You are getting downvoted, but for me, it is the same experience. It's a dead language, and we are switching to Python, that is far better to maintain for me and for all our new hires. I mean, Perl doesn't even has a debugger on Windows.
Not true by any stretch. I've used komodo[1] for more than 2 decades as a debugger in Linux, Mac, and Windows. More recently VSCode on all 3, for debugging.
Definitely not a dead language. A mature and stable language, which won't surprise you.
This is not an argument. Good investment in any sector requires diversification.
The IPCC 1.5°C report published late in 2018 presents 89 mitigation scenarios in which nuclear generation grows on average 2.5 times from today’s level by 2050.
Besides the fact that no one predicts how much more renewables can scale, where prices will go, and whether they will be enough. All it takes is one war or a few more tariffs with China to screw up renewable-only decarbonization.
That's why it's important to diversify and not assume anything. If a source is green, it must be used.
Then it's curious how all the anti-nuclear people I argue with are from Germany. You have chosen your own path, don't come and impose your ideologies on others :)
As long as it’s your fiat, spend it however you want. Don’t come to the public coffers for a boondoggle though. We are rapidly approaching 1TW/year deployment rates of solar, and every time manufacturing capacity doubles, cost drops 20%.
You could replace all of the world's nuclear generation capacity (~370GW) with battery firmed solar in less time than it will take to build a single nuclear reactor (~10 years from shovels in the dirt to first kwh to the grid). Components in both the solar and batteries are mostly human safe compared to fission, and can be recycled using existing processes today. Australia, for example, has 10,000x the solar potential of its current electrical usage.
But I digress; I assume nuclear proponents will continue to beat the drum until the last nuclear generator is sunset. Solar is the ultimate democratization of energy, and we don't need PR puff pieces; we need the solar manufacturing and deployment flywheel to keep spinning up. Enough sunlight falls on the Earth in under an hour to power humanity for a year.
Diversity in energy sources is a good point but not strictly an argumemt for nuclear power.
You claim some hypothetical event with china to cross the plans of global low tech solar/wind energy but ignore the impact on constructions of nuclear power plants, which, as previous comment noted, take much longer to build.
> If a source is green, it must be used.
"Green" is a perfect propaganda pitch btw. The actual problems we try to solve are energy source and waste products. Nuclear energy looses on both aspects, which is why its much more expensive (also including risk/complexity).
IMO nuclear power became just another alternative narrative, like ivermectin, because right wingers cant deny covid or climate change anymore and cant bow to the other side.
You have weak arguments against renewable energy and none for nuclear yet you smell propaganda and ideology and dismiss a well sourced comment.
I am using your own arguments against you.
> Besides the fact that no one predicts how much more renewables[/nuclear] can scale [or last], where prices will go, and whether they will be enough. All it takes is one war or a few more tariffs with China to screw up renewable[/nuclear]-only decarbonization.
> You claim some hypothetical event with china to cross the plans of global low tech solar/wind energy but ignore the impact on constructions of nuclear power plants, which, as previous comment noted, take much longer to build.
Why should I respond to someone who proposes to build renewable in parallel, while omitting in the same sentence the possibility of building multiple reactors in parallel?
It's a rhetorical game that says enough about the user's goals. I do not intend to stoop to such a level.
> You claim some hypothetical event with china to cross the plans of global low tech solar/wind energy but ignore the impact on constructions of nuclear power plants.
I am not ignoring anything, I repeat, going only renewable implies not diversifying.
That a geopolitical problem could destroy decarbonization goals is a real risk. Or do you want to deny China's total monopoly in the industry?
No energy source is perfect, including nuclear and solar, so stop adding arguments just to overshadow the problems we're talking about.
> "Green" is a perfect propaganda pitch btw.
Well, we can define and use the word that you prefer.
By green I mean a technology whose emissions are low enough to help in decarbonization. Is it better?
Decarbonization is the main issue here.
> The actual problems we try to solve are energy source and waste products. Nuclear energy looses on both aspects, which is why its much more expensive (also including risk/complexity).
As I wrote earlier, the main problem is decarbonization. Secondary problems exist in any kind of energy source.
That the IPCC predicts nuclear growth in most scenarios is quite indicative of its relevance to decarbonization.
So nuclear power is important for decarbonization. And it has been shown over the decades to be a viable option for providing electricity with low emissions. Do you deny this?
Once we accept that, we can discuss how slow and expensive it is, but before then I don't see it possible to engage in an intellectually honest discourse :)
Well, technologically, maybe, but not in terms of location. Previous commenter called it "democratized".
> do you want to deny China's total monopoly in the industry?
No, but that could change. As china did, we can orient towards an electrical future too and there are generator designs without rare earth elements. So chinese dominance is not a given.
