There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

matlag

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

matlag ,

The beauty of it is they seem to mix a bench of definitions and forms they don’t understand and assume they can mean whatever sounds convenient to them.

They quote dictionaries definitions as if they were legally binding to their interpretation.

Such a mix of abysmal ignorance and supreme confidence is incredible!

matlag ,

At last constant surveillance is deemed a problem, which is why ultra-rich have their privacy protected, while you, peons, keep being monitored.

matlag ,

That’s why you get “don’t put living animals in the microwave oven” in the instructions.

If Tesla didn’t explicitely wrote “don’t put your f***ing finger in the way on purpose after multiple attempts to close it!” he may have a chance.

He will plead a trauma from the loss of trust in his beloved car brand and the credibility damage on his Youtube channel and ask for M$.

matlag ,

They’re not “defeated”. They got exactly what they wanted. People leaving without having to lay them off through attrition.

Now that they think they have “right-sized” their workforce at no cost, they nicely offer to concede hybrid working to keep the rest of their employees.

matlag ,

I kind of wonder if he realizes abandoning his citizenship means he’ll become instantly an illegal, having no document authorizing him to stay in the country.

matlag ,

They would need to find an unclaimed island, I guess. Or isn’t Antartica’s status that it doesn’t belong to any country? We could suggest that.

matlag ,

I’m sorry if that’s harsh, but my feedback would be: drop that chart!

It’s daunting, it’s going to freak out many newbies. Too much choice kills the choice.

You have one “default” at the bottom, Mint, so stick to that. Tell the newbies they can switch anytime to something else once they’re a bit more comfortable with the Linux-world. And if I’m not mistaken, you can install and try the main DEs with Mint also. Or you can recommend Ubuntu, or any other newbie friendly distro. Just pick one and don’t lose them over what they could see as an important difficult decision before they even get started.

matlag ,

Mozilla downsizes as it refocuses on Firefox and AI drops multiple products and layoff 60 so that its current budget can accomodate the stratospheric compensation of its new CEO.

matlag ,

What’s interesting here is they no longer need to hack and crack devices through loopholes and backdoors schemes.

All the data they need are already collected by private corporations with the pro-active collaboratron of the users themselves (“Click here to agree to the terms and conditions”).

I hope someday we'll find a way to pirated a car (lemmy.world)

In the end, the KIA car company made its cars into subscription models, I really hate this because in the end the car we buy with our own money doesn’t feel like it belongs to us. Should we finally buy an old school car ? so as not to be affected by this subscription models or is there a way to crack the software installed in...

matlag ,

Assume the communication with the app it through Internet. The car must have a 4G chip (too early to see 5G in cars, I think?). So no matter what you pay, it won’t work when 4G is retired. With marketing pushing to get new standards always faster, 4G may not last another 20years.

Anyway, bear in mind that once you subscribe, they will most likely collect detailed data about how you use the features and sell that as well…

matlag ,

In theory, yes, you could make a mess, and any firmware is supposed to be certified to allow the device to be used.

In practice, this has been a convenient excuse to keep a whole chip with a separate OS in every smartphone, and it is very difficult to isolate from the rest of the system (see Graphene OS efforts).

I say all firmware should be opensource. Whether you’re allowed to change them or not is a separate question… for now.

matlag ,

Half of the job is to fix issues with existing suff, the other half is to make working stuff more complicated and problematic (aka “upgrade”), so that we’re still paid to do the first half.

matlag ,

I kind of hope it’s real. Down that path at some point they’ll decide the whole Internet and all modern technologies are satanist and leave Internet for good. They can embrace the Amish lifestyle, it’s a win for the rest of us.

matlag ,

This might be an unpopular post but so’ll be it: Mastodon is the existing proof that Meta could kill Mastodon any time.

Mastodon was using a protocol compatible with GNU Social: OStatus, but some features were quickly added without consideration for other implementations.

So when per-post privacy were introduced, for example, they were very public on GNU Social, because their devs had no idea this was coming. And GNU Social was blamed for it.

…thenexus.today/mastodon-a-partial-history/…

Instead of having more users, GNU Social is now (almost?) dead. Of course it’s not just because of the above. But it wouldn’t have been set back so much without Mastodon.

