JasSmith

Crystal Caves is such an iconic DOS era game. I boot it up occasionally just to enjoy the design and sound effects.

No. I just disable all notifications permanent if they use it for advertising. It’s been working for years.

There hasn’t been the same purge here in Europe. I think the US tech industry is very large, and covid saw demand surge, resulting in a lot of hiring. Demand slumped which led to this. We’re not seeing the same purge in other industries. Headcount just needs to normalise again, which I think won’t take much longer. Unfortunately there is a compounding factor: interest rates. Tech was propped up by free money. Without that, we might see larger structural issues in the industry. If companies start failing then we enter a new phase in the layoffs.

Exactly. Avoiding the clear intent of a law by using weasel words has always pissed me off about the U.S. legal system.

Most wellbeing metrics are better than almost any other time in history, including lifespan and hunger. For history, we’re living in a golden age. It’s just a bit rough for us younger people because I believe we’re doing worse than our parents, and we are the first generation to experience that.

This is the right question. Many goods and services have far eclipsed the average rate of inflation. Housing being one of them. But hey, we can buy cheap TVs now, so it all balances out, right?

I don’t care about the opinions of the CEO when I use the product their company makes. If I did, my entire house would be empty except for one jar of organic honey.

There really doesn't appear to be any room for misinterpretation or negotiation on this one. From the DMA:

(57) If dual roles are used in a manner that prevents alternative service and hardware providers from having access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used by the gatekeeper in the provision of its own complementary or supporting services or hardware, this could significantly undermine innovation by such alternative providers, as well as choice for end users. The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware. Such access can equally be required by software applications related to the relevant services provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service in order to effectively develop and provide functionalities interoperable with those provided by gatekeepers. The aim of the obligations is to allow competing third parties to interconnect through interfaces or similar solutions to the respective features as effectively as the gatekeeper’s own services or hardware.

(7) The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.

This is black and white. Access must be free of charge. There are provisions for necessary limitations to access based on security risks, but there are no provisions for charging a fee for access.

This might be their strategy. There's no way they could come to the conclusion they'd be allowed to continue charging a fee for access. The DMA is explicit:

(57) If dual roles are used in a manner that prevents alternative service and hardware providers from having access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used by the gatekeeper in the provision of its own complementary or supporting services or hardware, this could significantly undermine innovation by such alternative providers, as well as choice for end users. The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware. Such access can equally be required by software applications related to the relevant services provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service in order to effectively develop and provide functionalities interoperable with those provided by gatekeepers. The aim of the obligations is to allow competing third parties to interconnect through interfaces or similar solutions to the respective features as effectively as the gatekeeper’s own services or hardware.

(7) The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.

It's an incredibly risky strategy, as the fine is payable immediately. That's up to $38B for the first offence. They've had years to check compliance with the EU, so leaving it to the last minute then claiming "confusion" won't be a valid defence. If Apple continues to renege on their legal responsibilities, a second fine of up to $76B can be levied. There are additional fees for late payments and other infractions too. The EU legal system uses the principle of the spirit of the law. This is contrasted with the US system which is the "letter of the law." As such, constructive evasion isn't taken lightly in the EU. Anything but free access is clearly intentional non-compliance.

If we look at just Europe, Slovakia, Finland, and Belarus all brought new reactors online last year alone. There are another six reactors currently under construction, and another 33 planned. France and Sweden recently announced their strategic commitment to nuclear power for a variety of reasons.

One major technological breakthrough is Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These are far more cost effective, very safe (the reactor shuts down in the event of loss of power and coolant), and require a much smaller footprint. Rolls-Royce is on target to deliver the first of these in 2030.

The example you provide is an example of poor governance, not an inherent limitation of the technology. There are also examples of poor governance regarding renewable energy all over the world.

This was a far smarter premise. I wonder if it would have been as popular had they kept it.

Massively subsidized

Nuclear energy is four times cheaper than renewables when externalities like baseline generation are imputed: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035?via%3Dihub

where do you put all the nuclear waste?

While more dangerous, the quantity of waste generated compared to all other forms of energy generation is very small. Storage is a solved problem, but you have probably read articles about a lack of storage in the U.S. This is entirely due to politicians' failure to agree on where to store waste. Despite the relative safety, no one wants nuclear waste stored in their "back yard."

And before you say it: no, nuclear energy is not green.

Nuclear energy generates zero CO2. Surely we can agree that this is the most pressing consideration in terms of climate change. If your concern is the nuclear waste, then I direct you to the growing problem of disposing of solar cells and wind turbines. Newer turbine blades, for example, are 40 meters long and weigh 2.5 tons. These cannot be recycled.

No matter how you cut the data, nuclear is an order of magnitude better than almost all other forms of energy generation. If our goal is to radically improve our environmental footprint while keeping the lights on even at night when it's not windy, then nuclear absolutely must be part of the mix.