Netflix is shittier that several others.

I have used duckduckgo for my searching for years. I shun Facebook, Messenger, X, Instagram, Tiktok. I have had all my family and friends join Signal. There are more and more alternatives, really,

I use a non-shitty non-oligarchy e-mail service, Proton.

And I know people who go all oligarch free. Sure, they are enthusiasts, but alternatives are becoming more and more available.

And remember that the shitty products have a lifetime of 3-8 years, tops. They will go obsolete, people get a chance to reconsider, and people will discover alternatives.

I do not suppose that the extreme US military was a necessity to "protect" the US-friendly world. By 1945 all understood the importance of trade and wanted to trade. USSR and USA established separate trading blocks, which was the most important aspect of their spheres of influence. USA obviously needed to project power and ensure friendly governments, using economic warfare, coups, influence etc. or pure invations. And the entire rig benefited USA immensely for a few decades, being the only country unscathed by WW2 and having a production system way superior that needed to sell to the world. USA has been important in protecting this racket, for sure. But it is hard to know how it would look without. In 1945 USSR had by far the strongest army in the world and could easily have rolled over Europe up to and over the English channel, had they wanted to, but they didn't. They based the nazis way into Norway and then pulled out gracefully, pun not inteded. Would USSR have protected power onto Western Europe into 50s and 60s without US protection, and would Western Europe have been defenseless on their own? Possible, hard to tell, but I don't think so. Over here we say: "Need will teach a nude woman to weave." When it comes to self-sufficiency, you rely on China for a lot. Look at the supply lines behind "machinery", "vehicles" or "machinery". But what is sad is the anger/envy here. Still in 2026 I think Europe and US have things to teach each other and more in common than not. E.g. in fighting oligarchy and right-wing extremism (fascism, if you like) and reinvigorating democracy. Increasing working people's power also when not at the ballot. Etc. Where is this hatred coming from? Because we benefited from your protection racket, we should not have a say in a discussion on each country's merits?

Funny how Norway is so great, until it is a little bit out of line according to this seeming conservative. Norway is not that "liberal" in terms of gender or other things. We have our fair share ( 2 %) of "conservative" bigotry here too, and the explicitly "anti-woke" parties are at over 1/3 in polls. Really, trust & tolerance is a MAJOR reason why taxes, law, police, welfare, health, democracy functions a lot better.

Oh, I do remember. There was a time when web standards were under heavy development, adding the then-novelty of CSS around 1998.

The browsers at the time, Netscape and Internet Explorer, were absolute crap in terms of following the rapidly evolving standards. Norwegian inventor of CSS, Håkon Wium Lie, joined Opera in 1999, because he saw (wikipedia) "Opera programmers make more progress on implementing CSS in three months than what Netscape and Microsoft had achieved in three years."

I tried now to find my original purchase of Opera among old e-mails, but no. I found upgrade purchases going back to 2000, the oldest being 5.0 for Linux. I think I started using it as my primary browser around 1997 or so, with 2.1 and then 3.6 being legendary releases, using it as the primary until they switched to WebKit/Chromium about 2013. They were incredibly innovative, inventing many of the features we take for granted today. Opera was ridiculously fast compared to the others, and absolutely had the best rendering engine with the best standards support, obviously. It has taken many turns and being sold more than once since that.

This is editorially poor judgement by TheReg..

Any claim that "energy X is better/cheaper than Y" is almost always bogus, as this is always complicated and the right answer is - simplified - that we need all types of renewables, and nuclear, the cheapest/best wind, the cheapest/best nuclear, etc. etc.

Firs, this is not independent, it is lobbyism funded by venture capital as pointed out by will4 https://hardware.slashdot.org/...

Second, it is not research and hardly a "study": Just someone having plugged some numbers info PyPSA which is a grid modeling software tool (simply put).

Third: Large-scale analysis of energy "cost" quickly becomes extremely hard, always fraught with assumptions. I will just mention a few:

3a. Nature cost: Solar and esp. wind at large scale will in most regions mean destruction of a lot of nature. Offshore wind too. Nuclear has a tiny area footprint per unit energy produced. Even though mining for uranium (or other fuels in the future) also has nature costs, it is far less that wind or solar. PyPSA does not take this into account at all, and it is extremely complex. The nature and extinction crisis is a huge problem, at the level of of the climate crisis, and also a part of the climate problem.

3b. Climate: Renewable also cause climate damage, esp. during production, and due to destruction of nature.PyPSA has "CO2 cost" as a parameter, but no climate cost associated with the renewables AFAIK. And there is gas power here, too.