Now, Mastodon is opensource, has more features and some compatible implementations. I run Pleroma myself. But why would one think Meta could not cripple them both?

matlag ,

I use to say “all extremes call for their opposite”. Since almost no information ever transpires about this whole scandal, the opposite is to release all the names to the public. It was to be expected. If we were trusting the justice system, this would seem inappropriate. But we have what we have, and making the whole list public is the only guarantee we have that not one of the “bad” guy can escape public’s attention. That of course, is valid only if the list is comprehensive and some names have not already been taken out.

It is indeed unfortunate that a lot of people who didn’t deserve and didn’t want any bad attention will get some.

I’m not saying I agree with the move. I’m saying it was to be expected.

[Edit made: grammar & missing words]

matlag ,

Nuclear plants consist mainly of a shitton of concrete (and only the best sort is good enough). The production of that concrete causes a terrible amount of carbon emissions upfront.

Actually, if you compare them to solar or wind at equivalent service, it’s not that straightforward:

Renewables installed capacity is nowhere close to their actual production, nuclear can produce its nominal capacity in a very steady way.

Wind turbines also need a lot of concrete, and much more metal for equivalent output. Solar panels need a lot of metals.

Renewables need a backup source to manage their intermittency. It’s most often batteries and fossil plants these days. I don’t think I need to comment on fossil plants, but batteries production also has a very significant carbon emission budget, and is most often not included in comparisons. Besides, you need to charge the batteries, that’s even more capacity required to get on par with the nuclear plant.

With all of these in consideration, IPCC includes nuclear power along with solar and wind as a way to reduce energy emissions.

matlag , (edited )

We also had decades to prevent climate change from happening and look how well we tackle it now.

I’m confident we’ll have a plan to prevent that collapse that’s due within 100 years, but to keep it reasonable, its execution will be spread over 100 years, and we think about starting in 80 years providing everything goes well in the meantime.

Chill, you can see it’s all taken care of!

matlag ,

Scientists have not been hyperbolic. If anything, so far, they’ve been very cautious abut their statements.

I still remember reading headlines about “likelihood of global warming” then “probably caused by human activities” because 90% level of confidence is not enough, you need more data until you can reach 95% or 98% confidence before boldly writng “most probably”.

But in their “probably” they predicted we would see more floods, droughts, violent storms, all of these happening one after the other causing devastation.

And Ô surprise: we see floods, droughts and storms following each other and causing devastation. Yet our leaders will claim “no one could have predicted all of that would happen at once!”.

Now they start telling us our civilization could collapse (“could” must be what? 75% confidence level???)

We’re going to spend 20-25 years claiming they exagerate, another 20-25 years saying “well, they maybe right, but we can’t change things too fast because that would be unreasonable and the people would not accept it”.

By the time, we will start reading articles stating no matter what we do now, we can only push out the end a bit, but we’re doomed. And the first reactions will be “those damned scientists always exagerate and use hyperboles”.

Samsung joins Google in RCS shaming Apple (www.theverge.com)

Samsung has released a new video in support of Google’s #GetTheMessage campaign which calls for Apple to adopt RCS or “Rich Communication Services,” the cross-platform protocol pitched as a successor to SMS that adopts many of the features found in modern messaging apps… like Apple’s own iMessage.

matlag ,

Not going to happen. They charge such an insanely high premium vs real cost for a very primitive messaging system, they’re not letting that go!

matlag ,

For example:

farm.bot

There are others. Plenty of small/medium businesses just don’t have the resources to develop small computers and the matching software stack. In that regards, the RPi is an appealing choice.

matlag ,

Inflation reduces the value of money at the bank: the money saved as well as the money borrowed.

In an ideal world, wages are indexed on inflation (way of calculating inflation in this context can be discussed), and inflation is kept above present targets levels (central banks try to keep it at 2% these days).

That makes your debts easier to reimburse, and limits returns on savings. Have you ever noticed that people who keep talking about the “value of work” actually push for low wages and no or low taxes on capital gains, so actually wants the capital to make more money than work?

A low inflation allows big money to hoard more and more. Higher inflation means money that’s not actively contributing to the economy will lose its value over time, and that’s exactly what you, at the bottom of the ladder, want (and considering top of the ladder is hundreds of billions of $, ever 6 figures employees are bottom of the ladder).

Too high inflation leads to an uncontrolled spiral. Deflation is also very bad (no investment will ever happen if your money just appreciate by doing nothing). But the 2% target is not to protect you. It’s made for money to make more money.

