loading route.
For almost everything else there's a standardized system-wide shortcut (including the ancient ones like Ctrl+a/e for text).
If there isn't a shortcut, but the app exposes the action in a menu, you can assign a custom shortcut from keyboard settings.
MacOS has traditionally been very friendly to keyboard navigation. Well, until somewhat recently when mobile-only/mobile-first devs started just slapping Catalyst on and calling it a day. Even Apple's own apps suffer from this.
Because, you guessed it, they are small. And any port you add requires a not insignificant amount of space
And Lightning has been charging my iPhones pretty fast
Google's assistant is generally better, but still not perfect. I wish the confirmations would stay but become shorter. Not the "Yes, I have done X for you do you want more" that all these assistants do.
If that was a jab at me it's misdirected. In the comment you originally replied to I literally talk about overbuilding.
And yet very few if any renewables proponents talk about the absolute requirement to overbuild, and the cost.
36% battery power capable of sustaining Hawaii for 11 hours. 4% is "flexible gas" from "carbon-neutral synthetic fuels" that will be produced using "excess renewable energy", etc.
No numbers except "flexible solution is 68% cheaper than just overbuilding renewables". "All technology options have been priced at their expected costs at year 2030."
These are not calculations. These are marketing materials for Wärtsilä
Edit:
There are some interesting things though. For example, if you click on solar, they show that you need 3.4x installed solar capacity compared to peak load. And (emphaisis mine): "Because the sun is only shining for part of the day, solar panels can on average over the whole day produce energy at maximum of around 25% of their installed capacity"
BTW, turning a lot stuff off and then turning it back on strains the grid immensely.
Possibly maybe?
You need 10kW per household per day with generous electricity consumption [1] Retail prices for 10kW batteries seem to be in the range of $5k to infinity.
At scale this will be cheaper, but then the question then becomes the same: availability at this scale
[1] https://solaremporium.com.au/blog/how-long-will-a-10kw-batte...
No. You get 0% to 90% of energy.
E.g., right now in Germany solar is at 22% of its capacity. Wind is at 11%
The only reason we've had decline in nuclear is politics. That's why now Germany is busy burning coal and importing electricity.
> Unit economics prevailed before and theyll prevail again.
Wishful thinking is no substitute for reality. Where are the calculations? That include both the need to ridiculously overbuild renewables and the need for the so-far-nonexistent grid scale storage?
And I'd love to see all the calculations that include the need to overbuild, the need for storage etc.