It means that for any patches submitted directly to Debian, they can blanket reject it if it has signs of AI without having to properly evaluate the patch on it's merits (which is onerous and easily DDOSed).
Nuclear is good for the last 10% (and very contextually - it maybe makes a lot of sense in Alaska but far less sense in Arizona, for example), but mostly we should be building more solar/wind/batteries, as they can be built both faster and increasingly cheaper over time (the cost of batteries has dropped ~97% in the last 20 years IIRC, solar and wind have similarly been dropping in price).
The main argument for nuclear besides "baseload" is that nuclear plants can potentially last for a century and will thus amortise its capex quite easily and afterwards become relatively cheap for most of its life. Except, given just how quickly solar is dropping right now, it's unreasonable to assume that 50+ years from now (so, in ~2076) already-built nuclear will be cheaper than contemporary solar tech (I.e. solar panels built in 2075). In fact, it's unreasonable to assume that nuclear plants will necessarily be longer-lasting than future solar panels, given current research into self-healing solar panels (which clearly isn't commercially ready, but very likely will be within 50 years). Even if they can only self-heal 3 times, that's 4x the lifetime for 120 years total, and much longer if the base lifetime of the panel is more than 30 years. And frankly nuclear will never beat solar panels on operational costs - nuclear has a 24/7 guard, a nuclear reactor and a turbine, whereas the closest thing PV has to moving parts is the de-dusting machines.
Similar logic for solar also applies to wind and batteries, of course - their price has been dropping like a rock for decades. And that compounds - if both solar and batteries get twice as cheap and their lifetime lasts twice as long, then the whole package becomes 4x cheaper. And the cheaper wind turbines get, the fewer batteries solar needs to plug the holes in intermittent generation.
A quick aside: a lot of focus on solar lifetimes assumes the minimum will be the average, but e.g. 1980s solar panels are still in operation with only 10-20% performance degradation IIRC so the popular assumption that solar panels last only 30 years seems a bit ridiculous.
China's nuclear stats should be kept in perspective by the way: IIRC ~90% of the generation they're building is non-nuclear renewables. They're also building more of basically everything than the rest of the world combined, so an absolute stat like "they're building 37 of X" isn't particularly useful except for conveying that China is building a lot of stuff.
To repeat, though: the US should still build nuclear plants (unless/until they get financially blitzed by renewables). My point here is to keep it in perspective.
And I don't mean to insinuate you said otherwise, I'm just kind of pre-emptively responding to a stereotype/common set of associated arguments, I guess.
Electric trains can ship overland cheaper than diesel trucks. If we'd put half the money we put into free/subsidised highways into rail instead, the problem would already be solved.
The last mile could be fairly easily electrified at this point, battery trucks are quite sensible for short distances.
Skylights are usually terrible because they heat the most at midday (when it's already the most hot) whereas conventional windows heat the most at dawn/dusk when it's colder.
Skylights also suck because they're exposing the window directly to the sky (and thus rain), whereas conventional windows are somewhat protected by eaves and the fact that the window is vertical so water can't pool on it.
I'm pretty sure the subtext of that comment was that the benefit of electric motors in retro cars is the emission reduction (and possibly cost and maintenance reduction), and not improved specs/experience. Saying "ye but it worsens the experience" misses the point.
But this is a thread about modifying 50-70 year old cars with electric drivetrains.
There are so few of these cars on the road anymore that I think very little progress is to be made on emissions levels by converting them to electric, especially when you consider that you’re ruining the driving experience.
Facebook/etc aren't a free-for-all, they're much worse than that - they selectively provide a stream of news designed to drive "engagement", of which angry obsession is one type. Social media aren't "platforms", they're content distributors (despite the industry's own efforts to establish use of the term "platform", which sounds far more neutral).
- the main input (land) is also an output, so when the price of the output goes up, so does the value of the input.
- economies of scale don't really work, due to the impracticality of transporting the good (houses) and fitting the good inside a machine (in house "factories", normal workers go inside the house and work on it by hand; not a lot changes compared to traditional construction)
- more supply in one area increases the value (and therefore demand) in that area, so it's not actually clear-cut whether building more would reduce the price more than it increases it, at first glance.