But about the link between wages and inflation: what we have today is a situation where we let cost of life dramatically outpace wage growth. So where did the inflation come from? Profits! That needs to be rebalanced.

From 1945 to the early 80’s (before the €), France and some other countries minmum wages were indexed on inflation. If doing so would instantly crash an economy, we would have noticed…

matlag ,

By the time countries that could have built nuclear power plants would complete them, they will have collectively burnt enough coal and gas to doom humankind.

So: indeed, the world leaders didn’t try seriously.

matlag ,

French here. If you learn in Belgium or Switzerland, they have “septante” and “nonante” for 70 and 90.

It’s for sure more intuitive, but you have to admit that saying “four-twenty-twelve” (non-french speakers: that’s literal translation for 92) is sooooo cool!

matlag ,

What I don’t like with Matrix is the load it puts on the server. It basically copies 100% of a room content to any server having one or more users registered in the room.

So if you’re on a small server, and one user decides to join a 10k+ large room, your server may collapse under the load as it tries to stay in sync with the room’s activity. This is deterrent to self-hosting or family/club/small party servers.

XMPP, on the other hand, has proven to be highly scalable, has E2EE, federation and some bridging services.

The only thing XMPP does NOT have is a single reference multiplatform client with all basic features for 2023 (1:1 chat, chat rooms, voice/video 1:1, and voice/video conference) than anyone can use without wondering if the features-set is the same as the persons you’re talking to.

And while we’re there: I’m not even sure I want a messaging account linked to any of my Fediverse accounts…

matlag ,

“Collapse” meaning what, exactly? Do you mean run out of storage from the volume of content, or that processing all the messages is too taxing?

Years back, I setup a Synapse’s server on my personal server (Yunohost). At some point, I joined the “big” Matrix room. Bad idea: RAM and CPU usage went through the roof. I had to kill the server but even that took forever as the system was struggling with the load.

But don’t just take my words for it:

github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/7339

Last comment is from less than one year ago. I was told things should be better with newer servers (Dendrite, Conduit, etc.), but I’ve not tried these yet. They’re still in development.

How does it scale differently than Matrix?

The Matrix protocol is a replication system: your server will have to process all events in the room one or more users attend(s) to. There is a benefit to this: you can’t shut down a room by shutting down any server: all the other ones are just as “primary” as the original. Drawback: your humble personal server is now on the hook.

XMPP rooms are more conventional: a room is located on one server. That’s an “old” model, but it scales.

www.ejabberd.im/benchmark/index.html

That’s for the host. For other attendees, it’s much lower.

I don’t think I atteld any public room out there with 3k users, so I can’t report my first hand experience, this is the best I found. But I never had to check for load issue on a small server (running Metronome and many more services).

Out of curiosity, why do you say this?

I don’t use the Fediverse the way I engage with individual people. If I want a closer relation with someone, I don’t want to be bound to yet-another-messenging system, let alone on multiple accounts

And another reason is I may not want to be bothered by people I don’t know, regardless how much I could appreciate reading and/or exchanging with them in the Fediverse.

Ignoring or declining requests from strangers can leave a lot to interpretation and then frustration. Remove the button and no one is tempted to press it the be disappointed with the outcome. Less drama.

And that’s only considering well intended people.

But these are my humble 2cents.

matlag ,

10 years from now, you might be in a situation where the grid is unstable and capacity is insufficient in front of demand. You will also be facing potential renewal of existing solar panels, wind farms, batteries storage, etc.

If you lack capacity, any attempt at industry relocation locally will be a pipe-dream.

And at that time, you’ll say either “it’s too late to rely on nuclear now” or “fortunately we’re about to get these new power plants running”. You’re not building any nuclear power plan for immediate needs, you’re building for the next decades.

Meanwhile, one country will be ready to take on “clean production” and be very attractive to industrial projects because it already planned all of that years ago and companies will be able to claim “green manufacturing”. That country is… China!

matlag ,

I think it’s worse than that. We humans are inherently selfish and self-preserving.

People who live far away from any coal mines do not feel threatened by coal, because it will not impact them directly (besides fu**ing up the planet, of course, but that’s another issue humans have with big pictures and long term effect correlation to present small scale actions).

But most people can’t tell where a nuclear plant can be built, so it could be close enough to expose them to a risk of disaster?

