You probably want to start testing with a small blast-radius though and expand the radius after fixing the obvious things. Doing country or EU wide testing would likely be quite noisy, because there will be plenty of issues of various sizes and it will be disruptive while not providing as much more information as the disruption would cost. Fixing smaller things first and then expanding to larger scale testing to catch the remaining or larger scale issues seems like the better approach to me, but that depends possibly on how time critical being prepared for such events is.
I would love to see how you implemented that (and also the lint itself). I so far haven't found a solid way to implement custom lints for Rust, so if you have any resources to share at some point, I would love to see them!
As a German the American understanding of free speech is always an interesting clash of cultures. Germans generally see free speech as a freedom of opinion and the expression of opinions as something to protect. Historically such free speech has often been under threat by using actual threats and insults, especially in Germany. As such people should have ways to prosecute such attacks against their free speech legally. Additionally people do have their dignity and when you start attacking someone's dignity that very quickly leads to leaving facts behind and focusing emotional persecution of people or groups. That's why both the human dignity and free speech have a very high standing in the German constitution, but the human dignity does rank somewhat higher.
The US on the other hand seems to focus more on being allowed to say anything and people have to defend themselves against any verbal attacks with little protection from the state. From my perspective that seems to be in conflict with fostering actual free speech. The president or anybody else could put up a wrong statement about you or even tell people to attack you and that seems to be protected as free speech, even though it will prevent you from voicing your own opinions and as such restrict your own free speech.
Now of course treating insults or attacks against the human dignity as crimes is a two-edged sword. Such laws can and are misused. Regulating such a field is hard and often ends up being a court decision. But there are plenty of people who are sent threats and insults every day, just because they are politically active and giving them a way to protect themselves is important for our democracy. And there are plenty of other laws getting misused as well. The solution is refining them to make them harder to abuse and punishing people who do abuse them. It is not a solution to just give up regulating something, just because it might be hard at the start.
Now maybe people from the US will never agree with Germans here. But maybe that is just part of our differences in culture. Germany went through fascism before and our constitution is part of our way to protect ourselves from going down that path ever again. Putting human dignity as the first articles is a big part of that as are our way of protecting free speech. Inciting public violence against minorities was one of the ways fascism started in Germany and as a result we have laws against that. We learned from our history because we don't want to repeat it and criticising our interpretation of free speech without understanding how we arrived at our interpretation of it feels somewhat rude. Which doesn't mean I don't welcome discussion around it, but if you want to discuss it, please try to understand the context around it instead of just pointing at how you are doing things differently and picking one or two negative examples.
> But there are plenty of people who are sent threats and insults every day, just because they are politically active and giving them a way to protect themselves is important for our democracy.
I think this logic is flawed. By that same logic, the solution to terrorist attacks in cars would be to ban cars.
My point is that the countermeasure sounds disproportionate to me.
>As a German the American understanding of free speech is always an interesting clash of cultures.
Not just Americans, the rest of Europe also thinks that Germany's "freedom" of speech laws are a bunch of horse manure and are laughing at Germany.
>As such people should have ways to prosecute such attacks against their free speech legally.
All other western democratic countries already have that, minus Germany's Stasi speech censorship, it's called libel/slander/defamation laws, except unlike Germany you actually have to prove in court that untrue comments caused you some form of harm (monetary or otherwise) and not just hurt feelings to your "dignity" whatever that is.
>Additionally people do have their dignity and when you start attacking someone's dignity that
What's the exact definition of "dignity" here? It just feels like a synonym for "hurt feelings" from the context on this thread. I don't agree that free speech and facts should be blocked just because someone(usually a rich/powerful criminal) claims their feelings are hurt. Like that German politician who had comments regarding his documented Nazi/Stasi past blocked because it "hurt his dignity" even though that was the truth. This is just a legal loophole for criminals to hide their crimes from the public and doesn't really protect anyone innocent. Basically state legalized censorship.
