a 10 yr old PC isn't getting updates so is very vulnerable to being hacked

That nicely sums it up.

Anybody can call themselves "security researcher". No qualification requirements at all. Of course, for some people that claim is more ridiculous than for others. I would, for example, expect basic risk management skills for that designation to make sense. These are obviously missing in the case of this person.

Well, while it is funny, it just shows that "security researcher" and "blithering idiot" are not mutually exclusive. No idea why she posted this though. Seems like self-incrimination to me.

Indeed. But most people cannot do that, including a lot of people that should really know better.

Also note that anybody can call themselves a "security researcher", there are no qualification requirements whatsoever.

Because "AI".

I call that "hopeful engineering". It is the state of incompetence where you hope and expect things done under other conditions to nicely transfer over, against all rationality.

Yep. Complete amateur-level and pretty dumb amateur level at that. A smart amateur would have been more careful.

Indeed. But anybody can call themselves "security researcher", there are really no limits. One of the problems with IT and applied CS: Too many made-up job titles designed to signal competence, even when that is a total lie.

You fell for a hallucination. Batteries can be charged and discharged several times per year! I guess "copilot" does not know that or you gave it a really stupid question.

Oh, and wind also blows in the night. Occasionally. And, here is the kicker: You can plan for nighttime! Shocking, I know.

That happens as well, but less and less often. And these installations are designed to deal with that with minimal damage. Since these batteries are stationary, other tech is also in use.

Hahaha, yes. Levelling with the US would be a really bad idea, given how far behind they are. The one thing the US does much better than all of Europe is lying to their people about the reality of things

Funny how YOU do not know how a nuke works. Yes, you can follow the load. If you have a good prediction and only relatively small deviations from that. You cannot follow the load without those predictions or when they are to far off. What you then end up is needing to dump power in emergency mode. One reason France often gets negative payments for their power: They need to get rid of the power or they would have to do really bad things to their nukes. Look it up.

Nice bunch of lies you have there. Just to address the first: A regular steam generator (coal, gas, oil, solar) can idle with no warning. A nuke needs to SCRAM (and then needs week or months to come up again) because it cannot idle fast from higher power levels. It would blow up if you tried that.

It needs to be added that supplying too much power is utterly disastrous. The only tech that has this problem is nuclear though. Hence nukes may need to SCRAM if there is too much power in a grid and nothing else that can reduce its power output fast enough. That is really bad as a SCRAM typically damages the nuke and that means weeks to months until it is available again. Not a resilient tech at all. The safe limit is apparently close to 70%. If you have more nuclear in a grid, it become unstable and the rest all needs to be able to react fast.

In contrast, wind and solar are much better. Distribute them and situations with too little power become rare. Both can idle nicely and with basically no delay. Even if your grid goes down or needs to be segmented, restarting is unproblematic.

The bottom line is that nuclear is bad for grid stability and unreliable (but its proponents lie about that), while renewables are not that much of a problem. Yes, you need to oversize and you need regulation energy, but you need to do both (!) for nuclear as well, at a much higher price-tag.