Therefore: “Nuclear is more dangerous than coal (for my personal case)”

matlag ,

Sorry to ruin this dream, but not a single developed country (and most likely not a single non-developed either) has a remote chance of being carbon neutral in 10years.

Reason number one is “carbon-neutral” is yet another greenwashing marketing idea involving emissions compensations that are just not there.

We’ve seen now that planting trees will probably not do any good: we already see trees growing failure rate increasing due to excessive heating. They grow slower already, making all compensation calculations wrong, and they’ll burn in wildfires in summer, releasing all the carbon they captured.

The second reason is the insanely high dependency we have to cheap oil. You need to convert haul truck, small trucks, buses, etc. to electric all while you turn the grid to 0 emission.

You need to convert cargo ships to electric otherwise your net neutrality will need to conveniently ignore all importations and exportations.

You need to convert all farm machines to 0 emissions and abandon quite a lot of the chemistry considered for granted today, which means yields will drop.

You need to convert blast furnaces to alternative energies. Today, there is almost nothing done there other than “we’ll get hydrogen” that everybody know cannot be produced in the volume they need, let alone at an acceptable price.

And no energy source whatsoever is carbon neutral!

Solar panels need quite some metal and semicon-based manufacturing techniques. Wind farm need concrete for their anchoring, and use advanced materials to build. They both have a limited lifespan, after which you need to recycle (By the way: noticed that when “recycling” is advertised, no one mentions if it’s rectcling for the same usage and not recycled to lower grade material we can’t use back to produce the same device? That’s because we just can’t get them back with the same purity level…) and make some replacement, that will again have a share of emissions.

Short of producing absolutely everything in the chains of supplies locally, you will import emissions from another country

Any human activity is basically emitting or causing greenhouses emissions.

And while you think all of that can be managed, we already have all signals to red on the natural resources: we can’t extract lithium fast enough, and we may not want to given how dirty the mines are. We may run out of some metals we rely on.

And most of these issues are eluded in the great plans, because it’s too complicated or we simply have no solution and no one wants to say it up and loud.

Now, the good/bad news: all of this will end because we’re also running out of cheap oil.

It’s a good news because that will put a break in humans activities and so greenhouse gas emissions.

But it’s bad because not a single country is preparing for the aftermath, and that means… they will collapse!

matlag ,

I wouldn’t set expectations too high though: for the retirement bill, there were many protests, millions of people in the streets, all surveys showing a very strong reject by the people, and the reaction was basically: “I got elected, I do whatever the f**k I want!”.

Short of a revolution, nothing can change their mind. I’d rather push other parties to include this in their program for the next elections: repel this absurdity.

matlag ,

All bills targeting your freedom are labelled “child porn” or “terrorism”.

After terrorists attack in France, state of emergency was declared, special powers to restrainesuspicious powers at home. We MUST protect people frometerrorists, right? If you’re against that, which side are you on? Very first usage of the power: restrain non-violent eco-activists to their home so that they don’t disturb the COP.

That pattern repeats over and over. They’re counting on you being sensitive to “child porn”, I bet you the initial list will include “eco-terrorists” sites (label used on anyone attending a climate protest they tried to prevent), political activists sites (you try to be anonymous on Internet? That’s SO suspicious!).

I’m sorry for what happened to you, but ri seriously doubt this bill is really intended to prevent that.

matlag ,

Could we define a trade-off system? Classic broadcasting can take way too long to send out a large catalog. Streaming is, as you say, a heavy resources consuming system.

So how about a combo of a box or a software that can follow a broadcast N times faster than human, and broadcast N movies/series episodes a day? The application let you pick what you’d like to get on your box/app, and then it’s like classic video recording, but on steroids.

It would be like live-streaming, but at 2, 3, 10 times the normal speed. No human needs to follow that.

Of course, you still have the issue of glitches, communication interruption, but we’ve dealt with those for years, and there are certainly ways to indeed stream the missing parts, or use rediffusion.

You read it first here. I’m off to file for a patent and make billions (or not…)

matlag ,

This is a complex issue, not just because storing radioactive material is complex, but because the “waste” are not a uniform single material. Some have a decaying process of 300 years (90% of the waste, actually), some have a much longer one.

In the beginning of the nuclear era, some wastes were… dumped in the ocean (it’s as bad as it sounds). This is fortunately no longer the normal practice. Some dedicated storage sites are used to store them depending on their lifetime.

