Europe is the only continent where some countries are close to fully nuclear and they aren't close to being the industrial powerhouses HN commenters would make you believe. Tell my why are the US (gas) and China (coal) are beating France (nuclear)?
The whole world essentially stopped building nuclear power plants at the end of the 1970s and there's one obvious answer which you guys just can't accept, so you keep inventing one stab-in-the-back narrative after another for why nuclear energy failed.
The same regulations and bureaucracy that doesn't stop ASML from producing these machines? Makes sense. Also it's funny how in the US/China/EU threads, you'd never guess that China is state-run. You'd think they are a capitalist heaven like the US.
Could the "EU has too much bureaucracy" users even say how much more bureaucracy EU is producing compared to the US and China? I doubt it. The US Congress has produced some insane behemoths of laws where the glossary is bigger than your average EU directive, so please put some numbers behind your claims.
Lastly, I think the average HN user just doesn't understand that the EU streamlines regulation across 28 countries, which is almost the opposite of coming up with new regulations. It makes things easier. But that would already require an iota of knowledge past the HN kneejerk worldview.
Yeah, that's exactly when all the semiconductor industry left Germany! And why France - the only country that's close to fully nuclear - is the industrial power house of the world. Stay shallow, HN.
And what's so special about 200 MW? Many factories in Europe use these amounts and they run their own power plants. The only edge here is that the US has cheaper fossil fuels, which it amounts to.
> Finally, and here is where Europe really really suffers, generally you need these things to be planned, approved and built within a year.
Like the offshore wind farms in the US? I think Europe and China are building these things much faster. ;)
You're so wrong that you're right again. The US funded and promoted modern art as a counterpoint to communism. There was even a submission about it a few weeks ago on here. [0]
> Nothing out of the ordinary or quirky, no individuality, all chains, all the same style.
One could say the same about capitalism/consumerism. In fact, many creatives have done so over the years. Bland and bleak life in the suburbs is a common theme. "Broad lawns and narrow minds" as Hemingway might have called it. So is the forlornness of a nondescript white-collar cubicle job. Even recently, the Backrooms taps into this.
What a high quality comment. Meanwhile at the top of every worthwhile metric including freedom indices: Half of the EU + Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Canada.
With a more benevolent reading of my comment you could have seen that I do consider them equivalent for cashless local payments. My first sentence was meant as "[American] debit/credit cards". This doesn't invalidate anything I said.
Trite comment. Debit/credit cards never took off in Germany because everyone had a Giro card that worked perfectly well for cashless payments. And for online payments, PayPal filled the gap quick enough. The average German saw no reason to request a Visa/MasterCard from their bank for a heavy fee when PayPal did the job. That's also the difference: Germany never had the "Here, have a free credit card" culture.
In the early days of eBay I exchanged money exclusively via bank transfer and had no worries, but for me the Internet has changed and these days I use PayPal to send and receive money from strangers. I see it like this: My email address is already public, so I'm not risking anything when I share it with strangers. My IBAN on the other hand is only known to a few respectable companies, so why change that? Seeing all the online platforms store all your PII without hesitation, but keeping your IBAN only as ****** and handing it straight to a trusted payment processor always reminds me that it's not like the others. Yes, I know businesses put their IBAN on their letter head, but they also have accountants watching their transactions.
You're assuming the training data is a true representation of language usage, which it isn't. In the "gray" or "overcast" case, a single weather website might already skew the count of these words.
You accuse them of being hypocrites for staying silent about some other wars, while you are here downplaying the importance of a large scale war ("I support current thing" /pol/ lingo implies there is no valid reason to be against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, you have to be a brainwashed sheep to do that)? Sounds hypocritical to me.
PS: The blog blanners and all that were so powerless, yet they still trigger you 4 years later?
Europe sans Russia does not produce uranium - why people constantly paint this as an independent energy source is beyond me. Of all Russian energy companies, it was Rosatom that could not be sanctioned.
While the Fogbank story is a funny anecdote, I don't see it as a fitting example for atrophied skills. It's like writing a clean implementation of some software and it just doesn't match the legacy version until you realize that the legacy version had an unnoticed bug that made it behave the way it does.
Merit order pricing and the fact that you need fossil peakers will make the price effect completely negligible to consumers. You are comparing the MWh price of slightly more efficient fossil power plants to slightly less efficient fossil power plants.
The author clearly means professional publishers, who have editors and fact-checkers. Self-published books already lack trust. The reply also misses several other points the author makes, which I find ironic because it kind of goes into the direction the author bemoans: The author wrote a longer article to lay out his thoughts and it sure took him time to write and any reader time to read and digest and here is a quick oneliner as a rebuttal that took no time and effort and is superficial.
When I ask an LLM to help me decide something, I have to remind myself of the LotR meme where Bilbo asks the AI chat why he shouldn't keep the ring and he receives the classic "You're absolutely right, .." slop response. They always go in the direction you want them to go and their utility is that they make you feel better about the decision you wanted to take yourself.
Very level headed and empathetic to go and claim that 50 countries just lost their right to criticize China because US and Israel are fighting Iran. Trolls having their priorities straight!
A program that helped people evade real censorship is "feeding them US propaganda" and social media awash with state-sponsored trolls tearing our societies apart is "an alternative geopolitical narrative" - bit of a spin, isn't it?
Weird, I remember Western media ran full transcripts of his speech after the Ukraine invasion and every other time he crawled out of his bunker in the Urals. Would you like to enlighten us which important viewpoints of Putin get censored in the West?
I don't see any problem-solving being done, I only see the US dismantling the world it created, where - let's not kid ourselves - America always came first. The problems the US faces would be better solved with international cooperation, but the US is flushing its softpower down the toilet and destroying all goodwill amongst its allies.
Scratch further and beneath the ad business you'll find more incentives to allow fake engagement. Man is a simple animal and likes to see numbers go up. Internet folklore says the Reddit founders used multiple accounts to get their platform going at the start? If they did, they didn't do that with ad fraud in mind. The incentives are plenty and from the people running the platform to the users to the investors - everyone likes to be fooled. Take the money out and you still have reasons to turn a blind eye to it.
The biggest problem I see is that the Internet has become a brainwashing machine, and even if you have someone running the platform with the integrity of a saint, if the platform can influence public opinion, it's probably impossible to tell how many real users there actually are.
The LLMs that take 10 attempts to un-zero-width a <div>, telling me that every single change totally fixed the problem, are cracking the hardest math problems again.
They didn't even. They announced a time-plan to stop buying Russian gas eventually. Russia weaponized gas deliveries and stopped delivering. In fact, even before the war and any "unfriendly" action by Europe, they underdelivered to keep the gas storages (which they owned) low and drive the prices up. This alone should make anyone not want to buy Russian gas again.
The fact that these threads are always full of lies with all these twisted narratives show you who's doing the talking in all of them really. This thread was a few minutes old when someone had to mention that "The US blew up the pipeline" and this shit doesn't even collect downvotes or gets flagged, it rises to the top.
I clicked on two accounts posting lies and saw Russian software companies mentioned in their scant posting history, which in itself is not a crime, but also a fitting signal.
They got 8% of the votes in 1987, up from 6% in 1983, didn't even make it past the five-percent hurdle in 1990 - so what justifies the obsession with the Greens, when the large majority of Germans rejected nuclear energy after Chernobyl? Why must all nuclear energy threads on HN pretend a fringe party ruled Germany with an iron fist?