They’re normally EU wide as the free movement of goods applies to things you buy. Sure the postage might go up a little if it’s the other side of the continent, but there should be no restrictions.

If no data reaches the US (because it’s self hosted) and no money goes to the US (because it’s open source), does it matter that the developers are in the US?

That sucks, but could you buy in a neighbouring country. If you save enough it could be financially worth it.

Obviously UK would be of no use. Stearing wheel in the wrong place.

France went all in on nuclear in the 80s and 90s. They’re upping their production now to replace their aging stations that are needing to be decommissioned. Their power generation has been 90+% nuclear for a looong time. That was a good time to do it. Renewables weren’t practical like today.

You seem to think that renewables only help when we have enough for 100%, but that’s not true. Take the UK for example. It currently has about 32GW of installed capacity. Of course the wind doesn’t always blow, but over the last year it generated about 10.5GW on average. That’s all fossil fuels not being burnt. CO2 not being emitted. Today.

For comparison: That’s 6-10 nuclear reactors worth. Modern ones. And it’s mainly happened in the time period that the UK has been building one 3.2GW nuclear site (2 reactors) that had an opening date of 2025. If they’d not invested in wind, and just gone nuclear, starting 10 or so reactors around the country, we’d have been burning fossil fuels at full rate for the last 15 years and only now be able to switch off coal and a bunch of gas. Going from 6-700g of CO2 per kWh to todays 125g.

This image wouldn’t be a transition, it would be a sharp step to the left at the end. (From here)

Unfortunately that nuclear site is delayed 5 years to 2030. So we’d still be burning fossil fuels. No reduction. By that time it’s planned that 50GW of wind will be installed, so about 15-16 GW on average. Another 4-5 reactors worth, but that doesn’t stop the reductions we have today.

Don’t buy new. The second hand market for EVs is great. 3-4 year old cars with over 200 miles range for £12-15k, and lots of them.

It can, and I’m not anti-nuclear for all use cases. I just don’t think it stops us burning stuff soon enough.

There’s no option. Transitioning to nuclear will keep you burning stuff for 10-15 years whilst they’re built. Even SMRs will be 5-10. Renewables come online with a much smoother transition curve. You reduce burning stuff sooner, and we need whatever is quickest.

You’re forgetting that those batteries are super useful in case of power outages

1. The last power outage I had was over 10 years ago.
2. Batteries only work in that case if the inverter isn’t “grid-following”. Most inverters are, and so when the grid goes down, so do your batteries.

Storing a ton is easy. It’s storing gigatons that’s hard.

You know nuclear isn’t self-sustainable? Uranium is mined in only a few places.

The US likes to make it sound like Mexico is South American. It’s very much not.

Start being politically active. Start the US down a road towards being a trade partner that can be trusted.

There are vital elections later this year. Find out who the candidates are in the local areas. Offer your help to the one that you think will make the most change.

It’s easy without docker too. It’s a single static binary.

The right place for that is a private forgejo instance. Why put private data on somebody else’s computer?

There’s also been a big reduction in the amount used which wouldn’t have happened as quickly otherwise.

That’s a bit like saying it was good for Putin to invade Ukraine because it forced Europe to get off natural gas as an energy source.

I’d rather live in the world without that happening.

They try to be objective, which is more than most.

Personally I think some opinion always comes through and generally I prefer sources that admit that and share their opinion on what they’re reporting on. As long as it’s honestly given and not manufactured.

It’s a bit like film critics. Over time you get to know what they like and what they don’t and that let’s you extract more information. A rom-com impressing a horror fan gives me more information that it appealing to a fan of the genre.

Similarly, when Owen Jones started criticizing Labour I knew that Labour were leaving a bunch of their supporters behind without needing to be told that explicitly.

MS Office, for example is a product with 30 years of development behind it. How do you replace it?

• You could buy a competing commercial implementation. Something like… Ah, hang on … Google Office or Apple’s offerings or …
• You could start up a new EU company to develop an office suite. Five to ten years later you may have something that can compete, but that company needed secure investment so it didn’t get acquired over that period. There’s also no guarantee it will succeed. Probably a €250M gamble.
• Or you can build on open source and accelerate faster. Deploy what exists today and invest in the development to enhance it.

If you want to minimise risk and move quickly, I don’t see another option.

deleted by creator

Best thing they could do is develop some RAM manufacturing capacity.