The latest solution is geologic storage (some caves were found with waste from naturally occurring fission, eons ago, radioactivity never escaped, so let’s just… do that?). A site was identified in Finland with a hope it can store them for 100,000 years (of course, we don’t have any reference that would last that long…). And the good thing is the storage is “reversible” for the first 100 years (if we change our mind/find better, we can still retrieve the waste during the first 100 years).

Finally, and that will resonate with @Waryle comment: France had a 4th generation prototype reactor called SuperPhenix. Particularity of a 4th gen reactor is it can use some wastes to produce more energy. SuperPhenix being a prototype, it suffered from many issues through its lifetime. But at the end, it had a 90% uptime, and though it wasn’t generating a lot of power (that was never the goal, remember: development…), some reports were recommending to keep it up so that it could have processed part of the existing nuclear waste.

To appeal to the ecologists party allied to the socialist Prime Minister at that time, SuperPhenix was definitely shutdown in 1997. And now, the same ecologists use the nuclear wastes issue as a big reason to push back any plan on nuclear power.

matlag ,

Actually, in a nuclear power plan, except the tank itself (not sure I’m translating “cuve” properly, every part can be upgraded.

“Lifetime exceeded” in a nuclear reactor is a misleading statement. The truth is we don’t know how long they can last. We know some minimum lifetimes only, by being cautious.

Example: you build the first plants, and you “slap” them with a 40 years lifetime. Why 40 years? Because we have enough records and historical data to back the structure and materials with enough confidence they will last 40 years at least. Beyond 40 years, we start venturing in uncertainty. That doesn’t mean we even trust the 40 years. Every 10 years, a power plant is getting fully audited to get an authorization to run for the next 10 years (and there are less deep regular audits as well).

Later, with more data, and more reference, you can establish that the structure and material have proven to have an even longer lifetime, and you can extend it (50, 60 years). It may come with extra-conditions, though. But there is a certain confidence that with the proper funding, France could keep its plants up and running for a lot longer than the initial 40 years.

Ironically, France shutdown the oldest reactors that just had received the very latest upgrade, making it also the most modern reactors in service.

matlag ,

Ok, so obviously, you’re not well aware of how the new European open market works, and why France ended up paying part of consumer’s bills.

France uses to have a state-owned company, EDF, producing and distributing electricity in France. EDF had a monopole. France had the cheapest electricity of Europe, and EDF was profitable. Sink that in, when you say nuclear is expensive:

EDF was delivering the cheapest electricity of Europe and was profitable.

A decision from the European Union was taken to force all members to switch to an open market. French government at the time was conservative, so they happily went along with it. Everyone “knows” that private sector always does better than whatever has “public” or “state” in its description.

But how would you introduce competition when virtually no one else produces any electricity? How to kickstart it? That’s where bright people went very very creative.

Production and distribution of electricity was split as separate activities. EDF spinned off the distribution part of its work. In parallel, a quota of nuclear production was allocated to new companies, “electricity suppliers”, so that they got something to sell at an affordable price.

That’s where it starts to be interesting: to guarantee a margin to electricity suppliers, so that they would make enough money to invest in production, the daily price of electricity on the market is set to the marginal cost of the most expensive power plant that’s turned on. Do you follow me? If today, 99% of electricity is coming from a nuclear power plant, but you need to start a coal power plant to provide the last 1%, all 100% of the electricity that day is billed at the cost of the coal power plant! I am not kidding, I am not making that shit up!

Why prices exploded since last year? Well, you’ve heard about gas prices, right? Every day a gas power plan is turned on with gas prices through the roof, 100% of the electricity that day is billed at the cost of the gas power plant. That’s why France started subsidizing the consumers bills, because most of them could not afford a x6, 7, 10 on their electricity bills.

But at least, we do have competition now, don’t we? Well… not on the production side…

No condition on investment was given to the electricity supplier. Read that again. Guess what happened. Electricity suppliers were buying most of their electricity at a cheap regulated cost from EDF and selling it with a big profit to consumers, all while producing nothing themselves. Why would they?? Money is trickling down to them for free!

Even better: as they were more competitive than EDF, thanks to having 0 maintenance and 0 investment to make, and cheap electricity to resell, their customers base grew. Then they found out that they were not getting enough cheap electricity, and they faced a dilemma: buy a larger share of electricity from other real producers, that would have increased their cost, or cap their customers base (or of course, invest in production, but who wants to do that, right?).

