raphaelj

Never heard about Galaxus, but looking at their e-shop, I felt like being propelled 10y in the future.

Their UI is so much ahead any e-commerce website I ever seen.

I really like Scaleway: https://www.scaleway.com/en/.

Similar offer and simplicity as DigitalOcean, but way lower prices. I had to reach support a few months ago, and they were pretty responsive.

They also show the prices per month, not per hour/milisecond/byte/whatever. As I'm also the one paying the invoices, I really like that.

That's awesome. I've been using similar product previously, but these were either prohibitively expensive, or self-hosted.

Keeping the link for later, thanks :)

Not $500/month yet, but I'm already having a few paying customers: https://noisycamp.com/

NoisyCamp is a platform for music studios to manage their reservations. It also helps musicians to find place to rehearse.

Will not the H2 tanks scale better than batteries for large scale storage?

Battery capacity scales linearly (n) to material requirements , while a gas tank's capacity scales quadrically to material requirements (n^2, because of only using a surface of materials to store a volume).

I'd also assume the energy required to keep the tank cold relatively lower as the tanks gets larger.

Thanks. I really appreciate your feedback :).

I'm working on NoisyCamp (https://noisycamp.com), a platform that helps Musicians finding and booking spaces to rehearse.

I mostly implemented all the features I wanted, and I'm now focusing on getting more studios on the platform.

I'm still working part time, and as a software engineer, it's a little bit harder to get motivated doing sales things than it was when programming the web app.

Scaleway has a similar pricing for VMs and dedicated, while providing additional managed services: https://www.scaleway.com

I've been there for 2y, pretty happy with them so far.

Building a modern zero carbon economy based on renewable energies is not only possible but also close to cost competitive to the nuclear-intensive alternative [1]:

>>> Regarding the evolution of technology costs, under the baseline scenario, the cost difference between the M23 (renewable only) and N2 (old and new nuclear + renewable) scenarios is close to 10 billion euros a year (0.3% of France's GDP).

This is a quote from France's mostly nuclear based electric grid agency.

Losing 0.3% of GDP but avoiding any inherent social, environmental and economical risk associated with nuclear does not look bad to me.

[1] https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2022-01/Energy%20p...

250L x 7m is 17kN, or about 5W/h, or about 2 AA 2450mAh cells from IKEA.

Pumped storage scales well though, as the stored volume scales squarely to the required container material (e.g. storing 25,000L will only take 10x the material while storing 100x the energy).

Couldn't scheduling the EV charge when the demand is low while production is high help a lot balancing the grid, at basically no cost for the EV owner?

Let's say I have a EV with a smart charger that will keep the vehicle at least 60% charged, but charge up to 100% when the energy price is low (e.g. during the night).

What would be the reaction of the US population if this would have been done by some the US?

As an European, I'd see that as an huge act of treachery from one of our ally, but I'm really wondering if the US public reaction would be positive or negative.

Considering wood is at most as expensive as petrol per kWh (at least here in Belgium, heating fuel is not heavily taxed), I have a hard time understanding that it takes more fossil fuel energy to manufacture pellets than burning the fossil fuel directly.

Well, you still need gas or coal to regulate your electricity production during surges.

Well, that also applies if Denmark wants uranium, oil or gas.

I guess it all goes down to the fraction of oil and natural gas in the average income of these countries.

If your economy is more reliant on these (e.g. for heating, electricity or transport), all prices will go up significantly more compared to a country that is less reliant on these (e.g. because of nuclear/renewable, better energy efficiency, less heating required ...).

I had the same impression the last time I had to look at them.

Basic payment processing feature are still well documented, but once you get into their Connect or subscription stuff, it gets a little messy.

While it might work and be actually safe, that does not mean it does not cost a lot to keep it safe for hundred of years (or more).

Tesla sales growth, but slower than the EV market. Tesla is thus loosing market share (in EV) while increasing revenue.

Just top of my mind:

"Covid will be gone by April 2020":

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1240754657263144960

"FSD will be achieved by 2018":

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/686279251293777920

"Neuralink in human brains by 2020":

https://news.yahoo.com/everything-know-neuralink-elon-musks-...

Being wealthy has also a lot to do with being at the right place, at the right time, inherited wealth, and outsourcing efficiently.

> Elon Musk feels ‘super bad’ about economy

Considering how bad Elon is at making predictions, this is actually great news.

Germany's energy transition to green is arguably not a failure. Renewable energies manage to replace most of nuclear production in 15y while still reducing coal usage: https://energytransition.org/2018/01/german-energy-consumpti...

It's now actually cheaper to build wind/solar + some sort of storage than designing/building/operating/decommissioning a nuclear plant.

I'd expect water consumption to be actually higher in a dry area compared to Belgium (not 16x more though). You'd need more water to grow crops, wash your car, hydrate yourself. You might also take more frequent showers.

Indeed.

Reusable SpaceX rockets have 30% small payload compared to non-reusable ones, as they have to carry extra fuel for landing.

Catching the rocket instead of landing it could be significantly more efficient as you wouldn't have to carry much more weight except for the parachute.

> I’m lucky to understand the risks that they’re talking about

> since I studied them in grad school. They’re talking about

> a baseline risk of serious accident of around 0.001%, or

> one in 100,000 years

Why are people still referring to these numbers when talking about nuclear safety? They are obviously off by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude.

We build about 250 nuclear plants over the past 50y, and we had two disasters that displaced thousands of peoples and made huge area inhabitable for centuries.

> BTW there have been several publications that performed modelling on large integrated grids that found there would be very little overprovisioning needed if we have a Europe wide grid (it always blows somewhere).

I tried for a long time to find such publications (for or against renewables). Could you like a few of these? Thanks.

This is not only about being able to increase capacity.

A nuclear plant is capital expensive, and it requires to be used as much as possible to be cost competitive.

The same happened with me...

It would be better if Meta would focus on detecting spam at scale.

I put a desk chair on Marketplace last Friday, and got 8 messages that were actually scams. These were trying to "schedule" a Fedex/DHL pickup, and would redirect me to fake branded websites that were requesting my personal details and bank account. This was so obviously fake it baffled me Meta can't detect these automatically.

I am also getting multiple message requests per week asking from hookups. These are obviously fake [1].

---

[1] https://imgur.com/a/yZDPh3C