The forecast is in the article we're discussing:

therefore the forecast is 240*12/9 = 320GW for the year, which is less than last year:

According to the article's numbers, China is adding ~ 350 GWp of solar per year, more than the rest of the world, so let's say the world is adding 700 GWp of solar each year, and another 100-200 GW of wind, so 1 TWp of solar + wind. Let's assume that solar+wind production averages out to 25% of their peak capacity. Then this 1TWp of added renewables per year averages out to 250 GW. The world consumes 23000 GW, of which about 70% (16000 GW) is from fossil fuels. At the current pace, it would then take 64 years to replace all fossil fuels with renewables, without taking into account increasing energy use or running out of space to put solar+wind, or energy storage. These are very rough estimates. The time frame seems comparable to the transition from coal steam boats to diesel engines. The first oil refinery was built in 1856. The Titanic still burned coal in 1912.

apt sources will need Rust to compile. That doesn't mean that apt binaries will need Rust packages to run.

I suppose they could if they were linked dynamically to Rust libraries, but I think Rust by default links Rust libraries statically.

Do you run a compiler on small embedded systems? I install precompiled firmware on mine.

I get the impression that they will require Rust for systems that compile Debian, not for all Debian systems.

Rust also has a "stronger approach to unit testing", as mentioned in the referenced email. The Rust "cargo test" command can compile and run example source code snippets that are embedded in comments, to make sure that such examples compile, and the assertions don't fail. Rust lets you link actual source code files in a comment, so the linked code appears in the generated documentation, inline. It has a more integrated approach to code, tests, and documentation than other languages.

So why is IKEA moving from Zigbee to Matter? What's the advantage of having yet another protocol? Why does it take so long to settle on one standard? Zigbee, Z-Wave, Threads/Matter, what else? To use each of these protocols, you need to buy a different hub. It's not enough to install new software, you need new hardware too. You can't just install a Zigbee or Threads app on your computer and use it over the existing WiFi or Bluetooth hardware, even though they all use about the same frequencies. You have to get a Zigbee dongle of sorts, or something else for Threads, etc...

WiFi and Bluetooth started being used at ~ 1999, and they are still used widely today. Compare this with IOT protocols.

It takes time and money to resist tyranny.

It takes time and money to setup your own mail server instead of handing over your personal communication to Big Tech.

Some people value their privacy and independence enough to put in the time and money it takes to resist.

On a positive note, there are now companies that sell devices with Tasmota preinstalled, instead of their proprietary OS that works only with their servers. There are companies that advertise their devices to be compatible with zigbee2mqtt. There are companies that sell routers based on OpenWRT.

There have been too many cases of companies bricking their devices because they stop supporting their proprietary OS.

It takes time but saves you money to run Linux instead of Windows.

It takes time but saves you money to install Linux on a PC that Microsoft stopped supporting.

It is more economical for them to produce liquid air non-stop. Many industries could theoretically consume electricity only when it is abundant (during the day), but then they under-utilize their facilities. Redundant data centers could be spread around the world so that each data center operates only when the sun shines nearby and it has abundant electricity. But then they would operate only about 20% of the time, and therefore require 5x higher capital costs (computers, cooling, buildings, land, etc).

The 2nd step is intriguing, but it is not obvious that it is economically viable. If they generate more liquid air than they need and use it to generate electricity, then they need extra compressors. What advantage would they have over a separate plant which uses those extra compressors to store electricity without selling liquid air?

My question was about the geodesic polyhedrons that approximate the sphere, not about the sphere.

Isn't a sphere approximated by a series of convex polyhedrons with more and more vertices? For example, geodesic polyhedrons, where each one is formed by adding a vertex centered on each face, but on the surface of the sphere? Are these all Rupert objects, but the sphere that they converge to isn't?

>"and a fingerprint sensor to identify who's using the toilet,"

This is so that it associates the data with the correct person, when multiple people use the same toilet.

> Of course. No modern purchase would be complete without an endless "service" revenue costing the consumer thousands of additional dollars!

If there was no subscription and no cloud, this could be a good product. But that would require a nearby toilet hub (computer) that could do the computations. If this hub were a general purpose computer (as opposed to having a separate hub for each company that sells you tech products), it would be even better.

Do you realize that several popular desktop applications are written in Javascript and other web technologies, using Electron?

Instead of phasing out JavaScript, how about supporting packaged Javascript applications that could be loaded and updated from the browser, with the consent of the user? (as opposed to Javascript files being loaded on demand at any time from any webpage). Big Tech doesn't like this, for various reasons. Firefox OS tried to do it, but failed. Progressive Web Applications may be another attempt to make web applications behave like versioned applications instead of a loosely-connected set of arbitrarily self-updating scripts. I don't know much it.

Reruns... or AI-generated shows..

Yes. But is WPS a public and truly open format? I don't know.

PDF and OpenDocument are both formats originally created by American companies, so I can understand China's aversion to using them.

PDF is widely used, but I wouldn't call it truly open. It is a pain to read programmatically. Perhaps this is why it is widely used. It is difficult to alter.

OpenDocument is not widely used.

China could take the lead by creating a new document format that is better than PDF and better than OpenDocument. But this is hard, and China does not have a good track record in creating popular open designs.

Perhaps a document format that is easy to read, easy to write, and easy to tell if it has been altered (by using an easy signature mechanism).

By the way, China, please fix the email encryption and spam problem, while you're at it.