They did neither of these. They pleaded to the current government to get MORE cheap electricity from EDF. And the government did that: forced EDF to allocate more of its cheap nuclear electricity to them, increasing the quota. Needless to say that if EDF needed more electricity for their own customers, they were answered that they could buy the more expensive electricity from outside, or invest in more capacity. Makes sense, right? The exact opposite of what the system was supposed to do.

Now, the very best part: when gas price exploded, even the small fraction of electricity bought by the electricity suppliers impacted their cost. It was unacceptable to them. So they raised their rate to be above EDF, or even outright cancelled contracts with their customers, so that customers would go back to EDF (EDF cannot refuse contracts, and is not allowed to adjust its own rates). But… electricity suppliers do not have to give up on their quota from EDF… so…

EDF had to buy back the electricity EDF produces, to companies producing nothing, at the rate of the market, of course, not the rate at which EDF is forced to sell that electricity to these companies. So it’s even better now. EDF sells them electricity (which is a virtual sale, electricity still goes from EDF plants to households like it did before). These companies sell it back to EDF with a big margin. Dream business, isn’t it?

So France does not subsidize bills because nuclear is too expensive.

France literally subsidizes a scam scheme, in which most of the money going to parasitic companies producing nothing.

matlag ,

I don’t know who, in his sane mind, can claim there will never be periods of time with no sun and no wind at the same time. notrickszone.com/…/plunging-towards-darkness-germ…

You need a pilotable generator matching renewables. You can’t do without it. The only question is how much of it you need to plan. Existing approaches are storage: batteries, hydro where it’s possible (you pump the water up a dam to store back energy) and backup generators: coal, gas, and in some future plans, hydrogen.

None of these is a perfect solution (well, nothing is a perfect solution).

  • Hydro: that’s the ideal, but obviously, you need a very large body of water, and heavy construction. But it ends up being a very clean energy with long lifetime.
  • Batteries: lifetime considerably reduced, requires very large amount of precious minerals (today, car industry assume they’ll get ~100% of lithium extracted, aeronautic assumes they’ll get as much as they need without counting, and then you have the energy sector counting on very large quantities as well ; there won’t be enough we can extract for everyone, and lithium mines are all but clean).
  • Backup generators: no need to comment on fossil fuel, but hydrogen has a big issue: it is very inefficient, ~30%. So if you need it 10% of the time, you need to plan 30% more capacity of renewable, and that’s assuming you can pilot it all the way from total shutdown to 100% capacity, probably very optimistic. You will need to have it running at some minimum levels, that’s even more renewables you need to keep it running.

It is not completely true that nuclear needs to run at fixed level. Depending on their design, some plants are pilotable and some are not. But I don’t think (I’ll be happily corrected if needed) any had the flexibility you need to be used with renewable (quick large variations).

So the ideal mix is, IMHO, a baseline provided by nuclear, and a mix of renewable and complements to produce the difference.

Bonus: there is a “method” promoted by some (ignorant) politics they call “proliferation” (“foisonnement”, not sure I’m translating that the best). This is utter BS…

The idea is there will always be sun or wind somewhere in a super-grid spreading through Europe. If you think about it for 1 minute, that means that small part of Europe where there is wind will power, for a more or less short time, a large portion of the whole Europe?? Not only is that totally insane from the capacity point of view, but it also completely neglects the grid’s stability and electricity transportation issue. It is very difficult to transport electricity over very large distances without disturbing the grid. Ask Germany, they spend massively on infrastructures right now without counting on proliferation. That would raise the requirements further…

matlag ,

Any sources on any of that? That’s a lot of „you just know that“ information, and I do consider myself well informed. I am not from France though.

Hmm… sources, yes. In something that’s not in French is a tad more difficult, but I found these:

enerdata.net/…/france-mandates-edf-sell-100-twh-p…reuters.com/…/france-electricity-regulator-idUSL8…

I found that one about EDF regaining customers, losing money in 2022. It includes an addendum: the quota it has to sell was set back to 100TWh. But sorry, you’ll have to use a translation service… leprogres.fr/…/pourquoi-edf-gagne-des-abonnes-mai…

neither of those points addresses the costs of energy production I quoted above. Those are, to the best of my knowledge, approximately correct. It may very well have been that nuclear was competitive in the past, it isn’t anymore.

