I doubt that seriously. The big Iberian Peninsula outage already mentioned happened because a "reliable" power source was not decoupling correctly from the grid. France right now runs into electricity problems because its "reliable" nuclear reactors have to be shut down because of excessive heat making the cooling of the reactors problematic.

Your "reliable" power sources are not reliable, they are inert. This is not the same, and if conditions change quickly, or aren't within specifications, they fail in a big way.

Exactly. But you have to keep the original BSD license intact. You can modify the files, but you have to acknowledge, that you got them from FreeBSD. That's why many commercial companies like to base their systems on FreeBSD.

Which might be true for the Southern U.S. states, true.

On the other hand, we tried this in the 1970ies already, and it was abolished immediately after the first winter, after traffic accidents during morning rush hour had risen sharply, and school children had to wait for the school bus in the coldest time of the day (and the school bus took longer because of all the icy roads anyway).

That is not true. Left without clocks, humans in median latitudes tend to sleep longer in winter than in the summer. A standard schedule throughout the year is not healthy, except you live close to the equator, where the day length does not vary much during the year.

It's not only that. It's more that then, the very short daylight is concentrated in the evening, because you get up an hour early, during the coldest period of the whole day, and then you are wasting the daylight in the afternoon, when it is too cold anyway to have any outdoor activities which could profiteer from the light.

Not having DST, especially in regions away from the equator, is also dumb. You have to deal with the fact, that the Sun rises in the summer much early than in the winter, and getting up in total darkness and not having any daylight until late in the workday like DST in the winter is as annoying as trying to go to bed when it's still bright outside.

So either you abolish a strict day schedule and adopt during the year, which is not only two switch days a year, but multiple times, or you have some kind of switch between Summer time and Winter time.

If the Netherlands did this, they would reverse it immediately after the first winter. Not getting any sunlight until past 10.00 AM is so annoying, and the cost of road maintenance because rush hours is when everywhere, there is still ice on the roads, will be prohibitive.

People complaining have simply no clue how it is to have DST in the winter, and can't imagine.

We expected them 20 years ago, when all people working in the field knew already that SS7 needs security safeguards, not to sit on their hands and do nothing.

Most of the population of Alberta lives south of the latitude of Hamburg, Germany. In fact, Edmonton is on the same latitude as Hamburg, where my sister in law lives. And she has Solar on her roof and generates about 70% of her own electricity. I don't see your problem.

No surprise here. Many important molecules for Life on Earth are quite abundant in the Solar system, especially in the icy worlds of the outer Solar system. It would need some serious scientific argument to rule this out for other planetary systems. Now we have proof that at least the building blocks for Earth-like lifeforms can form spontaneously anywhere in the Universe. No panspermia or other wishful thinking based theories required.

I suspect GP's point is that every malware blocker in every browser is likely to treat this kind of script as hostile, except for Chrome because Google are currently nerfing the ability for blockers to intercept hostile scripts in one of the most blatantly user-hostile changes they've ever made.

If Apple play along with Safari then every other browser and its malware blocking plugins are about to be toast in a huge retrograde step for Internet privacy. But not even Cloudflare is going to get away with blocking every iOS device if Apple continues to allow blockers to intercept this kind of script.

Did anyone mention recently that simultaneously controlling both the most popular web browser and several of the most popular ad-supported web properties might be a little anticompetitive, and that it's about time that Google was broken up? It's probably time for that drum to start beating a bit louder again.

There are regulations nevertheless. The limit is 8 hrs of consecutive driving, after which a 30 min break is required, and 11 hrs of maximum driving after an 10 hrs break. It would make sense to split the 11 hrs into two 5-6 hrs periods with the 30 min rest in between. With 60 mph, this gives a driving range of 360 miles on a charge. A commercially available Mercedes eActros 600 with 600 kWh of charge would easily be sufficient, requiring a 30-80% charge within 30 mins. Or you go for the 14 hrs total, and split the 11 hrs of driving into them, giving you for instance a 3 hrs drive/1 hr rest rhythm, and requiring you to recharge for 180 miles during the stops, which means that you could drive that schedule by charging solely at 350 kW chargers.

You don't actually need an MW charger to recharge a semi. Any normal car charger will do. And while most of them max out somewhere around 400 kW, it's still plenty to go from 10-80% in about 40 mins. Just do the math: 400 kW for 40 mins is about 270 kWh, or about the amount you need to go from 10-80% on an 400 kWh battery. That would be sufficient for about 250 miles with a semi.

German YouTuber Elektrotrucker does international hauling throughout Europe for more than a year now, and he regularly recharges at a normal car charger.

You can put solar panels on roofs. I wonder if someone ever had thought about it.

Everyone has the right to be a political activist. That includes scientists. You want to cut the ability of scientists to speak their opinion. And that's a bad thing per se.

In jurisdiction, there is the principle: Ignorantia legis non excusat. We should apply the same principle to science. Ignorantia scientes non excusat. Being wrong about science is not an opinion. It's something you could rectify by educating yourself about science, in the same way you educate yourself about the legal situation before deciding something important. No judge will excuse you for having a "different legal opinion" about something that is clearly stated otherwise in the law. We should do the same for science. And if you don't like the way scientists are of a different opinion than you about the possible outcome of a political decision, it's not because they are activists, it's because they know something you want to ignore.