You means like most people with windows that don't downgrade to windows 8?

Funnies aside, MS threw pretty much everyone with a desktop under the bus with w8 to get their failing phone OS more familiar with people.

This update breaks mouse in GAMES.

So your update breaks games entirely. A pretty steep downgrade.

Probably the same, as the only thing you'd lose is hydraulic assist, just like you did. Electric parts can be driven by the battery.

In large plane civil aviation, even that has redundancy. There are two sets of control hardware, on each side of the cockpit. There are two pilots, who are even required to pick different items from the in flight menu in case of food poisoning.

How do you recognize a populist? When he can't simplify the issue and is forced to talk about complexities, he attacks the other party for being too difficult to understand and exists the discussion ASAP.

I'll just quickly run my take on why I think that free market will remain an opponent of any improvement of status quo:

Free market will always push for path of least resistance to maximize short and medium term profits. Right now, that is coal. Representatives of free market, swimming in money pervert the political system to ensure that whatever limits come out, they will not be hit by them to the extent where profits will be endangered. A good example of this is the carbon tax/quota trading scheme in Europe, that was basically diluted to uselessness by massive lobbying (read: corruption) by large power companies who want their cheap and profitable coal.

Green movement isn't helping here either. Their ideological, borderline religious anti-nuclear bend, combined with apparent lack of understanding the difference between "power" and "base power" results in things like Energiewiende, which once again results in coal build-up.

Then there's the whole "oil producers financing green terrorism to attack nuclear power generation from all possible angles" elephant in the room. Various power generation companies compete, and being huge conglomerates (not to mention entire states in some cases, such as Saudi Arabia) they have few qualms with using underhanded methods of competing.

Problem is, all these elements do in fact represent the current "free" market. As infrastructure build up involves a huge investment, that particular market will never be truly free, its strategic importance will ensure that it will always have to be tightly regulated, and the amount of money involved will be too great to not use underhanded means to take over if it becomes unregulated. And about the only way to stop the current massive perversion of it is a strong government intervention. Of course, Energiewiende is also a good example of what happens when government intervention gets ideological instead of practical, and guided by ideologists instead of engineers.

So in my opinion, we need a group of experts in energy generation, with proven experience, preferably from all over the world (so we don't get the "let's use hydro" etc) to work on a solution, that will then be implemented on governmental level. So far, there's zero political desire for this, even though the need is dire, and subject goes beyond national borders for many regions such as Europe.

Fly by wire has multiple redundancies. It's not a single point of failure any more than hydraulic control system is.

Incorrect. You once against went to simplify a complex issue to derive a conclusion.

That is the main tool of people known as "populists". It usually stems from the fact that most people are incapable of understanding the actual depth and complexity of the issue. As a result, simplifying an issue may cause a severe error in logic, even though it will look logical because factors that cause the error are erased from the issue by the process of simplification.

Example: US incarcerates largest portion of its inhabitants in the world. Therefore US is the least free state in the world.

By simplifying the original exceptionally complex issue (concept of freedom) I draw a patently false conclusion. There are many countries in the world that are observably much less free than US, even though they have a lower incarceration rate.

You are doing the exactly same thing. You are simplifying a very complex process that is leading to current global warming to draw a conclusion that CO2 is a pollutant. You do this by eliminating details that conflict with your opinion though simplification, and then drawing a patently false conclusion based on your simplification.
That is populism. Populism is one of the biggest if not the biggest enemy of actually understanding and beginning to combat issues.

It just wants a piece of linkedin's pie.

I think it would be pretty difficult to identify the "most important" part of fusion research right now. There are several critical factors to it, lack of any of which would cause failure.

Right now one of these is tech process. Another one is material science necessary. Failure in any of these would cause failure of entire project. And advantage of material science research is that unlike fusion process research, it is in fact applicable in other industries. There is a definite need for materials that can take significant heat energy input without losing their physical properties. We could significantly increase efficiency in almost all of our steam turbine based power generation if we could do this for example, as one of the main limiters on how much energy we can extract from steam is tolerance limits on turbine blades, piping and heat exchangers.