I am all but convinced any of this will last. Pressure on solar panel has increased, it is deeply connected to the semiconductor’s industry. In the coming decades, it will raise questions on water usage, minerals, etc.

Wind farms occupy very large surfaces, and they already compete with other usage of the land. Dismantling them is problematic too: a large body of concrete is left behind in the ground.

getting scammed by some middle man seems to be a fate that all modern democracies share, though who the middle man is varies country by country :-)

Unfortunately, can’t but agree, though it’s infuriating every time.

I consider the marginal cost thing to be one of the best acts from the EU. Maybe not in France, but overall it rewards the most efficient energy producer massively, which currently is solar. Those companies can use the excess money to reinvest.

They don’t reinvest (in France, I mean). They just cash the money. Keeping EDF as a state-owned monopoly has been working great for France for decades. The same model works great in Québec. There was no need to change it. EDF being state-owned, you can require it to invest in whatever you want: give it target on renewables, etc. What we have here instead is parasitic companies. Crushing majority of the production investment still comes from EDF, and their investment capacity is fading as their finances are gutted in the name of an “open market” ideology.

matlag ,

Good Post overall, no need to attack my sanity though :-)

I was not targeting you, rather the idea itself. But it came out terrible and there are definitely better way to express an opinion. So my apologies for that one!

matlag ,

The N9 was killed by Stephen Elop, the new CEO coming straight from Microsoft with a mission: get Nokia bought off by MS.

Right from the start, he ran an explicit counter-advertisement campaign against the N9 and Meego. Whatever commercial success it would be, this would be the first and last device running MeeGo from Nokia, and there would be no support for MeeGo.

Nokia was to embrace Windows mobile OS, that turned out to be a total disaster. But indeed, after he tanked Nokia, it became cheap enough to bought by MS, as Nokia got both cheap and undsirable by any other big player due to its binding to MS bad mobile OS, and Elop got his VP status back there.

This is a shame in the history of mobile phones and OS!

Later, some former Nokia would start their own phone company reusing part of MeeGo. Jolla was born.

matlag ,

I really wish they had opened all of the system.

I mean: what is it they can still lose? I’m pretty sure a few licenses are not making them break even. Do they fear some third parties would copy the OS and release phones with it? Would that not be a sign that other companies trust in the OS and help them land bigger contracts?

/e/ managed to get a business off with a full opensource stack, without building the phones themselves. What prevents Jolla to try the same approach?

They could have been the main developers of the true Linux opensource phone OS. Instead, they’re going to get passed by Plasma Mobile, and then they’ll have nothing left to offer.

matlag ,

I resent him slightly less than the idiots who appointed him CEO. To be appointed, you need to come with a plan you present to the board. Who the hell thought “let’s destroy everything that made Nokia successful so far and become a Nth Windows Phone maker!” was a good strategy??

seekingalpha.com/…/916271-how-stephen-elop-destro…

Symbian OS still had a very large user base and some support from large customers. The N9 and MeeGo was getting better reviews and customer satisfaction reports than Samsung and Apple’s phones! The obvious strategy was to navigate a transition between the legacy Symbian and a rising and promising MeeGo. But since his mandate was not to make Nokia successful but rather to have bought by MS, he could trash the business at will: made it cheaper for his real employer, MS.

theverge.com/…/report-says-stephen-elops-contract…

Seriously, that guy should have been jailed!!

matlag ,

The main issue is probably less meat itself than the ginormous quantities we consume.

Most livestock farming is intensive, meaning they can’t rely on grazing alone and need extra food sources, typically corn. They emit methane, a greenhousing gas on steroids.

That grain is produced through very intensive agricultural methods because we can’t get enough of it. It consumes ridiculously large amount of water and slowly degrades the soils. Nitrates eventually end up in the sea, causing algea to proliferate while other lifeforms are suffocated. See the dead zone in Mexico’s gulf.

71% of agriculture land in Europe is dedicated to livestock feeding.

The percentage must be similar or higher in America, and don’t count North America alone: without grains from Brazil, we’re dead. Period. So next time you hear the world blaming Brazil for deforestation, keep in mind that a large share of it is to sustain livestocks…

Cattle farming in the USA is heavily subsidized, by allowing farmers to use federal land for grazing for free (I believe something similar is in place in Canada?). The claim they “take care of the land” is absurd: nature has been doing that for millenias without needing any help. First nations have been living in these lands also without supersized cows herds and it was going alright. Farms actually prevent wildlife to take back its place.