>Germany went through fascism before and our constitution is part of our way to protect ourselves from going down that path ever again
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Based on the prosecutors in that video showcased and what you just explained, it has the exact opposite effect: Germans have let themselves ruled by fascist speech police who controls what they can and cannot say in public, but have gaslit themselves into thinking that it's somehow justified because "m'uh dignity", which is just criminals exploiting the law to escape public scrutiny for their crimes and for the state to censor speech.
I really hope you guys wise up at one point and snap out of it, but knowing German mentality on blindly following orders and rules even when they're obviously stupid, and national arrogance on how your rules and laws are faultless and must be followed to the T (used to work for one of the top 3 German luxury car brands) I doubt it. Don't mean to offend you even though my language seems so, but from the perspective of someone from a country with actual free speech who worked a lot with Germans, your arguments on Germany's bullshit laws sound like someone defending their Stockholm syndrome, which I guess is a good metaphor for the German populations' mentality. Damn, I was rude again, but I'm not good at doing that thing Germans do in the Zeugnis where they say something negative wrapped in glitter and sprinkles so that it seems positive, hope I don't get swatted by the Bundespolizei.
> Not just Americans, the rest of Europe also thinks that Germany's "freedom" of speech laws are a bunch of horse manure and are laughing at Germany.
Do you have anything to back that up? This doesn't represent my experience, so we basically end up in a situation of anecdotes vs anecdotes, in which case we can't really argue this point further, I'd say.
> All other western democratic countries already have that, minus Germany's Stasi speech censorship, it's called libel/slander/defamation laws, except unlike Germany you actually have to prove in court that untrue comments caused you some form of harm (monetary or otherwise) and not just hurt feelings to your "dignity" whatever that is.
Right, but how does that protect your freedom of expression? If you have to prove you have experienced harm, that makes it very hard to argue that people shouldn't send you death threats. There is no real harm that happened because of that, but it regularly stops people from doing their political work. Heck, people get letters sometimes from AfD associated organisations, that their sexual orientation isn't welcome in Germany and that they will soon "fix" that: https://www.mimikama.org/afd-drohbrief-an-kirche-gefahr-oder...
Insults, threats and verbal attacks are not essential to having a discussion, as such it is very much possible to just word things differently and make the same arguments without forcing other people out of the discourse by making them feel endangered. It's not censorship if you just restrict how people word things. It might fall under censorship to disallow threats, slander and insults, but frankly do you really consider those essential to free speech? Freedom in a society always has limits. Your freedom ends when it restricts the freedom of others. And why would that be different just because you send someone a threat via a letter or post it online instead of punching them in the face? Both of them result in someone being scared of expressing their opinion.
> What's the exact definition of "dignity" here? It just feels like a synonym for "hurt feelings" from the context on this thread. I don't agree that free speech and facts should be blocked just because someone(usually a rich/powerful criminal) claims their feelings are hurt. Like that German politician who had comments regarding his documented Nazi/Stasi past blocked because it "hurt his dignity" even though that was the truth. This is just a legal loophole for criminals to hide their crimes from the public and doesn't really protect anyone innocent. Basically state legalized censorship.
"dignity" here is hard to define exactly, as is the case with most constitutions. But no, it is not hurt feelings. You can hurt someone's feelings in a lot of ways without it being malicious. As such there is often discussion around what this part of the German constitution actually means, but in general the consensus is that it means the state has to make sure its citizens can live a humane life. This means people shouldn't be the target of excessive cruelty (i.e. torture) and should in general be able to live their life as freely as possible without encroaching on other people's freedom.
You are understanding it as "hurt feeling" because of the framing in the video at the root of this thread. That's because the video overly focuses on certain aspects of how Germany "polices" the internet. It barely touches on how many politicians, political activists and minorities are often the target of threats, because people assume the internet is a lawless place and the anonymity and physical distance encourages them to act even more violent than they would likely dare to act in person. That's not hurt feelings anymore, people's free speech is actively getting repressed by a constant flow of threats online.
