By the license it's released under. If it's released under GPL, then it's free software. If it's released under a restrictive license then it isn't. And if it can be proven to have been AI generated, then it's public domain.

The main purpose of Free Software licenses is not to restrict others from implementing it, it's to ensure that the code remains open.

Please provide examples. Otherwise I'll consider that your handle is missing an appropriate "u".

Well, you could argue it. I don't think it really quite fits as well as malfeasance, though.

You've got to factor in Seasonal Affective Disorder. Norway is far from the equator, so they have a large amount of that compared to countries closer to the equator.

Not sure how important that is, as there are now reasonable ways of treating it. (I don't know the details, but it's largely bright, wide spectrum lights...so not too difficult to do if you've got electricity.)

If you've got access to plenty of water, closed loop cooling is much more expensive.

I *think* his point is that the water it still water. Which is correct. It may be contaminated or otherwise have fewer uses. It will certainly be a lot hotter, and had BETTER be cooled before being placed back in circulation.

If it's being dumped in the sewer, that will cause many additional problems. Sewage treatment systems are not free.

Actually, this isn't even a state. This is a municipal water district. This is more like "cities rights!"...which often *should* be cheered. And perhaps should be cheered this time.

OTOH, NIMBY is a real problem sometimes. We still don't have a place to put spent nuclear fuel.

Treason is defined in the Constitution, and I don't think that qualifies. I think malfeasance would be more applicable.

I disagree that "even if we count the part of the current Chinese output for export as "China", which it manifestly isn't" is correct. I would, instead, claim that it clearly *is* part of their "contribution", as local choices and controls decide how much CO2 gets emitted for that part of their economy as well as for other parts.

OTOH, if you want to claim that the recipients of the exports should ALSO be dinged, I'd accept that.

You seem to be assuming that all areas of cities are equally polluted. This is false. Wealthier people usually choose to live in parts of the city that are less polluted.

IIUC, the Thorium reactors are still a "work in progress". And I thought they required a bit of enriched uranium as a starter.

Yes, but...
1) The major polluters are not attending.
2) Most of these conferences don't yield visible positive results.
3) When goals are announced, they tend to be ignored in actions.

I hope they are able to come up with solutions that they can use, but I have doubts that even if they do it will have measurable effects except locally. (Yeah, even local effects are desirable, but don't expect global effects.)

In a way you're correct. I believe that "people of color" is used here as an easily measured substitute for "poorer people". There *is* actual racism, but I believe that most nominal racism is actually saying "Wealthy people are better than poor people.".

While it's definitely true that things were worse in many areas in the past, that doesn't mean they don't need improvement now.

It will happen. The question is "Will it continue to be legal?".