SSRI's or Benzodapines have severe side-effects, yet relying on them to survive isn't seen as disruptive to society. There may be an argument against self-medicating with Alcohol or Cannabis, but them being un-natural isn't it.
No doubt about it; shutting down the nuclear plants ahead of schedule was simply a bad decision, and I don't think anyone is claiming that crypto actually caused the current energy crisis in Europe.
It's a mess caused by a whole lot of varying factors, ranging from public utilities being sold out to international cartels who pocketed the income without investing in grid improvements, to the EV rollouts, to power plants being decomissioned. On top of that, you have Russia flexing their muscles, and if that conflict somehow escalates then Russian gas imports will be weaponized. I suspect the EU would like to be the ones doing the weaponizing and that means reducing the energy usage and fast.
Under those circumstances, proof-of-work crypto is simply low-hanging fruit and banning it will have a relatively large impact with a fairly small number of people being hit. People will prefer that to even higher energy prices, regardless if it's morally right or not.
Well, to be frank, it's not about the environment, and barely about national security: some places in Europe -- southern Sweden being the most notable example -- has severe energy shortages to such an extent that new businesses have to go elsewhere when they want to expand.
Other parts of Europe has a power surplus, but the grid's capacity simply isn't high enough to transfer all of it to the locations where it's needed.
As it turned out, the environmentalists' push to kill nuclear power wasn't that great since the plants were in the areas where the power was actually consumed.
It's not about waste; it's a matter of managing an energy shortage while simultaneously trying to threaten Russia with sanctions and whilst being dependent on Russian gas.
A CO2 tax won't help when the issue is that the grids simply can't keep up with demand.
Seconding this. The NC10 was an amazing little thing for writing a lot when on the go. Too bad the white screen issues have killed most of them off by now.
It's more of a confirmation thing, I think. We've been pretty sure about Covid being airborne since early 2020. This probably helps convince some of the few that insist it isn't.
My theory is that OOO's are (in general) short, and short messages have a tendency to end up in spam folders. The fact that people often don't use the spam buttom as a delete button probably doesn't help.
Also, Gmail is a common source of spam, and they often end up in RBL's.
It's not just tractors. Looking around the area where I live, there are a large amount of lorries, escavators forklifts, grain dryers and other veichles, with 20+ expected years in them. Electrifying all that will require massive upgrades of the grid -- remember we're also assumibg we're electrifying heating of houses and personal transport etc. Sure solar will help a bit, but without synthetic fuels, agriculture is not going carbon neutral anytime soon.
Luckily, there's been a lot of progress within that area. Green petrol and diesel would give more maneuvering room, and not just for farmers, but society as a whole.
The basic idea isn't bad, assuming it's implemented in a sensible way.
However, the most likely result will be higher fuel prices -- until the lack of income starts hurting governments and "carbon taxes" are added on top of electricity prices instead, regardlessif the energy is green or not.
Assuming farmers are able to pay for new equipment. It'll take many decades before diesel tractors are completely gone.
It also assumes someone will pay for massive infrastructure upgrades on the countryside. The grids out here wouldn't be able to handle EV's with current levels of traffic. Charging tractors on top of that? Electric grain dryers? Harvesters? Chainsaws? Lawn mowers?
Synthetic fuels is the way forward until the power grids have been modernized -- or built at all; it's not like everyone using fossil fuels all live in electrified homes.
Oh, I'm sure we'll get there at some point, but until we get new games instead of remakes, there's little reason for it.
The thing with the supply chain issues is that they keep many gamers on XB1/PS4. Until the target audience grows, we're stuck in circle with FIFA N+1 and the game of the year 2011 ported to yet another platform.
Why would anyone buy a new Xbox? Most people I know still have regular HD TV's, and six year-old Xbox one or PS4 will do just fine for most of their needs.
There are very few games that won't work -- or have performance issues -- with the previous generation. Most are just the regular FIFA/NHL/Madden stuff, with the occasional overhyped mishap like CP2077.
It's the same situation as with the Xbox 360 -- as long as the previous generations can play the currently popular games, people won't upgrade. Hell, in the Microsoft Store, it's still remakes of 360-era games like GTA V and Skyrim that are being used to advertise the new consoles. No thanks my 360 still works fine! :D
So, lock the kids up during winter? Where I live, the roads are barely walkable during winter. Public transport is 8km away.
Cars with proper winter tires is far easier to keep steady, than a bike. Especially if windy.
Most teens out here drive tractors to get around. Personally, I'd prefer if Finland went the Swedish route here - an old Volvo with limited speed is still less dangerous than a large tractor.