Yes, there are examples of the laws getting misused in that area. But there are plenty more examples of where that isn't the case, that you just don't hear about. Also very rarely it is the case that politicians can hide their past because it "would hurt their dignity". In most cases it is argued that the interest of the public outweighs the individuals rights in those cases. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are not the rule.
Take the US for example where they are removing large volumes of books from libraries. That is censorship. Germany does that also to a lesser extent with its "index", but those are few books and other media and they have to go through a proper process to do so and often you can still get access to annotated versions of that media. Your understanding of censorship seems to be, that it should be absolutely legal to call for violence against immigrants. No, it shouldn't be. Either actions against immigration go through the parliament, possibly by having democratic protests about that before it as well as discussions, or they simply don't happen. You don't incite violence against others to get your political will, that isn't free speech, you are sidestepping the democratic processes, that we protect the free speech for. And you are possibly making people fear for their lives, in what world should that be acceptable?
> I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Based on the prosecutors in that video showcased and what you just explained, it has the exact opposite effect: Germans have let themselves ruled by fascist speech police who controls what they can and cannot say in public, but have gaslit themselves into thinking that it's somehow justified because "m'uh dignity", which is just criminals exploiting the law to escape public scrutiny for their crimes and for the state to censor speech.
You ALWAYS have to think about what is okay to say in public. You wouldn't want to blurt out all your passwords either and thinking before you say something does little harm. It is not that hard to not be racist and to not use insults and intent also matters when such cases are judged. And such "speech police" does not exist. There are still courts involved and you can't just bring up any Facebook post and have someone end up in prison over it. Most of the time nothing happens anyway, because the police argues it is too hard to figure out who was behind a specific post.
You are arguing criminals are exploiting this law, please back that up with some statistics, that you aren't just picking a few examples and extrapolating from that. You are arguing entirely on an emotional level removed from facts, some of them have even been listed in the video. If there are thousands of cases and several of them have been presented in the video (where they are showing racist and similar posts), then clearly it can't just be criminals exploiting the law. Or do you take offence with those examples as well? Do you think it should be legal to be racist on the internet?
And I already said those laws aren't flawless. There are plenty of cases where they were used in ways, that I don't agree with, for example how people got fined for reposting an anti-fascist meme, because it included a swastika and they weren't the original author. But that doesn't mean those laws don't do more good for society than bad. I think the German laws around this are better than absolutist free speech laws, that don't keep people accountable for what they say. And as I said, I am open to discussing that, but I also said to stop picking only one or two examples to support your narrative without understanding the context around it.
Nothing you said falls under those laws and would get you a visit by the police. Also to my knowledge the Bundespolizei isn't even responsible for that, it's up to each state's police. You haven't attacked me personally and you didn't incite violence or anything. I might think some of your specific expressions are rude and that you are fluffing up your language to push an emotional narrative instead of arguing based on facts, numbers and examples, but that's nothing that represses or attacks me.
And while you say you have "actual free speech", I simply disagree with that. You have one interpretation of free speech, but I don't think it is easier to voice your opinion in the US. Platforms tend to just censor you for including a link to signal or you get deprioritised by the algorithm for talking about climate change. You ban books for corrupting the youth instead of just putting an age limit on them (and tbh, the rules how you select those books are pretty dubious imo). Heck, you are even removing artworks that could relate to certain topics. The US is silencing certain views and imo that is a lot more censorship than where in Germany you are mostly limited in how you express your views. So imo it is the US that is deluded about how free their speech actually is. Maybe instead we can focus more on the topic and facts then and appeal less to emotion in the discussion?
I'm not reading all that, can you please post this in a meme format and then we can judge it based on whether or not you get swatted by the police. JK. Your comment is just mental gymnastics to justify how existing German laws are somehow not a threat to free speech even though the end results and actions of the state and abuses prove that they are.
