Plus, imagining that all drones are just small FPV anti-personnel drones, when Ukraine has been deploying middle- and long-range drones with great effectiveness over the last several months

Area man fails to discover the concept of bundled and unbundled services. Free as in “no per use fees”, which matters because ordinary humans loathe per use fees for this kind of thing with a passion.

No, that's the pronunciation made up to avoid saying Your-anus. Uranus has been Your-anus for hundreds of years, and only became Yur-uh-nuss relatively recently as people didn't want to be seen recorded on TV forever saying Yur-an-uss.

This is just ridiculous cope. The UK has this, with a population of 70m, as does Germany with a population of 84m, and France with a population of 70m. It's nothing to do with size, or any other random factor you can think of. The UK's banking system is much older than the US's, and yet has managed to drag itself into the era of instant free electronic payments.

What are you *talking* about? Why would a check not be "captive to regulations that change" where an electronic transfer would be? Fees don't get charged in the civilised worlld outside the US for electronic transfers. There's no exorbitant interest rates on unpaid balances, the transfer is instant. There's no late payments, the transfer is instant. Quite the opposite: a check can get lost in the mail, an electronic transfer can't.

It's incredible watching Americans talk about systems they know nothing of.

It's amazing how people in the US are so committed to the bit that they dream up these theoretical objections to how something will work despite having had no actual experience using it, while ignoring the actual lived experience of people who do use it. There's no fees. It's secure. Sit down and stop self-soothing in public, it's uncouth

The funny bit is where you assume you have to pay a fee. Not in the rest of the world. For example, in the UK, I can make a payment to any other UK individual or institution without no transaction fee, and it happens instantly.

No, I did not answer to the wrong person. You are the one who called me an idiot, and I answered you. You called me an idiot despite having the same viewpoint as me as to what was going on. You did this because you misread what I originally wrote, and thought I was making a point that I was not making. Which makes you the idiot for not reading what I actually wrote.

It's excellent, truly

Both power, and energy are relevant here. The amount of energy the storage can store is one relevant metric, but the rate at which it can supply that energy is another very important metric. For most grid operators it's *far* more relevant to say that a battery bank can provide 100MW for 15 minutes, than to say that it has a capacity of 25MWh.

That book still stays with me and haunts me. I still think it’s the best description of what an actually serious set of responses to climate change would look like that I’ve seen thus far

No, you're the idiot. Because you think that I'm disputing that part of what happened when I'm not, because you're not reading the thread properly. No-one in the thread is disputing what you wrote above, that pickups are not semis etc. The dispute is instead about the actions of OEMs prior to the regulations being set. Were they mere passive bystanders who only reacted once the regulations were published? That is what the parent has argued, and it's wrong. They actively shaped the regulation because they wanted to sell at higher profit margins, and could see that selling pickups under a work exemption would be more profitable.

That's the thing, there are a bunch of legitimate improvements to Windows 11. They're just all very obscure, hard to explain things hidden away in the kernel that most users will either never encounter or never even notice.

The things they will notice are the far worse task bar, the randomly missing features that were removed for no apparent reason, the higher hardware requirements, the constant nagging to use new Windows features, the existing features that have been randomly changed for no readily apparent reason, and the new features that are too buggy to use, like HDR support or dynamic refresh rates.

The actual black-and-white thinking is the thinking that led you to say that it was a simple story of bumbling politicians creating a regulation that rational OEMs reacted to in a rational way.

17.5bn for 10 large reactors? Construction for a large US reactor is of the order of $10 to $20bn. Operation is gonna be 100 to 300m a year. Decomissioning is another $2bn.

So this loan will cover the build costs for one or maybe two of these. And will the cost of capital be materially lower than what’s on the markets? If not, why bother? And if so, let’s all bear in mind that’s a straightforward taxpayer subsidy for the industry.