3c. Far future considerations: All economic models use some form of discounting or annuity. Think like this: There is always interest. To have $1 in 25 or 50 years, I need just a few cents today, and the interest will wake care of it. OTOH this means that any goods I can produce in the future, has very little value today in these models. Technically: Due to discounting (through the annuity method), the present value of electricity generated far into the future becomes very small. A nuclear reactor can produce for 50 or 80 years, which is the critical arc for mitigating the climate disaster. A wind farm is worn out in 25 years and becomes a hopeless load of rubble and a problem to clean up. PyPSA absolutely does not take this into account out of the box and usually one would simulate 20 years ahead or something, so one does not need to consider the EOL of wind farms. (The cost of decommissioning a nuclear reactor is FAR less per unit energy produced over it's lifetime.) A guy I know, PhD in energy systems, is very critical of the usual models and says bluntly: "It is as if the lives our grandchildren are worth almost nothing."

In short, this lobby paper is just some not-so-interesting fumbling with a Python lib. Move along, there is nothing to look at.

So again: There are sooo many lobby groups trying to get government to give support (and funds) to renewables (wind/solar), and thus trying to vilify alternatives. Just /ignore. We need to find the optimal wind farms, the optimal solar, the optimum hydro (and pumped hydro for storage) etc. etc. And boy, do we need to get our st together and start building nuclear, both big (like the standardized reactors in the highly successful Barakh project (UAE, Korean tech)) and small (SMR).

This is extremely untrue, showcasing your lack of knowledge. Signal is very strongly end-to-end encrypted, it is absolutely impossible for any of it's "administrators" to access data.

Who gets to define what is acceptable?
And at what time? Bandwith demand is always increasing. I have been online through 28.8k modem, 64k ISDN, and onwards. Anything potentially deemed "acceptable" at one point is very obsolete five years later. Good luck going up and upgrading the tech on those thousands of satelites in 2030. Or replacing them.

I have heard this stuff for 25 years. Even as elected official. "Wimax will be good enough for the remote areas!" "3G will be good enough!" "4G!" "You will never need anything better than 5G!" And 640K ought to be enough for anyone. Sigh.

I actually agree. But who gets to define "last mile"? Is it the small town? The farm miles and miles from anything? Of course there are places which could never get a fiber connection, but we cannot have fixed opinions on this. Esp over time. This must be a debate and constantly changing.

And I think Elon Musk is just about to dismantle one of those "government programs". Or change it to his own benefit. Defining this should not be up to an oligarchy enriching itself, but up to a vibrant, working democracy.

Me, I live in a remote place in rural Norway. Many local power grid companies have built fiber networks. They are almost all owned by local or regional governments, they are autonomous companies, and they have had remnants of a strong dedication to "building infrastructure" for the people. As sane investments, but with a looong horizon regarding ROI. Into the 2000s government programs to support the really, really remote places, came along too.

So I live in a house my great-great-grandmother built in 1895, with the fields of the small farm surrounding me, in a tiny town of 700 people. I got some pseudo-broadband wireless from a hilltop in 2000, with varying bandwith up to 2 Mbit, but less when many (of the very few) subscribers were online though the probably 2Mbit link. Then the power grid company booted their thing, and I got fiber to this house in 2003. At the time I had 2/2 Mbit solid, which was awsome. I still have the same fiber, where the endpoint equipment in my home has been replaced once. I now have 500/500 and can get 2000/2000 if I so like, ever increasing.

Imagine one had, along the way, listened to the likes of this post. In early 2000s, "oh, these folks don't need fiber, this hilltop wireless thing is good enough. It's 2MBit too". "Wimax will be good enough!" etc. This house, this town, wouldn't be worth a lot. Instead, I work as a senior IT consultant, I have neighbors working for AWS or Microsoft.

This is the same in many rural and remote areas in Norway, with local or regional grid companies building the infrastructure.

Yes, Starlink can be a good thing for a few years in some extremely remote places. I don't know the tech inside but I assume it can't scale bandwith like fiber and will have a relatively short lifespan, like, a decade? Before being obsolete. But my grandkids, or some other kids, will be pushing photons and gigabits through the glass tread to my house when I'm dead and buried.

It's not hard to understand. Simplified: If you do wireless, based on radio waves, you have a space where you can push waves, or photons, around, however you like to see it. This is your medium. For e.g. wifi this space is your home, basically. For 4G/5G it's some kilometers around a tower, a "cell". For a Starlink, it is the more-or-less line-of-sight from the satelite to an area on earth. In this medium the technology can use a spectrum of frequencies. Either way: All users of the said medium and spectrum shares the capacity. And there are stuff in the way, like walls, interference, clouds. Wireless data transfer is ever improving by managing to push more and more data in a particular medium/spectrum. And those who invest in this are clawing to use more of the available spectrum when old tech, like TV, is shut down. All well.

Compare: With a fiber, you have your own private space from point to point, where you can push photons all you want, here in the form of light. Nothing blocking, just your traffic. The capacity in the future is way, way beyond what we have to day.

If you take an actual community of homes, businesses, etc. and say, "We are commiting you to THIS particular wireless technology", it's a kiss of death.

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/1...