Let me quote German law on the matter:
"Freedom of speech is granted by Art. 5 Section 1 GG. It mainly protects opinions but also facts relevant to forming opinions, unless those facts are proven false or intentionally false. Freedom of Speech can be infringed acording to Art. 5 Section 2 GG for protection of ones honor, visible in Section 185 and Section 188 german penal code, that punishes insulting. When free speech and protection of ones honor collide, the court has to weigh, which in a specific case is more important."
TL;DR: no matter how much copium you sniff, you actually don't have freedom of speech in Germany.
So in Germany your speech is not protected from the government anymore and is entirely subject to opinion of judges and the public. To some extent Germans do not even have freedom of expression because the guilt culture makes people default to calling illegal migration critics Nazis so nobody speaks publicly about this.
I'm your east side neighbour, not an American. Our speech here has much better protection, you'll only get in trouble if you make threats or call for violence (as it should be), not for calling politicians "a willie" or "an old woman", because we remember our oppressive communist past and worked to not repeat that level of government censorship, while Germans tried so hard to "not be Nazis" that they put their heads so far up their own ass that they turned back into the same Nazis they say they're fighting. Crazy shit really.
Again, I would suggest you stop picking particular examples without context. The case where a politician was called "willie"/"Pimmel" was a senator overreaching and as a result the police dropped the case: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/hausdurchsuchung-pimmelg...
Of course it was still a scandal, but it is not like anyone had to pay a fine over it or went to prison.
Yes, there are limits to free speech in Germany, when it encroaches on other people's freedom of speech. But that doesn't mean there is no free speech and the examples you pick are mostly cases where someone tried to use those rules against free speech and failed. So they actually show the opposite, you can't just sue someone for their opinion. Only if their opinion encroaches on other people's freedom. I don't think I am the one doing mental gymnastics here. Yes, insults generally don't fall under free speech in Germany and neither does inciting violence, but I simply don't see that as a problem, since you can express opinions also without including direct insults. So from my perspective I can only see you arguing, that insulting other people should be protected by free speech, which we can disagree on, but is a very small aspect of free speech from my perspective and imo even one that harms free speech in the long run.
You want to change energy policies based on the price of power during a few days a year? That is rather short sighted.
Even with those 3-5 days of high prices, the average price is expected to be 30% lower this year compared to last year. This is also reflected in the prices consumers and the industry have to pay. Consumer prices are still trending downwards and the industry price has been very close to the lowest prices over the last 10-20 years, especially if you consider inflation (but only if you had to pay the EEG before).
The prices also only jumped about as far up as to match the current gas prices, which is somewhat expected if there is no wind or solar and the missing energy has to be produced by burning gas. This is not what will be the case long term. Germany is almost doubling the installed battery storage capacity every year and has been keeping that up for almost a decade at this point: https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/installed_power/chart....
This trend is likely to continue and will smooth out a few days of no renewables soon. Additionally so far biomass has been subsidized without it having to follow the load. This is expected to change this (there was at least one law proposed, don't know if that was decided on yet), which would make Germany follow a lot closer to how Denmark seems to operate its grid.
The big problems in the German energy grid are, that there is not enough transfer capacity, not enough storage and not enough renewables in the grid yet. More renewables make storage more attractive, but earlier conservative governments killed both solar and wind installations, because they wanted to focus on nuclear, only to then reverse course a short time later. Solar was on an exponential trend until the government implemented policies, that basically killed expansion around the 2012 time frame: https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/installed_power/chart....
A similar story applies to wind power, where additional regulation regarding the distance of wind turbines to living spaces made it almost impossible to build new wind turbines (around 2017).
Similar policies also prevented installation of new power lines or at least significantly delayed their installation.
Had conservative governments not implemented those, we would likely be at 100% renewables already most of the time in Germany and the average price for electricity would be significantly lower. But the distraction of nuclear and then gas and coal by conservative governments put us into the position we are in today. A completely renewable grid is possible and not too far off for many countries in the EU and elsewhere, but you need to actually build the infrastructure for it instead of sabotaging it.