Your first sentence is factually false. If it were true, wind energy would be phenomenally profitable right now, because the main reason why it's so expensive to produce energy with wind turbines is maintenance costs. It has effectively no other costs - there's no fuel to supply it with, no operators to operate it. And yet wind energy is massively more expensive than coal which needs complex tech process that requires humans to make sure it's working correctly and fuel that needs to be paid for

Actually they don't. That's the interesting part. Much of technology improvement, and why coal is very cheap in spite of all the penalties on it due to CO2 emissive nature are because current burning process automation has progressed a lot because of computerisation. Most of the modern power plants are able to direct burning process in ways that prevent formation of most known pollutants, such as NOx and SO2 from forming, and filtering systems mainly focus on filtering particles.

The big advantage of computerization is that once the system is designed, it's cheap to implement.

Number two, as you specifically jury-rig the form of the sentence to serve the political statement, rather than reflect the reality.

Reality is, CO2 doesn't change the environment. Greehouse effect caused by extremely wide spectrum of factors, one of which is overly large emission of CO2 from burning processes does.

You really need to educate yourself on why greenhouse effect is scary. It doesn't harm the environment. It changes it in a natural cycle, which we have seen a lot of time through the history of our planet. The scary part is speed of change and our the fact that our civilization may not be able to adapt to those changes due to accelerated nature of current warming cycle. The real threat there is, once again, methane. Because we have massive amounts of methane that was in the air causing a far greater greenhouse effect during the hot periods in the past currently trapped in ocean sediment layer. Right now, it's staying there, but we're uncertain at what water temperature is will begin to escape, becoming a self-accelerating process.

Saying that greenhouse effect is harmful and comparing it to pollutants like say NOx is like saying that rain is damaging like acid rain. One of these is natural phenomenon. Other is caused purely by human activity or massive natural disasters. The political angle expressed in your number two relies on human desire to oversimplify complex issues to make them easier to understand.

So let's try it you way. Which of the following factually incorrect statements do you agree with:

1. Greenhouse effect is unnatural and destructive to nature.
2. Greenhouse effect is caused by humans.
3. Elements present in natural cycle of extraction of energy from sunlight by flora and required for maintaining current ecology are pollutants.

See? It's pretty easy to jury-rig flat, simplified statements to make those holding a complex and correct opinion on issue to look bad while looking correct to casual observer.

I am now completely convinced that you have NEVER had any contact with design/construction/building of any kind of medium or large power plant. Material science and its application forms a lion's share of what people designing it do. Building it is a lot about making sure that each pipe conforms to strict material requirements - reasons ranging from nastier stuff like maintenance people getting cut in two nice halves by invisible and deafening high pressure vapor leak to more mundane "large maintenance costs" ones. Especially if to fix it, you have to spend a couple of days stopping the main turbine and letting it cool off before you can even open it up, finding the leak due to pressure/corrosion/myriad of other reasons, then spending another couple of days getting it to spin and heat up back to work load.

Turbines themselves are another thing where material science is the main limiter of efficiency, but are not relevant to the discussion as they are typically on secondary circuit anyway.

Finally there's the problem with fusion: we do not have heat exchangers capable of withstanding forced involved with temperatures/pressures involved for the primary circuit. You may not have known, but one thing has remained largely unchanged about power generation - when we need to transform thermal energy to kinetic one so we can rotate the generator, as is done in everything from small burners to gigawatt+ nuclear power plants, we need multiple heat exchangers that can handle the temperatures and pressures involved. Take a guess at main design limiter here? Correct, material science yet again! We want water vapor as hot and as pressurized as possible for maximum efficiency.

None of my relatives work with this particular design aspect directly, but if the person works with building or designing power plants, he will be talking about material science. A lot. It's one of the main limiters on what we can and cannot do in power generation for other types of power generation as well. Before computer age, the main limitation was automation, followed by design complexity (specifically pipe work being exceptionally complex, often too complex to design by hand). Modern CAD applications solved both these problems very efficiently, and now we're mainly limited by material science and process limitations. Both are being solved through the computerization as well, but they are much more complex than making sure that those hundreds of kilometers of pipes are all of correct type and all connected correctly, such as burning process simulation in the large boiler, which requires immense and exceptionally accurate physics modeling.

For example, did you know that one of the main limiters on the size of burner plants, and the reason why modern power plants are significantly more powerful than old ones is because material science and process technology allowed for more efficient and durable heat exchangers and turbines?

Astronomical maintenance costs. Failure rates. Inability to operate beyond optimal RPM causing wind mills to not generate power when wind is too strong. Short life span that means that mill can barely pay for itself in its useful lifetime.

All of the above are the direct result of the fact that none of materials we have are strong enough to withstand forces involved for prolonged duration.