That was not related to tax on high incomes, wealth or companies It started with the "oil crisis". Which was mainly triggered by supply not meeting demand, mainly because of OPEC cutting supply in protest of US/western support for Israel in the Yom Kippur war. Subsequently the Iranian revolution and Iran-Iraq war hurt supplies. Prices came down due to increased supply from non-OPEC countries like UK, Norway. And as OPEC cooperation to keep prices up was not working well, OPEC countries sold more than their quota and eventually the Saudis, frustrated by OPEC no longer working for them, also broke ranks and from 1986 ramped up production significantly. Later, from ~2000 Russian exports came back up (after a deep slump from the late 80s).

Also demand saw, not a decrease, but moderated growth because of increased energy efficiency due to the higher prices of mid-70s to mid-80s. Cars got leaner, and oil use in heating, electricity production and esp. industry saw better efficiency or replacement by other sources, incl. nuclear and natural gas.

Also you need to consider the inflation (and stagflation) of the late 70s which mean nominal prices spiked (see graph), but also interacted with the actual underlying price increase.

I am no historian or economist. And: It's complicated. But for sure, it wasn't because of higher tax on higher income or tax.

#1: This is the "best" photos? Jeeze. I inherited a fix-focus plain 35mm camera from my grandpa in 1983, and it took much, much better pictures than this. It is blurry and bland. The "good" part is that there is very little context/background/surroundings making it harder to judge it to be fake, so we are left with the POSSIBILITY that is is not doctored, misunderstood etc. Typical for many "UFO" pictures. #2: There are endless possibilities for plain explanation, discussed ad nauseam in various forums over years. E.g. kite, reflections, and especially fake. Being a chef in Scotland is mighty boring, I heard. I will not go into or argue for or against any of the endless possibilities. #3: The fact that intelligence people in MoD possibly overreact by shutting down the issue is really not impressive. They may not have expertise to debunk. There are multiple mundane possible explanations: Either they thought it COULD be military/classified. Or they were anxious about it causing hysteria. Or most possible: There were (and are) people in air force or MoD who are superstitious, easy to jump to conclusions, I-want-to-believe-types, just as in the general population. "UFO. debunking" is NOT what they are hired for or trained in or experienced in. It is extremely unlikely that they have some UFO-spotter-team that actually studied this photo and investigated and concluded solidly that there is high probability of alien involvement or impossible tech. #4: Indeed, KEEPING THINGS SECRET is their very trade, in their DNA, and it will we their impulse initially. Then, once the idea of "gotta keep a lid on this", the believers, and the people who understand how stupid they would look, and those that go along with other's behavior, mean that it is kept secret. Indeed, imagine you work such a place, it's archives brimming with (actual) secrets. Now why would he organization initiate a process to declassify something just because one emperor-has-no-clothes-on staffer says: These shady photos in Scotland, can't we just publish? I hope that with all the important stuff such an agency actually holds and knows, there must be red tape and bureaucracy if you want to de-classify something. Why bother? #3 and #4 apply to basically all military and intelligence organizations holding such secrets.a Point is: I don't know what happened, I don't know what this picture is, I just now there are plenty possible trivial explanations for the picture and the MoD's behaviour. So I see no reason to assume aliens or other weird stuff. Occam's razor FTW.

Or is this regarding specifically regarding medicine delivered this way? And you had such self-service locked cabinets already?

If I even understand this correctly, it is something that has been available in Norway for a few years? Both Norwegian Mail (Posten) and other delivery companies. https://www.posten.no/en/recei...

I am absolutely no electrical engineer, but EV owner in Scandinavia. Is there anyone here who understands how this compares to our rules? I don't understand it, but the wording makes me think we already have similar demands as you are getting. We here in Norway: From older transformers/in older neighborhoods, like mine, we are supplied by something called IT, 230 V 3-phase, and I get 230 V in my sockets - and from my wall charger, topping out at 5,7 kW from my 25A fuse. Neighborhoods supplied by "newer" local systems, those lucky bastards, get TN networks, 400 V 3-phase, with 230 V 1-phase in their sockets, but charge using 400 V 3-phase, quite easily up to 22 kW. https://www.electrical-install...

Copilot is totally internal to company. That is one of Microsoft's claims to fame.

Truth. Nuance. Understanding. Against a lot of straw men and absolutists here.

Hmmm... Forgetting the privacy issues for a while, look for the money - costs and gains.

It is supposedly "activated by an erratic vehicle movement - extreme braking, cornering, and acceleration or if there is a collision". Detected by accelerometer, I guess. And then transmits -10/+10 secs of video for analysis by an "expert coach", resulting in a weekly "report" for parents.

I suppose the hourly rate for "expert coaches" are not far from what computer professionals are paid, and the time spent viewing, "analyzing" and commenting on countless clips would be prohibitive. Which leads me to believe that random footage would be captured, parents would be able to log in and see their loved ones brake and accelerate ad nauseam, which would be boring at best - and the program would mostly be used in processing (avoiding?) claims, as well as maybe play a slightly disciplinary role. For a while, at least.