And in this case, you do not even have access to the room in the basement, because only the landlord has the key.

Lol, I guess I just made similar points replying to you in another thread. Ignore that.

Rust is also not memory safe. Safe Rust is memory safe. The main difference is that the safe subset of Rust is much clearer demarcated than in in C++, but the importance of this is massively oversold.

While I agree that C(C++ should have left no room for Rust by having perfect memory safety, the reality is that you can write very safe C/C++ code if you want to.
What Rust offers is the idea that you can achieve perfect memory safety without sacrificing performance. In practice, this is much less useful and bit based on exaggeration, but it makes for an excellent sales story. That other parts of the Rust ecosystem are a complete supply chain and maintenance disaster makes everything much less safe in reality^1, but who cares .., because perfect memory safety!^2

1. so that I now after decades where this was working I now need to worry again about the availability of security updates in Linux distributions.
2. If nobody makes a bug using "unsafe" but then this is not the fault of Rust, of course.

At least in Germany, the system was designed so that end-user price would not go down to avoid a rebound effect, i.e. to avoid more consumption due to lower prices. So low end-user prices were never a real goal.

It would have been much more useful to clean up the code that is widely deployed.

My guess is that it was pressure from Google.

Out of curiosity, what was the technological promising thing about it?

I only see the constant last-minute fixes it seems to need and that user space tooling is dropped from Debian for being unmaintainable, which tells me that - regardless what technological wonder it may be - it is certainly not a filesystem I would use.

As a scientist who lived in the US for a while. I definitely prefer Europe.

Indeed. And we can see that Germany does not import much power from France, e.g. less then from Denmark or Norway.

I assume you mean "less". I somehow doubt these numbers for deaths by TWh for nuclear (at least I found the sources I have seen not entirely convincing), although I do believe nuclear is better than coal. I am also would rather live next to nuclear plant than a coal plant. But there is no choice between nuclear and coal. Coal and gas can economically be used to complement renewables while nuclear simply can not. In terms storage, the prices are dropping.

You can not use solar or wind for balancing because you need something you can turn on when needed, i.e. gas or storage. But with enough solar (as Europe now has) it makes not much sense to have nuclear on the grid. Renewables will easily cover all demand in good times. Base load plants make no economic sense anymore so nuclear is basically out.

Exactly.

This is - as usual - misleading. The negative prices affect only a small amount of time while the costs are distributed over all. The income is certainly not dominated by subsidies. In Germany there also no subsidies but feed-in tariffs and for new plants there is no support when the prices are negative anymore. Finally, the lights "do not go out" when there is an oversupply. When the grid can not handle it (which is not the same thing as negative price) then then the plants are simply downregulated.

France does not export much to Germany. It is mostly renewables which undercut the prices of the remaining coal plants in Germany, i.e. this year Germany net-imported so far ca 5.4 TWh from Denmark (no nuclear) and 3.2 TWh from Neitherlands (almost no nuclear), 2.7 TWh from Norway (no nuclear) and 2.8 TWh from France which cause some imports (production from coal is well below capacity in Germany). It would also not help much in terms of energy security, because sometimes France relies on imports itself.