Also because of coal. Honestly, more as a result of coal, though they certainly have built a lot of solar. But the reason they've been building coal plants like crazy, so much so that many of them are idled from the day they go into service, is because it was their insurance against problems with the oil supply.

I'm a fan of solar power and happy to see the world is building a lot of it, but intellectual integrity demands that we also acknowledge China's investment in coal generation capacity.

How about those people who intentionally buy American and hardly buy anything else? Should they be reimbursed?
Reimbursed on what?
They did not spent anything on tariffs ...

i.e. the costs of the tariffs were shared and prices weren't raised as much as the costs. Sorting this sort of thing out is just about impossible.
No it is not. It is a simple or complex as filing a tax report.
Have an extra line like VAT spent, and call it ... let me think:
"Tariffs: " - oh, that was easy.

Note: if you import something and pay a tariff, you get a tariff bill/invoice ... just like any other ordinary invoce.

Well as I said: just nitpicking.

There was once a civilian ship, but strange rigging. As in: not really a cargo vessel, not really a research vessel ... I mean it was to small to warrant a nuclear drive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Coal is not a replacement for gas.

That should be a no brainer.

They actually have since about 3 or 4 years optical AI inference chips, about 1000 times faster than GPUs and roughly 10,000 times more energy efficient.

Germany has some companies working in the same areas, I know about 2 ... not sure how many in total.
Then Asia is shifting to Gallium Nitrit semi conductors, at least in high voltage/power computing, chargers and similar things.

China is on the way to replace coal with renewables.
No idea what your problem is.

They will be probably 100% CO2 free before your farked up country is.

And then? It will again be Chinas fault ... because of *insert reason*.

Per Capita is the only correct meaning.
Especially if it is the PERSON doing the pollution, like YOU do, and not the country as a total.

YOU as a person has 2 times higher foot print than a typical European, and probably 10 times higher them ME.

YOU as a person has the 4 times higher foot print than an Chinese as a person.

Industry is completely irrelevant as long as you use 10kWh per day yourself, not even counting your car usage.

A typical Chinese uses 2 or 3kWh per day, in his household.

China as a country is just barely above USA in energy consumption or CO2 emissions.

Get a clue.

It turns out the EU's plan of Russian oil and natural gas wasn't such a good idea.
Perhaps you should read some news sometimes.

Those plans got canceled YEARs ago.

And you could do something about YOUR OWN CO2 footprint, instead of blaming others on the other side oft he world who have not even 25% of YOUR's.

Coal is not lowest cost.
Solar is.
However solar is not dispatchable.

Stupid China haters.

Why spread such nonsense? Who do you wany to reach with that for what purpose?

Not really. The 2x $1000 or so I spent on targeted ad campaigns have been worth it. If they weren't targeted, it would be far less effective; there's quite a few articles pointing out that targeted ads have a far higher click-through rate, and a higher conversion rate as well. Without targeting, my ad budget might still be $2000 but I wouldn't be spending it.

That's not going to happen. The global advertising market is approaching a $1 trillion dollar value annually, and personalized ads have driven a lot of that growth. Personalized ads make it possible to zoom in on your target demographic more precisely, so you're not paying for impressions going to the wrong target group. It made advertising affordable to people who could not have justified the cost before. Hell I've ran a few global online ad campaigns for an app I wrote as a hobby project.

No, they'll not going to kill the goose that lays those particular golden eggs.

"applying the ban only to the use of personal data to set higher prices without establishing a baseline or standard price".
So you set very high baseline prices, then use personal data to offer varying discounts. That does look like a loophole.

How about "No dynamic prices or discounts based on personal or biometric data are allowed"? Put in an exemption to offer a discount to certain classes (student or vet discounts, discounts for seniors)
In the past dynamic prices (discounts) were used to increase turnover: get new customers in the door with offers, keep them coming back with loyalty programs, and have them buy more with volume discounts. Now, it is used to extract the maximum amount of cash from every customer. It seems that the MBAs who came up with this have fully embraced the first tenet of communism: from each according to their ability.
"How much is this item?"
- "How much do you have?"

There actually was a push in the UK a few years ago to outlaw pointy kitchen knives, but it met with great resistance and was dropped.

However, the point remains that stabbings in the UK are actually less common that stabbings in the US. This points out that while many think that guns are the cause of the US' violence problem, the real problem is deeper: US culture is just more violent.

You are right, I didn't know or didn't remember those.