The tariff exemption only applies to Southeast Asia - which does not include China. Chinese solar panels still have the tariff in place. Complaining about solar panels from China makes you look like an idiot.

The question is whether the Southeast Asian countries are using a lot of Chinese components. https://www.reuters.com/world/...

The move comes amid concern about the impact of the Commerce Department's months-long investigation into whether imports of solar panels from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are circumventing tariffs on goods made in China.

Revoke the Price-Anderson Act

The Price-Anderson Act was a legal hack, it was necessary because without it, Ralph Nader would've been grandstanding in court with stories about infinite liability.

It has not cost the taxpayers anything, it is unlikely to cost the taxpayers anything, because nuclear power is not actually all that dangerous, but yes, if you demand that someone, in a court room, has to prove that it (or anything else) is perfectly safe, then you can shut it down.

Price-Anderson is not a symptom that nuclear power is broken, it's a symptom of the legal system being broken.

And if you want to shut down a technology that many technical experts regard as critical to clean up our energy supply, you might consider the possibility that you're a crazed fanatic that doesn't care what happens to the human race.

(1) This is just one study. It will take some time to evaluate it. There's already some criticism of it:
https://neutronbytes.com/2022/...

(2) They claim SMRs will produce more nuclear waste than the conventional large scale designs, the outside end of their range is a factor of 30.

Even if they're right, that doesn't sound like a deal breaker to me, because nuclear power plants simply don't produce that much waste compared to the amount of energy they generate.

(Further, the "waste" can actually be recycled, and arguably is valuable enough that the calling it waste is a misnomer.)

I can't recall how many "studies" I've read over recent times that either compliments or condemns coffee.

And I can't recall how many wisely skeptical comments I've read on the internet that are in fact completely ridiculous because the author failed to actually evaluate the studies they've heard about.

Yes, exactly. Some of the studies I've read about have been massive, cross-cultural studies of tens of thousands of people in different countries, and they keep finding correlations between lifespan and coffee drinking, to the extent that the people wisely pointing out that correlation and causation aren't the same start looking ridiculous.

We generally hate coffee snobs too.

Yes, and one of the things I love to geek out about is how much I hate the coffee snobs that ruined the quality of coffee circa the late nineties in San Francisco, when Blue Butt and Foul Barrell became the latest thing, and suddenly the trend everywhere was for a style of dark roast that was dark beyond dark and completely corrupted the meaning of "dark roast" (they should've called it something else, like "sewage") a single sip of this stuff coats the inside of your skull leaving a nearly indelible after taste behind that can take days to clear, and I know people who call this stuff "pour over" coffee, but I think that unfairly reviles the technique, and it's more like pour-over-a-half-pound-of-burned-coffee, but in general I really which people would be more specific when they talk about coffee because the way it's prepared can completely change it, for instance in 2015 or so there was a widely reported study that concluded the reason there were such long life spans on this one greek island had to do with the fact that they drink "boiled coffee", but they don't say *how* it was boiled and whether they filter it at all or just slug down a slurry of coffee grounds and liquid as I've heard claimed they do in Turkey (though I think they just changed how you spell that, but I can never remember how to do a ü and after all, this being slashdot you can't expect unicode to work right.

I'd argue that Lotus, when compared with the most recent versions of excel, is actually superior in most respects though there's a bit of a learning curve as the formulas/entry is different

Lotus 1-2-3 had a thorough, reasonably well designed keyboard interface for the entire program, which made it remarkably fast to use once you were proficient with it. Modern software tends to be shipped with around half-of-a-story (if you're lucky) of how to use it via keyboard. They always prioritize a shallow initial learning curve, they don't care so much if it plateus out quickly.

In a Twitter thread, Bankman-Fried clarified: "To be clear I also said that it does have potential as a store of value. ..."

Extreme volatility is not what anyone wants in a store of value.

I would imagine the OP is afraid this is another playground for Mark Z. Jacobsen-- if Stanford doesn't want him to be the face of Stanford's approach to energy policy, they really should do something to reign him in and/or provide a platform to a different voice.

While nice-to-have, nuclear power is neither sufficient nor necessary for a long-term sustainable society.

You've heard about the German Engergy Transistion, right? It's been doing so well.

As I understand it, this is a no-strings-attached deal, do the focus of the school is mainly going to be determined by the dean: https://news.stanford.edu/2022...

The dean is going to be Arun Majumdar, who seems like an interesting guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Arun Majumdar's background is in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science. He's done a number of interesting things, including working for Google on their energy systems.

That's exactly it. Scientific journals are for people doing science, and science is based on a free and open exchange, and Google is making it look a lot like they're using Nature to publish advertisements, which you you'd think Nature would have problems with.

At the end of the day, the paper wasn't and isn't Mr. Chatterjee's property, it's the property of Alphabet Inc. to do with as they see fit. They've chosen for whatever reason not to publish this work. Unless you believe this report somehow shows Alphabet is violating the law, I don't see a problem here.

Then you don't see a problem in the fact that "commercial research groups can't be trusted".

I couldn't care less about the legalities here, my point is that Google Brain isn't doing science, they're doing advertisements, and they shouldn't be allowed to publish in scientific journals.