Impartant context: EU demands US follow EU law on EU soil for EU consumers.

EU stuff must abie by US law when going to the US, vice versa as well.

The article mentions > If the worst happens and the dome is punctured, 2,000 tonnes of CO2 will enter the atmosphere. That’s equivalent to the emissions of about 15 round-trip flights between New York and London on a Boeing 777. “It’s negligible compared to the emissions of a coal plant,” Spadacini says. People will also need to stay back 70 meters or more until the air clears, he says.

So: 70 meters

> or more

I guess it just depends on how much oxygen you really need.

I'm not a gamer, so honest question: what is PITA with HDMI for gamers?

Before HDMI 2.1, DisplayPort already supports high refresh rates (greater than 120Hz) at high resolutions. Also many high-end PC graphics cards offer more DisplayPort ports than HDMI.

I think most graphics cards nowadays come with roughtly 3 DP ports and 1 HDMI port. It might be different for things like the Multi-media cards that are on the low-low end of the spectrum (think of GT 730 level in a generation) might have more HDMI ports since they are more intended for such an audience.

Are we really? As much as I want to believe this and as much as some people want this, is is not yet the case AFAIK. Some govts. had some success recently though, like Schlesswig-Holstein.

The Dutch tax administration is currently busy pushing all of their internal docs etc to Microsoft as well, so much chagrin of course: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/makelaarstaal-over-onze-be... (in Dutch, although the author has good stuff in English as well)

Yep, was just lookin up their recent news on this: https://www.allseas.com/en/who-we-are/news-and-media/allseas...

You can carry more cargo if you don't need all those batteries. If that difference makes economic sense is not yet known of course, as there are no containerized nuclear reactions that I know of.

> as there are no containerized nuclear reactions that I know of.

Even if you built one, as some people have proposed designs, it doesn't get you nuclear reactors you can just stack up on a ship or something. Containerized reactors could be convenient for getting a reactor to a remote site where it's needed but once there you'll have to provide substantial shielding for it; usually the way this is meant to be done in these proposals is digging a big hole and/or putting up earthen berms around it. And those earthen berms will be subjected to a lot of neutron radiation, so you need a plan to deal with the site after you run this reactor for any substantial amount of time; the whole site will be radioactive.

There's really no getting around this, and most of the people pitching container-sized nuclear reactors are hoping investors don't realize it. The amount of shielding that you could ever hope to place in an ISO container isn't anywhere near enough.

You can use the reactor in the open ocean where shielding is not a big deal, and switch to conventional fuels when needed.

Nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers already exist in pretty good numbers.

Reactor fuel remains radioactive even when the reactor isn't operating.

And the proposal was a containerised nuclear reactor, so you're going to irradiate the surrounding containers in the process.

Nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are completely different beasts. The reactor core is very heavily shielded, is built into the ship/boat, and is tended by a team of expert operators, and (at least in the case of US/UK subs) uses bomb-grade uranium as fuel.

> as there are no containerized nuclear reactions that I know of.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-power-...

Many in design, a few under construction, 2 in operation, by China & Russia. My point being still: the economics aren't clear yet.

And recently went off a cliff. Have you heard about the 737 MAX, with not one but 2 crashes due to problems with it's control system?

Ah, I've been doing this for ages but apparently this practice has a name

Pushing for competitiveness is one thing, but why so devious? Secretly pushing for a more right wing crap.

Pisses me right off

"Competitiveness" is just a buzzword masquerading right wing demands.

Competitiveness at the cost of everything else is right wing. Competitiveness in balance with other interests (like the environment, human rights, ...) is not right wing IMO.

No one wants to be noncompetitive.

Have you ever tried to sell any product on a world market?

Competitiveness is absolutely a real thing, unless you want to build a local autarky.

Was Nokia sunk by right-wing influencers and their buzzwords?

Nokia should have been nationalized. It doesn't need to be a local autarky. It could be something more similar to Comintern.

I'm sympathetic to your arguments but I'm fairly sure that nationalizing Nokia would not have staved off the inevitable, though, selling it to MS certainly accelerated the fall.

I still have my trusty N-800 tough, and I expect it will last another decade but that phone was made well after the Nokia brand effectively ceased to exist and is more of a reboot than a successful pivot. Clearly I'm not the 'ideal consumer' but I'm also the exception, I don't know anybody around me except for my 90 year old uncle who still has one of these and even he's been eying a smartphone.

There's a proposal (IDK the current status actually, coming into law in a few years?) in the Netherlands to tax cars based on the area they occupy, not on weight like they are currently taxed. Govt wants to incentivize going electric, but those are heavier than similar sized gas-powered cars.

But there also has been a surge of huge American pickup trucks, which are simply too large for the roads and parking places here. Taxing by area would help with that too.