https://claverton-energy.com/t...

It's actually much more than 20x for just all available offshore wind, but if you restrict it to just the most economically viable parts and including onshore, it works out at around 20x. I've lost the reference I had for that.

Indeed, and the environmentalists are on board with it because although it will disrupt the local wildlife, it will create new habitats, and in the end the reduction in damage from not using fossil fuels to generate that energy far outweighs the downsides.

There has never been a point in recorded history when the British Isles and territorial waters were windless.

And yes, we have hydro, we have storage, and we could have a hell of a lot more.

Actually the former head of the National Grid said that. The guy running the UK's grid said that the concept of base load was obsolete, and he was right.

The UK has at least 20x as much wind power available than its current electricity consumption. Energy independence is entirely possible, if not particularly desirable.

The UK could be a massive exporter of clean energy. Scotland in particular could be getting rich off it, but like with the oil they aren't seeing as much of the benefit as they should be seeing.

I'm not really clear what it even does. You get an @thundermail.com address I think, probably blocked or assumed to be spam by many systems. Anything else?

The containment buildings didn't contain the meltdown, and the emergency cooling system that was supposed to let them use external pumps diverted the water into holding tanks instead of the cores. There were many screw-ups, and even now they are behind schedule with the decommissioning and clean up.

Chernobyl and Fukushima had the same root cause - too expensive. Chernobyl skimped on not bothering to build containment buildings or train people properly. Fukushima didn't build the necessary tsunami defences, despite being warned.

It's nuclear's Achilles' heel. Costs too much to be commercially viable, can't afford to be properly insured, and doesn't get the necessary level of investment once it's running.

I think there is some confusion here. They don't seem to have disabled it on older chips, only on new laptops, before sale, where AV1 is supported.

Netflix and YouTube both use AV1, which is royalty free.

Apparently it's around $4 per device. The margins are thin on their low end models, and they are greedy, so I guess $4 is too much for a feature that few people care about or will notice not being available. Anyone who wants to do H.265 encoding will probably be looking at the higher end models anyway.

The real blame here is on the patent holders. AV1 is the solution for everyone else.

It's worse, they recommend software for encoding as well.

It's because they have to pay licence fees for HEVC. Most streaming services use AV1 now, which is free and supported.

He clearly wasn't that good, or he wouldn't have been caught. These amateurs don't seem to understand that they way to do this is to make the system so complex and reliant on you doing certain undocumented actions, that if they fire you it will all collapse on its own. Then you can't be accused of causing damage, because you didn't, you just walked away as asked. It's not your fault that they didn't recognize how essential your services were, or pay you to do a proper rebuild and handover.

The rational response is to either not stalk users, or to have a small checkbox somewhere that lets them opt in to the privacy invasion.

It's the opposite. The rules are well written by people who understand the issues. It's the regulators and courts that have had problems understanding.