Restarting reactors won't help in that regard. The few reactors that were still in the grid in 2022 did not reduce the record electricity prices that year. (They would also not have helped when they were at their peak with about 30% of the grid. Germany stopped constructing nuclear plants in the 80s after all and nuclear has been in a decline since then, even though officially that was only decided in 2002 and then 2011.) And the prices continue falling since the last nuclear plants were shut off in 2023. Today renewables are the cheapest source of energy. Storage is still a problem, but battery prices still half every few years, which makes battery storage economical today already and only cheaper in the long run.
For all intents and purposes Germany is doing ok in renewables. It could be a lot better, but there is a clear plan and if conservative governments don't reverse course next year (again) as well as stop sabotaging renewables in local governments (like Bavaria), prices will soon be the lowest they have been in 2 decades. This is backed up by plenty of data and studies. Nuclear plants are cool in theory, but they can't compete in price in the long term and trying to go back to them would be the same mistake the German car industry made, when it tried to push ICE cars and is now getting steam rolled by China in the EV market. Or when Germans invested into gas pipelines instead of renewables, because it was cheaper at the time. Germany can't afford to make plans only for the next 2 years, it needs to have plans for the next few decades.
> You want to change energy policies based on the price of power during a few days a year? That is rather short sighted.
No, I want energy policies that account for the need to support a reliable base load in all circumstances. The prices are an expression that got fucked up. And that baseload specifically includes heavy industry, which has limited ability to rely on batteries alone.
Simply, "most of the time" is insufficient. That means we need an answer for what happens until we reached the "next few decades" state.
This is not advocacy to replace renewables with nuclear, but to a) do the baseload thing, now, and b) cut the LNG cord, which is a very tenuous tether to hang yourself off.
I don't think you and I are disagreeing much about the long term (though questions around battery sustainability need answering for the long term baseload case). But there's need for fairly immediate action. Germany is massively deindustrializing right now, and it's due to energy supply issues, at least in part.
Why do you act like German electricity prices aren't high? Any source including the one you link shows Germany to be above average. Hard to take the rest of what you say seriously when you don't acknowledge this reality.
Regardless I'll be curious to see whether what you predict will happen (energy storage becomes enough to deal with bad weather periods). Doesn't seem smart though to rely on the sun in a relatively cloudy country.
But Matrix works fine if a hospital disconnects itself from the internet because of some DDoS or hacking attack. WhatsApp doesn't, because you can't host it on-prem. I am not sure about if governments have that use case, but we certainly have seen it in hospitals. (And even then, there are benefits of having patient data only on specific servers in specific environments, even if they are encrypted, because if you use WhatsApp to talk to your doctor, Meta will know about that. And I am pretty sure governments can appreciate such features as well.)
I would say it is complicated, but also that Matrix is certainly open.
Technically Matrix and Element are independent and the specification is controlled by the Matrix Foundation and the "Spec Core Team". However there is significant overlap between people on the SCT and the foundation and Element employees. This is mostly because of history. At the start Matrix and Element were in most aspects the same people. Element was a company founded to make money with selling Matrix based products to then support the development of the Matrix protocol (I might be getting some of the details wrong, but I think that is roughly right). This resulted also in Element being one of the few Matrix employers early on, so people who ended up on the SCT were often either from Element or later hired by Element, because those people also wanted to work on Matrix as their day job instead of just in their free time.
More recently new SCT members were added, that aren't employed by Element (and there was at least one before that, who was never employed by Element), so Element's involvement in the SCT is clearly reducing. Similarly the SCT is supposed to make decisions, that don't benefit a single company (but of course that is hard to guarantee, so you need to judge that for yourself). I personally do believe, that every SCT member is trying to follow that rule.
Additionally the Matrix Foundation is currently in the process of setting up a more neutral governing board (it was already controlled by 5 guardians before, of which 3 were not involved directly with Element). You can read more about that setup here: https://matrix.org/foundation/governing-board-elections/ But the gist of that is that different sponsors as well as ecosystem and individual members can vote on representatives for the governing board and the governing board is then supposed to take over most governance responsibilities aside from the specification.
