That's how Swiftkey works, yeah. If you put your cursor at the end of a word, hacker for example, pressing shift once gives Hacker as an autocorrect option, and a 2nd press gives HACKER.
> Economist and economy ministry advisor Jens Südekum called the analysis’s results “astonishing.” Commenting on social media platform X, Südekum pointed out that industry prices had fallen “significantly” and that price indicators continued to point downwards. The trend would be similar for private households, albeit at a slower pace, he argued. Once current contracts expire, Südekum said lower prices should become widespread in new ones. “Overall, the BDEW figures don’t chime with current mood in debates, which is that everything is going down the drain due to high energy prices,” he argued.
I understand where you are coming from, especially with the data. As I grew older I rarely trust data as it is not independent, manipulated or given a false view. It should be supported by physical evidences which is often missing.
An anecdotal evidence, a large semiconductor in Germany with fabs is moving to "best" cost countries and the message provided is clear by the management. Positions are moved to "best" cost countries and new offices in these locations are being opened. Support jobs i.e. back office, accounting etc are in the process first. R&D is next and many engineers have taken the hint. The biggest customers for them is automotive as is usually the case for most of the German companies. If automotive market falls then they are in serious trouble. Make what you want out of this.
FWIW there was a huge surge in energy costs following the war in Ukraine (due to the reduction in supply of Russian gas) which was dampened by the government with a subsidized price cap at 0.40€/kWh - for consumers anyway, as far as I'm aware there were different subsidies for industry.
But consumer prices have largely stabilized at a range of 0.25€ - 0.35€ although you'll also find some prices listed as low as 0.20€ or less if you are willing to price hop a lot.
Apparently there will also be price cuts in the North and East of Germany as well as Bavaria in the near future but I don't know the specifics of that.
> FWIW there was a huge surge in energy costs following the war in Ukraine (due to the reduction in supply of Russian gas)
And due to the fact that they decided to shut down the last nuclear power plants directly after that, which further reduced supply and until today I consider this one of the most stupid political decisions ever made.
I think the 4.1 percent that nuclear was providing was not having the impact you are assuming. Also the amount of energy produced by natural gas and renewables more than offset the cost of nuclear.
Well, electricity consumption has fallen quite a bit, because energy intensive industries (like chemical industry) already left the country. Energy prices are still high (not as high as 2022) and they would probably be much higher if those industries were still there.
Unfortunately there is little reason to invest in Germany at the moment. It will get worse(they are already announcing an increase in health insurance rates) before it will get better.
More often than not it is the wiring connecting the showerheads that is not well done. I got zapped at least once when I worked in Brazil so I took extra care handling the lever that selects the temperature.
I have never seen waterfall in pure form. Mostly some kind of big upfront requirements projects with implementations iterations and a lot of project change management during the dev phase. These upfront requirements periods could be anything from a couple of weeks to a couple of years. While, I don't doubt that long requirements phases can have some value in aligning stakeholders on a new direction, they often became a raison d'être for complete teams - often stopping other promising projects in its wake: "You have to align with project jabberwocky before we can sign off your project." Agile seemed like a way to start early and get reduce the inherent waste by building software on paper upfront.
It's a small world. During Martin Luther King Jr. visit to Berlin he was also awarded a honorary degree by the Theological School of the Protestant Church of West Berlin. The theologian and pastor handing over the degree during the ceremony is part of our family history. We still have a picture of both of them during the ceremony.
That is not true, stop perpetuating that myth. Most of the nuclear waste by volume is of low level waste (90%) or intermediate level (7%) and only 3% is high level waste i.e. spent fuel. We still have to store the 97% of waste that cannot be reused.
If we're getting real and addressing "myths" then here's a good often ignored hard truth;
Most radioactive waste, by weight and volume, is low to mid level raioactive waste and most of that is 'NORM' and outside the nuclear power industry.
The mining industry also produces large volumes of waste containing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM)
~ https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/legacy/pubs/radwaste/Issues92_woollett.pdf
Two examples of large volumes of non nuclear industry radioactive waste are:
When did dang die and who elected you the moderator?
The topic I replied to was nuclear waste (check your very own comment) and it's relevant to nuclear power that dealing with radioactive waste is a persistent issue regardless of whether nuclear power exists or not.
The thread was about nuclear power and the accompanying issue with nuclear waste types. You brought up mining for rare earth and naturally occurring radioactive waste in the process.
I don't see how this relates to nuclear power and it's waste issue.
I'm not responsible for your inability to see a connection, FWiW I do have a few decades in global scale geophysics and environmental background radiation maping, but what would I know.
WRT your self annointed command and control of thread comments, have you read:
defrost, I assume you meant that most mining for rare earth also produces LLW. I don't see any other connection to nuclear power/nuclear waste besides that. So I assume your argument is that nuclear waste is not bad (or equally bad), since rare earth mining is also a source of LLW?
> I'm not responsible for your inability to see a connection ...
> WRT your self annointed command and control of thread comments ...
> When did dang die and who elected you the moderator?
Rare earths are used in the production of solar panels and wind turbines and the associated electronics and storage batteries. The point is that if you're concerned about "low-level waste" then you can't propose these things as an alternative since they generate even more of it.
Low-level waste is basically just ordinary rubbish. You don't have to store it in a mountain for a million years, it will be indistinguishable from background before anybody finishes arguing about what to do with it. A lot of it is indistinguishable from background to begin with but is legally required to be treated differently because of where it came from.
The people who think this is a problem haven't internalized a fact about radioactivity: Half life is the inverse of radioactivity. The more radioactive something is, the less time before it's gone. Anything with a short half life is not a problem because it will be gone soon; anything with a long half life is not a problem because it's about as radioactive as a banana.
> Low-level waste is basically just ordinary rubbish.
Untrue. You are just making nuclear proponents look bad with your broad strokes statements.
Edit: I am sorry if this came out angry. We need to have a good discussion about nuclear power and it's place in the energy mix. It's clearly losing at this point due to the immense costs associated with it (construction, insurance, decommission, etc.), the risks and the long investment horizon. Handwaving away issues or derailing arguments does not help the discussion.
Look we tried to find a solution for LLWs in Germany with cavern style storage repositories in Asse 2 and Morsleben. Due to many reasons, the costs spiraled out of control and we basically had to switch to overground storage and are in the process of repatriation. The reality is that currently storage of LLWs is expensive (see https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_13212/low-level-radioactive...). The cost of treatment of LLW is difficult to specify. So far I have seen no reports that would compare treatment to long term storage repositories. Even with incineration the ashes still need to be stored for some time until they can be disposed.
This is just using a different definition of "nuclear waste". What most people mean by this (and are concerned by) is something that is radiologically dangerous and has to be stored for thousands of years, but no such thing exists. There are things that are radiologically dangerous, but they have short half lives and are commercially valuable. Then there are things that "last for thousands of years" (e.g. Pu-239), but Pu-239 is only mildly radioactive and has commercial and government uses as fissile material. In fact, building new reactors is the best way we know of to get rid of it.
What you're referring to ("low-level waste") is this:
> Low-level wastes include paper, rags, tools, clothing, filters, and other materials which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity. Materials that originate from any region of an Active Area are commonly designated as LLW as a precautionary measure even if there is only a remote possibility of being contaminated with radioactive materials. Such LLW typically exhibits no higher radioactivity than one would expect from the same material disposed of in a non-active area, such as a normal office block.
This isn't really "nuclear waste", it's ordinary rubbish that was near radioactive material so people are paranoid about it out of an abundance of caution. And any radioisotopes that are present in it will follow the same rule -- anything with high radioactivity decays quickly. It's no great mystery how to deal with that sort of thing; you store it for a short number of years to let anything with a short half life decay and then you treat it as any other trash.
It's gotten so bad, that I have started to actively look for for products and services with known good customer support. E.g. I switched to an internet provider for SMEs. Costs around 20% more, but has dedicated IPv4/IPv6 IPs and offers a real human help desk.
I am doing the same recently. It took me a while to learn this (because I started life without much access to money). Buying convenience is a thing!
Some examples: I pay for my search (Kagi). I picked my home builder by how they took my wishes into account. Instead of the chain restaurant, with disinterested staff, go to the one where the person behind the counter is the owner.
I think good customer services can be your special sauce when making a business!