> By green I mean a technology whose emissions are low enough to help in decarbonization. Is it better?
I prefer the term "sustainable" and by framing it with energy sources and waste products i am giving you the higher order problem at hand.
> Decarbonization is the main issue
I disagree because my scope is broader. I agree with your statement that NE is "cleaner" than fossil based power plants for now, because as with carbon, its just a matter of scale too.
In an inverted scenario where nuclear waste is the main concern, i could, like you, argue in favor of fossil power.
The path ahead is quite clear, our focus should heavily be on renewables and only tolerate finite energy source as temporary in our transition strategy ... which is something you would deny, i guess.
> No, but that could change. As china did, we can orient towards an electrical future too and there are generator designs without rare earth elements. So chinese dominance is not a given.
True. But looking at the problems we are experiencing in the silicon world, a transition could bring a generalized crisis and quite a long time to return to "current" production levels. We're already struggling now with decarbonization, and China's is just one possible problem that we can't afford on the roadmap. So the priority should be to diversify to minimize these problems
> I prefer the term "sustainable" and by framing it with energy sources and waste products i am giving you the higher order problem at hand.
That's fine, but "sustainable" is a very subjective term. What is the threshold of sustainable? And I bet we have different views and different priorities.
> I disagree because my scope is broader. I agree with your statement that NE is "cleaner" than fossil based power plants for now, because as with carbon, its just a matter of scale too. In an inverted scenario where nuclear waste is the main concern, i could, like you, argue in favor of fossil power.
But somehow it seems contradictory to me in some places.
The materials and rare earths from which panels, wind blades and batteries are made are finite. Recyclable, but finished.
Uranium is recyclable from spent fuel, and renewable from the sea.
Then in addition to uranium other types of elements can be used such as fuel, Thorium, Plutonium, etc. (CANDU reactors for example can go with Thorium)
Also this basic argument seems a bit lacking to me, all these energy sources have a finite life, a panel a few decades, a power plant 60-80 years. When new more efficient ways to generate clean energy are discovered they will be used and replaced, we have this now, and it would be better to use them.
Plus, regarding the term "sustainable," and its subjectivity, I find it a priority to minimize the materials required. Because having billions of tons of waste to recycle, it's much harder to control, do it effectively, and in a sustainable way in every corner of the earth.
So I much prefer very small amounts of hazardous material (highly controlled and localized) over endless amounts of inorganic material everywhere.
Plastic, even for noble uses, has already demonstrated the worst of man's carelessness. So nice democratization, but one must also recognize its problems and limitations.
Regarding the word "democratization," however, I see a lot of propaganda in it. Whenever it's used it almost seems like people are naming a divine entity. And all kinds of issues, accountability, feasibility, etc. are omitted. And conversely, any kind of "centrality," is intrensically a problem. I really have a hard time seeing past something of the rhetoric of the "mighty and evil."
Isn't climate change supposed to cause more extreme weather? Seeing how renewables are very much reliant on weather conditions it seems best to diversify and have a clean energy source that won't be negatively impacted from the extremes.
I guess it depends on what you mean by impacted. Wind and solar are dependent on the wind and sunshine for producing something. But nuclear is highly dependent on steady supply of cooling water to function, and the failure case for extreme events (for example a large wave hitting Japan) is much worse.
Wind relies on wind and can be damaged with increased tornadoes and hurricanes and other storms. They also have to have their blades locked into place during strong enough winds.
Solar requires sunlight so increased storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, hail, etc can damage them and cause them to be less effective.
Hydro requires water so increased draughts will cause them to be less effective.
Nuclear requires cooling water which can be harder to deal with.
My point is that if you are expecting extreme weather it is best to diversify. I am not saying that nuclear will be immune to everything, only that it provides an alternative which we shouldn't ignore.
The possibility of failure should be contextualized with data. Gen 3 reactors are statistically orders of magnitude safer than any other power source, per GWh produced. Demonstrating how they are extremely safer than any other energy source.
> (for example a large wave hitting Japan) is much worse.
Mmh, like the 0-1 victims of Fukushima?
Nuclear power plants, just with Fukushima have demonstrated their tremendous reliability. We're talking about a 60-year-old reactor, which in the face of extreme conditions managed to minimize any kind of harm to humans.
Renewables aren’t a silver bullet they are made out to be. They are particularly bad for grid stability something that goes unmentioned in discussions.
Nuclear excels at that, both are needed. But pound for pound nuclear is just a better resource on most counts: land use area, energy density, stable generation and cost too if you factor in all the storage and power filters[1] that renewable needs.
Nuclear waste is a manageable problem if not for the fear mongering.
