And now to the interesting question:

Does China plan to pump up that oil to sell it to the morons flooded with anti-renewable propaganda while changing to electrification via green energy themselves just like many other big oil producers?

I’m afraid I already know the answer.

Section 129 of the Criminal Code is colloquially coined as the anti-Mafia paragraph…

Guess against whom it is never actually used. Hint the answer starts with criminal and ends with organisations.

Wouldn’t it be great if just one company per 10 articles about European companies “looking for alternatives” was actually ditching US services for European alternatives?

How to recognize the flag of Greenland:

If Poland and Monaco had a baby…

The one has more military might then the 31, and it’s not close.

And the source is the same media that also tells you fairy tales about how the US can’t afford health care because they need to spend money on their MIC Europe…

That’s not even the whole story… He also told European governments to embrace far-right MAGA style populists.

If they could jsut fuck off silently and keep their insanity contained in the US this would already be an improvment.

There are basically two viable options:

Renewables plus short-term storage (for ~6 hours, which is enough to shift production peak to demand peak) plus long term storage would be one.

The other is renewables plus nuclear and long term storage. Here you can get by -compared to a fully renewable model- with less renewables (although that part is financially speaking neraly irrelevant) and slightly less long-term storage. Nuclear base-load mostly eliminates the need for short-term storage and makes power-to-gas as long-term storage more efficient (electrolysers work much better economically when you can have them run most of the time, instead of needing a lot to use up peak overproduction while not running the rest of the day).

If you want to look at numbers (and different models) there’s a big study of France’ grid provider (from end of 2021 I think) about nuclear power models by 2050. And they assume roughly (they modelled more or less nuclear) 35% nuclear / 65% renewables.

Also we can assume a demand increase for electricity by a factor of ~2,5 when industry, heating (where it didn’t already happen) and transport is electrified to get CO₂-neutral. So if you are going the nuclear route you would need (on top of a lot of renewables) nuclear capacities of more than 80% of today’s demand (80% / 2,5 = 32%…).

Also if you don’t already have high nuclear capacities available already you need to start building en masse preferably yesterday. Because to meet already agreed upon climate goals starting slowly now and burning a lot of fossil fuels for another 20 years until newly build reactors are ready will not work out.

And now compare this with reality: Basically every country talking about nuclear plans is still in some early planning phase, none of them are planning sufficient capacities and a lot of them are also still stuck in some imaginary and nonsensical nuclear vs. renewable discussion.

So to answer your question… He ist right because you either plan a sufficient amount of reactors right now or you don’t plan any at all. And if you can’t realistically pay the upfronted cost of a massive nuclear build-up right now, then that’s a reason not to do it. But building just a reactor (or 3) to pretend that it will reduce CO₂ quickly until you have a better solution or can afford to build more reactors is just stupid bullshit. That’s what a renewable upbuild is for, that actually helps reduce emissions within years, not in a decade or more when a nuclear power plant is build.

And he is right. But as nuclear is a scam not meant to solve anything and is just used as a distraction to spend years “planning” totally insufficient capacities at high costs so some lobbyist friends can burn fossil fuels longer, it won’t happen. Just like in bascially every other European country telling the fairy tale of some nuclear solution.

He only thinks it was a “mistake” because he (at least publically) believes that Trump is working in the interest of NATO, Ukraine or the Western world and isn’t working for Russia.

I actually like what Steam did for Linux gaming in general, but in the end it is slowly becoming a crutch. Why should I spin up the Steam client (that is neither fast nor easy on resources, too) every time I want to play a non-steam game?

Again… it’s nice what Valve is doing in general and that most of the stuff is open source and thus can be back ported to Wine.

I however find it concerning that the number of people doing so seems to be constantly decreasing. And I don’t actually understand why the majority of gamers -people that are insanely obsessed with very small FPS or other perfomance increases sometimes- seems to be content with using Steam as the one-size-fits-all solution for games. Just simple Wine Staging can often match the performance for older games, for all games once you start backporting some patches and fixes developed for Proton. And yet the contributors seem to get less by the day and a lot of projects pre-compiling patched Wine versions are vanishing for a lack of interest.

In short: I don’t get that voluntary lock-in to Steam for very little convenience of having a fancy interface for starting your games.

NIMBYs claiming in bad faith

[…]

I propose that we flip the argument

And there’s your mistake. You understand that NIMBYs are not arguing in good faith, yet still ponder how to make a better argument.

Not revolting before you are sure you have the proper support to succeed IS the actual advice. They are just waiting for something like this to happen as a pretense to suspend existing law and take total control. So you have exactly one chance. Use it wisely.

Missing the updated Logo:

Your dogs have accents depending on size? German ones are boring and speak in standard Wuff.

Is NCD now obsolete, when allegedly serious media reported such bullshit or were they infiltrated in a secret expansion plan?

Why should it sacrifice itself? There are more than fast-flying kamikaze drones. Smaller spotters or all those improvised models based on commercial quadrocopters with an AT warhead are nice targets for a properly sized bird of prey coming at them like they would hit their regular prey… fast and from top.

In fact there were several project world-wide to actually train birds to hunt down drones. Most were abandoned as fast spinning rotors can be a danger to claws when they get unlucky… but still it’s perfectly reasonable to expect a big owl, eagle etc. to down a drone.

Activists and consumer groups can do a better job exploiting social media virality to reach young Americans.

I actually doubt they can, as the algorithms controlling visibility are all about money and they can’t compete in that regard with those big actors actively working for the stultification of people.

Also: not an US problem at all, but a global one.

I am very unique… solely based on the the referer 🤣

So another country on the way to get cuts in the money they get from the EU, because support for Ukrainian refugees is not a national decision but a mandatory one running under an (unanimously agreed) EU directive.

… with judges explaining their non-judgements with some totally rediculous arguments like: he has already suffered the worst… having to live with the fact he klilled someone, so there’s no reason for further punshment.