But I wouldn’t blame them. People in North America (among others, and I live in Canada, definitely me too) eat indecent and unhealthy quantities of meat, and that has to come from somewhere.

Now, simple math will tell you: if everyone in the world was consuming meat in the same quantities as us, there would’nt be enough suitable land on Earth to grow the corn that needs to go with it.

Another thing is not all meats are equal in terms of pollution. From the worst to the least bad, in equivalent kgCO2 per kg of meat you can actually eat: -Veal: 37 -Chicken (intensive, in cage): 18 -Beef: 34 -Pork: 5–7 -Duck, rabbit, pork: 4–5 -Chicken ("traditonal, free range): 3–4 -Egg (for comparison): <2

You can appreciate the orders of magnitude!

There are only 2 ways out of this:

  • reduce meat consumption, and pick it right
  • grown meat (meat made without the animal around it, in machines)

One can be done today, starting with your next meal. We don’t need meat every meal, we don’t even need meat every day, but it is true that going full vegetarian force a certain gymnastic to get all the nutriments one need.

The other solution is barely getting there, so there are still unknown (food quality, resources consumption, etc.) and the economics may not help it taking off.

The third (and let’s face it: current approach at national level everywhere on this issue) option is to do nothing and keep going as if the problems didn’t exist. This is guaranteeing a famine in the coming decades. When we’ll fail to feed our livestock, and it will start dying, it will be too late to turn around and get the whole agriculture sector to transition. These things take many years.

We’re trying to reduce our meat consumption at home, or to favor the least impacting ones. We still eat too much meat, but I hope we can gradually improve.

matlag ,

There is no solution to capture methane in the air. Its lifespan in air is 12years, so if we stop emitting, it will go away by itself. Until then, it’s quite bad. Capturing it at the source is also challenging (can you hemetically seal a cow’s ass without impacting its health?!).

The best solution is… less farms, less cows but that means less meat!

matlag ,

A non-peered review article from a totally unbiased source.

Coming up next, an article demonstrating the benefit of burning oil for the environment by Shell.

matlag ,

Just how many times did you copy-paste that comment?! Are you a bot or a lobbyist by any chance?

You think that we started producing some grains, and one day we realized we had too much by-products and one smart guy said: “let’s start a cows herd so that they’ll eat these”. Sounds legit. Especially if you consider that eating beef the way we do is very recent in human history, and still inexistent in many parts of the world. Poor folks must be buried under the by-products…

So, since I don’t think farmers are total morons, I would rather imagine they would produce different kind of food, such as leguminous.

matlag ,

Today we burn tons of oil. Say tomorrow we have switched to all electric. Do you think we’ll keep extracting oil and that will create an environmental burden because of that oil sitting around?

That’s the same reasoning.

Today we grow megatons of corn,… for different things, including feeding livestocks.

Tomorrow, if we have less livestock, we’ll adapt the crops mix, just like rest of the world has been or is still doing fine without having mega-herds of cows.

We don’t have too many cows because we had too much crops. We increased the crops to match the herds!

matlag ,

No, we had cotton before we had 1billion cows, and it was working fine. We had corn before we had 1 billion cows and we were doing fine.

And other regions in the world have crops and never needed mega-herds of cows to deal with by-products.

We don’t need more cars because of all the oil we extract. If we don’t need oil, we’ll stop extracting oil. That’s not speculation.

Meta is so unwilling to pay for news under a new Canadian law that it's starting to block it on Facebook and Instagram in that country (fortune.com)

Meta is so unwilling to pay for news under a new Canadian law that it’s starting to block it on Facebook and Instagram in that country::The rollout of the news ban on Facebook and Instagram for users in Canada will take place over the next few weeks.

matlag ,

You mean like asking a fair share of Lemmy’s instances ads revenues to be given to media companies?

matlag ,

Meta is unwilling to pay for anything. They don’t pay taxes on their benefits in Canada either, after having swallowed almost 100% of the online ads business. But they’ll keep talking about how good for Canada and Canadians they are.

“They trust me. Dumb fucks!” – Mark Zuckerberg

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •