It’s not useless. It will enable MS to build the walled garden they want, where you are forced to use the software they permit you to and nothing else.

We are the Borg.

That doesn’t mean all fact checks are bullshit, just that fact checkers are people with jobs and opinions too.

Nuclear has never been profitable without massive government subsidies and guarantees, and Google Kairos too will either manage to collect those or lose money.

It’s unclear how Google and Kairos set up the deal — whether the former is providing direct funding or if it just promised to buy the power that the latter generates when its reactors are up and running. Nevertheless, Kairos has already passed several milestones, making it one of the more promising startups in the field of nuclear energy.

I guarantee you, they are shouldering on none of the risk (like the Chinese and French at Hinkley Point), and this startup will be going down.

Nuclear is only competitive if you don’t factor in the negative externalities ( it has that part in common with fossil fuels) and the massive amount of government guarantees and subsidies that go into each and every plant.

Nuclear accidents are not insurable on the free market, that should tell you everything. If they were and owners had to factor in a market based insurance price, that alone would be so astronomically high that no investor would ever touch nuclear.

So governments guarantee to pay for damages in case of nuclear incidents. Governments bear the cost of waste disposal. Governments bear the cost of security (as in military /anti terrorism measures, because these things are awesome targets). Governments pay huge amounts of direct subsidies or take on debt via government owned companies to cap consumer prices. None of this is factored into electricity prices, none of this is factored into most studies.

If small nuclear plants are so impractical, why is Google funding seven of them?

Because, again, google won’t ever have to foot the actual bill. Also, google has a history of investing into things that don’t work out, so I wouldn’t necessarily cite them as an authority.

Edit: We don’t even know if google is actually “investing” anything here. They only say they agreed to buy power.

It’s unclear how Google and Kairos set up the deal — whether the former is providing direct funding or if it just promised to buy the power that the latter generates when its reactors are up and running.

Windows isn’t any less vulnerable now than 1 week after end of support.

I keep hearing about micro nuclear reactors

They are not becoming a thing and they are an asinine idea from the start. It’s basically decentralizing something that can only profit from centralization as it requires massive amounts of infrastructure for safety and security reasons in each location.

Nuclear is the most expensive way to make electricity and that will not change anytime soon.

So, basically like a massive UPS with some physical, local energy storage. Here’s hoping these will become practical in the near Future.

They are practical, and they are already being built.

I drive by 3 different pickup stations during my commute and there’s one in walking distance from home. I invest maybe 5 minutes of my time to pick something up. For that I never risk having anything stolen, damaged or misplaced and no driver has to look for parking in my street and climb the stairs to my door.

No idea what you’re doing in your precious time that that seems like such a bad investment to you. That sounds even more ridiculous when I think about how much my parent’s time was “disrespected” when they had to go to a store to get their stuff.

The fact of the matter is that home delivery is not a sustainable model in a world where everybody orders so much stuff online. Drivers are overworked and underpaid, and if that were fixed you would be the first to complain about higher shipping rates.

I would not buy from someone who used a parcel service that just dumped my stuff outside.

Does it work out for you? I’m German, and in theory the sticker has to be respected here too, but in my experience a lot of junk mail bets on me being too lazy to sue them.

Where would that be?

Mozilla’s model would only “do something for privacy” if it replaced what we have today. Not if it just ran alongside the others. That’s not absurd, it’s reality.

That’s not what this is. Neither Mozilla, nor anybody else, has any data tied to you.

That’s the kind of data companies like Meta and Google (I’m sure among others I don’t know) track and use to sell ads today . That is their entire business model. And they will not stop it of their own free will for an alternative that gives them less useful data than they had before.

Mozilla’s model does nothing for privacy unless legislation forces companies to quit the current more invasive kind of tracking. But if it did that, we would have won and wouldn’t need Mozilla’s model either.

In their own words

PPA does not involve sending information about your browsing activities to anyone. This includes Mozilla and our DAP partner (ISRG). Advertisers only receive aggregate information that answers basic questions about the effectiveness of their advertising.

So, let’s say I trust in everything they are saying, which is the absolute best case scenario, then they have done nothing for privacy, because the whole premise that ad networks only care about ex-post measuring the effectiveness of their ads is false. They could have done that long before.

They want to know who you are and what you do so they can sort you in categories and show you specific ads based on those. That’s the service ad networks sell to advertisers. So, tracking as usual will continue.

They are not making ads private, they are adding another tracking vector. This will not get rid of the other ones already there.

There is no reason to trust Mozilla more with your data than anybody else.

I think people don’t hate Mozilla, they want them to do better as there are not many options left if you care about privacy. It’d just be nice to not have to pick the lesser evil for once.

No.

The same thing is in the terms and conditions for each of your old CD ROM games. The point is that they can’t physically keep you from using the DRM free software that you backed up locally.

The perceived difference has nothing to do with the game being a “service” or that perpetual licenses are not economically possible for “services” but with the fact that by the power of the Internet companies now have a way to brick your stuff remotely. And you accepted it when they put it in instead of voting with your wallet. Because you wanted Half Life 2 just so so so badly.

They’re doing it because they can, not because they have to.

The same software purchased digitally doesn’t magically become a “service”. Coincidentally, you can absolutely download and backup all your GOG games and then “own” them the same way you own your old CD ROMs.

Pretty sure it was some random Aldi commercial or sth.