(For disclosure, I am both elected one of the elected board members as well as an employee of a different Matrix based company, but I am not speaking for either here.)
So I think there is clearly progress to make Matrix more independent of Element. It is also a fact that the Matrix Spec proposal process has always been open for anyone to submit a proposal, even if the SCT then sets the priorities on what gets merged into the spec. In my experience most of the proposals are stuck in the "needs more work" stage, which is something Element has historically put a lot of effort into and other companies and individuals either didn't want to put it the same effort or especially regarding the individuals, simply didn't have the resources to do that. But even that is getting more diverse nowadays.
There are also plenty of alternative clients for Matrix and a few alternative servers. They might not have the same polish as Elements products, but they do have a significant share of users, that are happy with them.
So I think Element is still very present in the Matrix ecosystem and that will still be the case for a while. But there is clearly work being done to make Matrix more independent and I think with the historical background it also makes sense why. There was a pretty good talk about that at the Matrix conference from kitsune about the mitosis of organisational structures.
Also, I don't think that few clients in the Matrix ecosystem support E2EE. I think most of the more popular ones support it nowadays: NeoChat, FluffyChat, Nheko, Fractal, gomuks, Cinny, Tammy, etc. It is actually quite hard to find a client, that doesn't support E2EE: https://matrix.org/ecosystem/clients/ (use the feature filter at the bottom to filter by E2EE support)
You can also read more about the foundation and how it is supposed to function here: https://matrix.org/foundation/about/
But to repeat my initial statement, I do think Matrix is independent in most aspects from Element, will become independent in most of the remaining aspects and that Element is currently simply a very large contributor and employer in the Matrix space, with a history without which we wouldn't have Matrix today.
Please read carefully if you already share a BILD article. While they claim, that the forest is 200km² big and that it will be completely cut down, there is no actual basis to that. The official documents for that wind park talk about cutting down 29Ha, which would be 0.29km². And not all of that is permanent, some is temporary for access and construction. The permanently cut down area would be about 13.1Ha. None of that is in the actual old growth of the forest. So we are talking about 0.15% or so of the whole area of the forest! You can find more info about this here: https://rp-kassel.hessen.de/sites/rp-kassel.hessen.de/files/...
Now, if you tell me that no tree should be cut down for wind energy, then may I point out that from 2018 to 2021 we lost about 250000Ha of forest to climate change and drought (https://www.scinexx.de/news/biowissen/karte-zeigt-waldverlus...). That is 10 times the size of the forest you were so concerned about. Some sources even talk about 500000Ha if you include 2021 (https://www.geo.de/natur/oekologie/alarmierend--5-prozent-de...). We do need to transition to be carbon neutral to have any chance of stopping that. Cutting down less than a percent of trees for energy production while we have already lost several times that to climate change is not great, but it is much better than continuing to burn fossil fuels to kill the rest of the forests as well. There are no viable alternatives to become carbon neutral in the time frame we have left to my knowledge, so I would agree with the quote.
So please don't ever, ever quote BILD for facts. They have an intentional agenda to mislead people and they either conveniently twist the truth or just make up stuff. Unless you are able to distinguish that, it is best to not read it at all.
So you agree that your initial statement about 200km² of forest being cut down is incorrect? Which is mostly what I took issue with. If we agree there now, I am happy.
However regarding the study you linked, while it does show a downward trend in burned area, I am not sure how that relates to our "debate"? It clearly shows that the reduction of burned area each year is down mostly because of humans burning down fewer wooded areas intentionally (3.3.1). Meanwhile the area burned down because of the effects of climate change is actually up (3.3.2). Which does match up with the studies I linked to. However, the study you linked actually only covers up to 2007, which is soon close to 20 years ago. Meanwhile what I linked to covers until 2021. There has been a significant increase in global temperatures in that time (~0.5°C, which considering the limit from Paris is 1.5°C), as such it is very likely the impact of global warming has increased for the time periods after the ones covered in the study. And your study also shows no significant decrease in burned area each year in Europe, so it doesn't really say much about Germany. It also only covers burning. Most of the recent area reduction actually hasn't necessarily been through burning. Plenty of trees died because of drought and then either not having the necessary water to grow or failing to defend against harmful insects and similar.
