"pretty shitty/weird behavior from this dev"

I would like to contest this claim, it's not true.

I understand C well, I don't know Rust. C is like the latin of programming languages. That's why I chose C.

We are 3 developers now for the main browser.

The case for this browser, is that there needs to be multiple independents web browsers, to push for innovation. Google Chrome is NOT open source, and is bloated and monopolistic. Competition drives innovation!

Northstar browser is implements in C, takes a few minutes to compile and is secure because it doesn't rely on a JIT compiler.

Available for Windows on Windows store
Git repo https://github.com/nordstjernen-web/nordstjernen-browser.
There are 3 variants of the browser now, so we can do experiments and research. We also need funding. All variants are available open source.

We are 3 developers now, a Polish man, a Spaniard, and me in Norway.

I really do think coding using AI tools is a bit faster, at least it seems that way to me. As most of the morning but lengthy work can be done faster by AI.

But I am also pretty sure it's VERY easy to rapidly incur technical debt, especially if you are telling AI to review its own work. Yeah it will do some stuff but who is to say post review fixes it's really better?

More than ever I think the right approach to coding with AI is to build up carefully crafted frameworks that are solid (maybe use AI to help but review and tests very carefully) then allow AI to build on top of solid fundamental structures that you know are solid, and do not let the AI modify those - maybe let it ask for feature requests.

as long as the topic is not controversial and political.

The problem is that the Wiki mods are VERY VERY biased. Not just a little. I have run into this personally just trying to make very simple edits. They would not accept simple facts that I had backup sources for.

This was just for movie credits for an actress that at some point had turned conservative...

So for anything political, Wikipide will be factually wrong, sometimes (or often) egregiously so.

But that's ok if it's only for political content right???

But there's the trouble you see. It affects what is political TO THEM in ways you cannot comprehend, so ANY page might be touched by the corruption of the Wikipedia moderator biases. I wouldn't think a simply actress filmography would be affected yet it was. No visitor other than that page would ever know it was inaccurate or incomplete.

So you can trust absolutely nothing from Wikipedia without extensive checking of what facts they refuse to list. Which makes the entire body of work garbage - I have not used it for years now.

A more interesting question I think is, does anyone own this AI actress?

That is to say - if a company took her likeness, and used other AI to make porn - could "her" agent sue them?

Or in other words, is a purely AI generated likeness even copyrightable, when technically no human made it?

Citation needed.

It takes time to upgrade aging coal plants too. Can you cite an actual lead-time comparison study, or is this just your opinion?

But I thought you were worried about shortages - and you're insisting no new coal plants are being built. If only existing plants are being upgraded, how is that going to address these potential energy shortages?

Meanwhile, build times for new solar plants are measured in months, wind only a little more. New coal plants take years, and nuclear up to a decade (or more, in many recent cases). Yet you say you still prefer nuclear - I guess time is not a factor after all?

Pipes also leak - a lot more than you seem to think.

And yet it's wildly popular in places like California and Australia, so the public certainly feels it's well worth it to avoid much-higher retail power costs. My solar system paid itself back in about 4 years, and I'll get another 25 of free juice.

That's solar thermal, not photovoltaic - what was that about straw man arguments?

Meanwhile, large PV plants like Copper Mountain, Gemini, Edwards & Sanborn, Desert Sunlight, and Topaz are producing just fine. Deserts are near-ideal for solar plants (good luck building nuclear without a large nearby water source though).

Lol, they would certainly be remaining closed if Trump wasn't throwing $350 million at them! The very fact he has to prop them up proves they're not a lower cost option.

And as for lobbying - Trump literally asked fossil fuel execs for $1 billion in exchange for favourable policies - cheap at the price from their perspective (but more than a little corrupt).

Bullshit, I myself have cited numerous such comparisons directly to you, right here on Slashdot. Here's another one - nuclear costs from 2x to 10x the cost of firmed solar, backed by storage, and would take far longer to build. Nuclear power has a place in this world, but even in the most enthusiastic countries like China it's a very small place (4 GW of new nuclear added there this year, compared to 277 GW of new solar).

Yet you consistently refuse to accept or acknowledge the dozens of independent cited studies, never citing relevant evidence of your own - and instead talk about "political leanings" and "lies by omission". The irony is astounding.

Sure, but to put that in perspective, they added 54 GW of coal in 2024 - and 80 GW of wind, and 277 GW of solar. Nuclear was just 4 GW.

You should actually read the conclusions of that article. It does not bolster your case.

That's why grids are widely distributed, far wider than any storm system. In Australia's case, the NEM includes connected generation sites many thousands of kilometres apart. Mainland US is even more widely connected. No storm covers more than a fraction of that, and the rest of the grid is producing normally.

Good thing they never need to cover the entire grid then (thanks to ishmaelflood for the link!). Historically, production would have never dropped more than 30% over any two week period, and even this can be mostly addressed by overbuilding supply (same idea as peaker plant generation).

South Australia has been running on ~100% renewables for some years now (over 130% at times, exporting the difference) with just a couple hundred MWh of storage. How? Local generation (rooftop solar), overbuilding of generation (cheaper than storage), and links to neighbouring state grids to share the peaks and valleys.

Lol, I guessed you missed the part where the Coalition took their nuclear plan to the election - and suffered a massive wipeout, losing a quarter of all their seats - in large part thanks to their insistence on slow & expensive nuclear.

And of course you cherry-picked a Sky News article rather than any actual studies. Trust me, they're considered a fringe outlet in Australia - hardly representative of the majority view, as the election conclusively proved.