If capitalism worked, then those workers would be a flood of cheap labor that could be used to build cheap housing (among other things).

The problem Marx didn’t foresee is that capitalism can sustain itself until it destroys us all. In Nazi Germany, this left the country a bombed out pile of rubble. In modern times, it’s global warming.

China built a few Ap1000 designs. The Sanmen station started in 2009 with completion expected in 2014 (2015 for the second unit). It went into 2019. The second, Haiyang, went about the same.

This is pretty similar to what happened in the US with Volgte.

And 5 years is what nuclear projects have promised at the start over the years. Everyone involved knows this is a gross lie.

Nuclear is nothing bog standard. If it was, it wouldn’t take 10 years. Almost every plant is a boutique job that requires lots of specialists. The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design was meant to get around this. It didn’t.

The experts can stay where they are: maintaining existing nuclear power.

Renewables don’t take much skilled labor at all. It’s putting solar panels on racks in a field, or hoisting wind blades up a tower (crane operation is a specialty, but not on the level of nuclear engineering).

Then we just move the problem. Why should we do something that’s going to take longer and use more labor? Especially skilled labor.

Money is an imperfect proxy for the underlying resources in many ways, but it about lines up in this case. To force the issue, there would have to be a compelling reason beyond straight money.

That reason ain’t getting to 100% clean energy in a short time. There is another: building plants to use up existing waste rather than burying it.

… it’s currently not possible to store the renewables anywhere

Every time someone argues this, it’s immediately obvious they haven’t actually paid attention how the storage market has been progressing.

Next, you’ll probably talk about problems with lithium, as if it’s the only storage technology.

If you’re going to do that, then also consider the co2 output of all the concrete needed for nuclear power plants.

No, you just pay out the nose up front.

If I had money to invest in the energy sector, I don’t know why I should pick nuclear. It’s going to double its budget and take 10 years before I see a dime of return. Possibly none if it can’t secure funding for the budget overrun, as all my initial investment will be spent.

A solar or wind farm will take 6-12 months and likely come in at or close to its budget. Why the hell would I choose nuclear?

But the technology to rely entirely on renewables isn’t really there either.

Yes, it is.

https://books.google.com/books/about/No_Miracles_Needed.html?id=aVKmEAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description

This is a book by a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering that goes into the details. We don’t need nuclear. All the tech is there.

Except we have better options than we did 10 years ago.

I’d be all for nuclear if we rolled back the clock to 2010 or so. As it stands, solar/wind/storage/hvdc lines can do the job. The situation moved and my opinion moved.

Not sure about GP, but that’s basically what we did under “SAFe” (Scaled Agile Framework). PI planning means taking most of a sprint to plan everything for the next quarter or so. It’s like a whole week of ticket refinement meetings. Or perhaps 3 days, but when you’ve had 3 days of ticket refinement meetings, it might as well be the whole work week for as much a stuff as you’re going to get done otherwise.

It’s as horrible as you’re thinking, and after a lot of agitating, we stopped doing that shit.

They have x86_64 models.

There’s almost always at least a little ASM sprinkled into any kernel, so that’s not a big deal.

OTOH, there is the factor of “you know how Chrome takes up 2GB per tab? What if that was a whole OS?”

You’re probably in a country that got a ton of allocations in the 90s. If you came from a country that was a little late to build out their infrastructure, or even tried to setup a new ISP in just about any country, you would have a much harder time.

Yes, everyone forgets them. Mostly for good reasons.

Arm is better because there are more than three companies who can design and manufacture one.

Edit: And only one of the three x86 manufacturers are worth a damn, and it ain’t Intel.

Edit2: On further checking, VIA sold its CPU design division (Centaur) to Intel in 2021. VIA now makes things like SBCs, some with Intel, some ARM. So there’s only two x86 manufacturers around anymore.

The Rust compiler tends to turn my impostor syndrome to 11. I assume she has some kind of humiliation kink and I do not consent.

If your home router blocked incoming connections on IPv4 by default now, then it’s likely to continue doing so for IPv6. At least, I would hope so. The manufacturer did a bad job if otherwise.

You can get exactly the same benefit by blocking non-established/non-related connections on your firewall. NAT does nothing to help security.

Edit: BTW–every time I see this response of “NAT can prevent external access”, I severely question the poster’s networking knowledge. Like to the level where I wonder how you manage to config a home router correctly. Or maybe it’s the way home routers present the interface that leads people to believe the two functions are intertwined when they aren’t.