Climate change won't necessarily burn your house down or make you drown in rising sea levels. Most people will probably be impacted by food shortages, diseases spreading, wars and other factors. As such I am a bit confused about why you linked that study. It seems to focus on a rather narrow factor of forest reduction. But it doesn't cover much of the recent times with the highest temperature increases (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...), doesn't disagree with any of my statements and only says the amount of reduction reduced. It doesn't say that forests actually started to increase (because they didn't).
Considering how upset you seemed about humans cutting trees down, I just don't follow what you are trying to argue about anymore? Did you just want to point out, that from 1940 until 2007 the area lost each year to fire reduced by around 30%, so clearly climate change is not that big of a problem, even though the study says the impact of climate change is increasing and in Germany we lost about 5% of the total forested area in 4 years in a later period not covered by your study and burning isn't the only reason for losing forests? It probably would help me, if you tied your argument into the previous discussion. From my perspective it seems to mostly just agree with what I said, in which case I don't understand, why I would have to be more open to debate, since there doesn't seem to be anything to debate?
I probably must have misunderstood you somewhere, so please enlighten me, if that is the case. Apart from that, have a nice day and sorry that I seem to not understand what you are trying to tell me!
- There has been a significant increase in global temperatures in that time (~0.5°C, which considering the limit from Paris is 1.5°C).
Because human activity rise in urban areas, temperatures from rulal areas have not increased that much. Satellite and balloon measures proofs that. (1)
Also rising temperatures is not new phenomena. Greenland ice core project (2) showing that there was about 25 dramatic climate changes in history. Its called Dansgaard–Oeschger event. (3), (4) and shows that for example during Younger Dryas (5) there was dramatic temperature decline and increase in few decades.
Back to topic. Why Germany need so much renewable source of energy and having most expensive energy price in same time? Shouldn't they build more nuclear power plants instead of cutting trees for unreliable source of energy?
For reference, the nuclear plants Germany shut down, were all built in the 1980s as well, although some of them in 1989 with construction started in '82 or the 70s. People still complain, that those got shut down, but really the problem was rather that no new ones were built in the last 40 years, especially considering what we learned in that time.
Renewables are simply much easier to build. They mostly affect people that can see them and especially solar can be built in a lot of places, that don't really bother people, unless they don't like how they look (like a roof or to shade parking spots). Wind is a bit more difficult, but apart from the shadow and in closer distances the noise, the look isn't actually that bad. Kids tend to get about as excited about them as when they see a fire or dump truck. It is mostly that we prefer to look at peoples cars and streets than a spinning wheel on a wind turbine.
That's probably the big benefit renewables have. They have relatively few downsides to people and failure modes are mostly predictable as well (electrical faults or falling over would probably be the worst case and feel much easier to run away from, when you try to imagine them). So there shouldn't be as much resistance against them, apart from people living directly next to them even when people are unreasonable.
If a 100% electrical grid with renewables is possible (and I think it is), I think it is simply the better option, because it really shouldn't bother anyone (and probably also is cheaper and quicker to build). But maybe I am overestimating how much people care about looks or the coolness factor of nuclear.
To me it does feel like this has been on HN a bit more than other filesystem corruption bugs. This bug can basically only be triggered by using lseek to search for a hole. Ext4 has a very similar bug, but that requires enabling inline_data (and possibly a non-default blocksize, but that doesn't always seem to be the case): https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1166006.html
I don't think I ever heard about this, apart from in the context of the ZFS bug. And although inline_data is niche, ext4 as a whole I would argue is not.
Just get a blank keyboard and sticker on your own legend if you need to. They have both enter sizes. (Only half joking, and you can buy a different keyboard once it is available in your locale.)