Applications absolutely can have breaking changes; one that's bitten me is alacritty changing its config file format in a way that was neither forward nor backward compatible. There are also data file format changes, but those are at least usually forward compatible (new app can open old files, though old app can't open new files, which still could be a problem). But this tension is also a reason that I've started to endorse adding one more number to get marketing.breaking.feature.bugfix versions, where the latter 3 are semver but the first one is arbitrary. If you're a company, let the marketing dept decide how to set that, and if you're a community project do what you like; using the year as the marketing version is fine.
It can, but you do need to decide which dimension(s) constitute a breaking change. IMO, the UI replaces the API as the main dimension in user facing applications, so if functionality is removed from the UI, or significantly altered, then that constitutes a breaking change.
It looks like they're using a third number to signify dev builds (which I think git has built-in support for), so also having a third number signify patches could get confusing.
> All subsequent dev builds after a release will be numbers added on to it. For example, 144 commits after 2409 would result in dev build 2409-144.
Also, I don't think leading with the year follows semantic versioning either (?)
Why do we want to destroy one of the most historical achievements of the century? Would it be that costly to move it somewhere else and make it a museum in a few hundred years when space travel becomes cheap?
Unless you pay the $1B a year or so for a few hundred years to maintain it in orbit or the massive cost to get it out of Earths orbit, it will eventually succumb to gravity and crash into the Earth.
Yes, there is some investment in batteries, but due to how the market is structured, they are either equivalent of local large scale UPS, or mainly operate grid frequency stabilization while fossil fuel plants spin up or down (some of the "spin down" support can be also done with modern wind turbines, as they can operate as "sinks" on energy).
Unless we reset the way energy market operates in EU to prioritize dispatchable-but-fossil-free[1], I think we won't see neither proper nuclear resurgence, nor appropriate battery build up.
[1] My personal idea is that we should promote and prioritize sources that offer stable and dispatchable power without emissions. Such conditions would be fulfilled both by nuclear and renewables combined with energy storage, promoting build up of energy storage.
You're not up to date anymore I'm afraid. Two-three years ago your comment would be correct, but things change FAST in this area. Grid-level battery has changed a lot. Look at this graph: https://archive.ph/Vj2py
That's a great link about what's happening with grid-scale battery storage ("giant batteries the size of shipping containers"), supporting solar and wind power replace other source of energy in states like California, Arizona, Texas, Florida.
Sorry, should have been more specific about location (thought it was implied from topic of discussion regarding EU Parliament).
But as it is now, that's not something that is happening in EU, as far as I know.
Some of the more recent projects turned out to have a tendency to go on fire.
As for USA, I have no idea how well it works out, as USA seems to have wildly different market setup than EU. My usual sources show under 1% for California.
Battery plants at the scale of conventional nuclear power plants are very few so it's not as proven as a technology. Ideally we should build both since we don't want the EU to be dependent on a single material for its base load (i.e. lithium or uranium).
I really doubt that battery plants for longer duration storage will be lithium based, something redox-flox based will be the future. But with batteries (especially grid scale, where energy and power density matter much less) there are a multitude of feasible options, some more, some less economic, which means in case of material shortages we can switch in the medium term. I also think hydroelectric storage is an underappreciated opportunity, which, if there is a serious issue with chemical battery supplies, could be reasonably quickly expanded.
It's also silly to use batteries as base load, as is the concept of base load in general in combination of cheap, but non-dispatchable, renwables, which is one of the things that hurts the economics of nuclear plants.
Nuclear is cheaper than renewables+storage. Europe routinely has periods of 2 weeks with little to no wind across the continent (<10% capacity usage on wind power) during winter, when solar production is abysmal. You'd need batteries to store MONTHS of production, and build massive amounts of solar and wind power plants that would all overproduce at the same time and thus not be profitable in the slightest when they're at capacity.
I dont necessarily disagree with you, but there is the safety concerns that need to be addressed for the nuclear energy option to become more acceptable. A nuclear powerplant must be able to explode and not kill a lot of people and render a large piece of the earth uninhabitable. If you solve that for me, then I will wholeheartedly agree with everything you just said.
I'm not aware of anyone having a solution for "batteries" at the required scale. We'd need several TWh of storage, there could be a month without wind.
The only reason nuclear scales so slowly is because of the bureaucracy.
There actually have been many months without more than half of nuclear reactors in France in 2022 - beginning 2023. And in France there are not enough different energy sources to compensate.
Taking down such reactors is a periodically routine for maintenance. The question is only how fast you can bring them up again (especially in case of serious repair needs).
> But your point about French NPs is technicality which can be rectified.
No, you cannot avoid using electricity few months in summer to have electricity for the rest time. And you cannot double the number of extremely costly NPs to have one half online while another half is being maintained/repaired.
That's sad to see. I was a member for about 4 years, but the party was more and more interested in arguing about distant things like basic income, than more relevant topics. Also, I really disliked that they voted against having a decentralized party conference and always required on site meetings.
