You must have had an awfully fancy truck in the 90s if the lack of anything on that list of "luxury items" is holding you back.

My grandmother bought a car with power windows in the 90s. My father thought it was silly. I had one friend who would probably have paid $20 for a working gas gauge in her truck though.

Better example: what are you going to do with all the asbestos just sitting there waiting to be mined? Make silly string?

Even the summary is confused. Apparently a copy on your hard drive is not physical, and therefore can't be preserved or whatever. The copy of GTA VI you might download from Rockstar is also not physical no matter what you put it on?

So a physical copy is what, printed on paper? Chiselled in stone? I'm not surprised Rockstar decided not to provide their six terabyte game in those formats.

Ah, of course, we're using your personal definitions. You should provide a list of those somewhere along with a warning in your posts that it may be unclear what you mean when you use words.

The OP said (and you quoted):

For consumer electronics the legal requirement that batteries must be user replaceable renders this idea dead in the water in the entire EU.

You said it doesn't. I assume now that you objected to only the second part of that sentence but you did not specify. The EU required does require that batteries must be user replaceable, using almost exactly those words: batteries must be "removeable by the end-user" and replacement batteries "available to the end-user."

Making a complex embedded battery buried in a device is perfectly allowed under EU rules providing the user is given tools required to replace the battery and the battery is available for sale.

Correct, although we're not talking about batteries buried in a device, we're talking about batteries that effectively are the device. If those can be made removable by the end-user and replacements are available it should be fine. The regulation does not require that it be easy to replace the batteries, only possible using reasonaly easily available tools.

It is if you're a journalist or financial analyst with nothing else to write about. Nice thing is that it happens all the time. Pretty much every other day if you don't restrict yourself to the difference between open and close.

Lol. You just want to complain. Now that I've pointed out your weird complaint is bullshit you're off on some other tangents.

There is no reactor in the world that can "burn" fission products, aka "WASTE".

Not much (> 10% IIRC) of the uranium fuel is fissioned in a typical light water reactor. The "waste" from those reactors contains that unused uranium and fission products, many of which are themselves fissionable. Plutonium for example. Reprocessing can be used to recover fission fuel from the "waste".

https://world-nuclear.org/info...

Reprocessing is pretty standard. Far from "no reactor in the world", pretty much all reactors can used reprocessed fuel. CANDU can too, as well, including plutonium either from reprocessing or weapons disposal. However, reprocessing is expensive. The DUPIC process basically involves running spent PWR fuel through a CANDU with minimal reprocessing. Basically just chopping it up and packaging it so it fits.

https://inis.iaea.org/records/...

Stupid brainwashed Americans.

1. I'm not American.
2. Can you say "ultracrepidarian?"

They can also run on thorium.
Unlikely. Thorium has to be bread into Uranium before fission. I do not think a CANDU reactor can do that (without upgrade or modification).

At least you're willing to admit there's a possibility you're wrong on this one. No, it doesn't run on pure thorium. You mix it with uranium or plutonium.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
https://www.nucnet.org/news/cl...

Yes:

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

L1 is where you want to put solar observatories. L2 is popular for not-solar observatories. L4 and L5 not as much, but there are some satellites like Stereo A and B that passed close, and the ESA plans to put a solar observatory actually at L5.

I was curious WTF you're talking about so I looked up the quote. Poettering was proposing socket-based activation where an infrequently used process, for example, sshd, would be launched when a connection was made rather than idling in the background at all times. You know, like process-based webservers do all the time.

It would have pretty much zero effect on your use case even if it weren't completely optional.

As for the accuracy of the example in the actual quote, excluding phones, which usually aren't running SSH, about half of Linux machines are web servers, another third are cloud machines hosting containers, and another ~10% are file or email servers. The vast majority of those are going to be running SSH for occasional administration. Machines hosting remote X connections are going to be a minority.

Yeah, this is apparently where the water usage numbers come from. Somebody makes up a stupid number and then that gets repeated over and over.

Tracking down the source of silly datacentre water usage was a bit of a sport for a while. It seems a lot of it traces back to a single writer who sort of picked a number.

They are not unsafe, they just unfortunately produce the same / similar waste "standard reactors" do.

One of the neat tricks CANDU reactors can do is burning the "waste" from "standard" reactors. They can also run on thorium.

It's not an either-or discussion? So you're going to pay for both things to happen?

Yes? Canada's solar, wind and storage capacity is all growing at double digit rates and BC just finished an enormous new set of hydropower dams.

That's OK but the only reason many people buy American cars and trucks is to support American jobs.

When it's all robots might as well get a Tundra rather than a 1500. Or maybe BYD will come in with something soon.

We'll see how that goes.