Frankly, most "pirate topics" are things that are distant for most people.
People firstly care about migration, Ukraine war, things around energy, and secondly culture war topics. At least in my country, that stuff dominated the debates. (Especially the Ukraine war support.)
People don't care that much about chat control, GDPR, cookie laws, file sharing (the original Pirate topic), or even USB ports on iPhones. They do care but not that much to vote for them.
Which I find hugely amazing since it's a boogeyman for other actual problems.
Here the migrants are "taking our houses", but if you look at the actual statistics it's not even a drop in the ocean (there are some local variances but nothing significant). The main culprit is 15 years of no significant construction and hand waiving by those who already bought a house.
Here major cities would be shrinking without migration. Meaning that with zero new construction housing would become more available.
It is self evidently true that the demand for housing migration creates increases prices and reduces availability for housing. Regardless what you think about migration policies, denying such an obviously true statement makes you look ridiculous.
Be serious 2 seconds ! They can't afford the housing you're referring to anyway and the city economy would shrink too and then you'd complain about that...
>They can't afford the housing you're referring to anyway
What? They live in the same type of building I live in. Their rent is paid by the government if they can't pay themselves. Have you never been to a major German city? Visit any part of the city which isn't for millionaires only and you will find it inhabited by locals and migrants. You are completely delusional if you think otherwise.
>and the city economy would shrink too and then you'd complain about that...
This is irrelevant to the economics of housing. Migrants drive up housing costs, that is the most basic economics.
And you will get screwed a second time, because you have to pay the cancellation fee.
> Should you cancel after 14 days, you'll be charged a lump sum amount of 50% of your remaining contract obligation and your service will continue until the end of that month's billing period.
Lawyer up! They unilaterally changed the contract, that probably invalidates that clause in any sane country (so, not USA). They might even have to pay you the cancellation fee, or more.
It may even in the us, but a lawyer will cost you more than paying the fee. Though there is a class action in the us if enough people cancle - the lawyers get the cancle fee and you get $.25
Adobe's fine print contains a Binding Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver, which would prevent class action in the U.S. if you didn't follow the instructions to opt out.
Similar clauses, some without opt-outs, have proliferated widely throughout the tech industry. Most notably, Windows added them to most of their products shortly before the release of Windows 8. Interestingly, GitHub does not have these clauses yet.
you can almost certainly do a chargeback on your credit card, then they have to come after you, and their legal costs will hugely outweigh any payment they are seeking
Check your credit card terms of service carefully. Cards do have consumer protection, but generally it isn't about this type of situation. If you owe the fee then it is fraud to do a chargeback and you can get into legal trouble (though odds are as the other poster said: they will just send you to collections and it will hit your credit report).
I agree that this type of change to contract terms is not acceptable, but unfortunately you need a lawyer to fight it.
It doesn't matter, because in sane countries, even when such clauses aren't outright illegal, you still have the right to refuse the change and cancel the contract without penalty. I am not sure exactly which countries are sane.
There's all kinds of law about what you can and can't put in a contract. You can't just write whatever you want and then hold people to it. Why do you think they always have a clause that says that if part of the contract is found to be invalid, the rest still applies?
...We may make changes to the Terms from time to time, and if we do, we will notify you by revising the date at the top of the Terms and, in some cases, we may provide you with additional notice. Adobe will not make changes that have the effect of imposing additional fees or charges without providing additional notice. Any such changes will not apply to any dispute between you and Adobe arising prior to the date on which we posted the revised Terms incorporating such changes, or when the Terms otherwise become effective. You should look at the Terms regularly..."
"...Unless otherwise noted, the amended Terms will be effective immediately, and your continued use of our Services and Software confirm your acceptance of the changes. If you do not agree to the amended Terms, you must stop using our Services and Software and, if applicable, cancel your subscription..."
It doesn't have to be court-enforceable. It just has to be scary enough that the customer will self-enforce. Usually the worst thing that happens if you put something invalid in a contract is that it's as if you didn't write it. Which is fine because that's what you would have done anyway.
I think your theoretically have the right for a free out of bad cancellation if a provider changes their TOS in a way where it's reasonable to argue it affects the usability of the product for you. At least in the EU.
Common law countries in general as well. You're not supposed to be able to rewrite a contract arbitrarily, nor can you simply write into a contract that you can rewrite it at will. In common law, that theoretically makes it not a contract in the first place.
For that reason, if you raise the right kind of fuss and raise it to their legal team, the legal team will almost certainly let you out for free rather than run the risk of getting their contract invalidated to any degree in a court of law. I speak here generally in such countries, not just for Adobe.
However, this is theory. The rule of law is generally declining in the West. Your mileage may vary in any specific attempt.
reply