AC is not common in Europe. There’s a variety of heating systems: gas boilers, direct electric heating, district heating, etc. Heat pumps are a growing market though.

Unfortunately, when you do find a text article explaining the thing it’s often unnecessarily long and padded out with meaningless fluff, just so more advertising can be stuffed within the contents.

Another big factor is that every plant is effectively a completely custom design. Because of how few nuclear plants are constructed, every new one tends to incorporate technological advancements to enhance safety or efficiency. The design also has to be adapted to the local climate and land layout. This makes every single plant effectively one of a kind.

It also tends to be built by different contractors, involving different vendors and electric utilities every time. Other countries have done better here (e.g. China and France) mostly due to comprehensive government planning: plopping down lots of reactors of the same design, done by the same engineers. Although these countries are not fully escaping cost increases either.

You are completely correct that regulation is also a big factor. Quality assurance and documentation requirements are enormously onerous. This article does a pretty decent job explaining the difficulties.

A system I work with gives all keys a string value of “Not_set” when the key is intended to be unset. The team decided to put this in because of a connection with a different, legacy system, whose developers (somehow) could not distinguish between a key being missing or being present but with a null value. So now every team that integrates with this system has to deal with these unset values.

Of course, it’s up to individual developers to never forget to set a key to “Not_Set”. Also, they forgot to standardise capitalisation and such so there are all sorts of variations “NOT_SET”, “Not_set”, “NotSet”, etc. floating around the API responses. Also null is still a possible value you need to handle as well, though what it means is context dependent (usually it means someone fucked up).

Both, really. There’s been encoding improvements every generation, but they also use different slices of the spectrum.

He’s the NATO chief, and NATO is basically the embodiment of America militarily defending Europe. Of course he wants Trump and Zelensky to make up and kiss. He’s just saying what his job demands him to say.

VAT is a universal tax on goods. A tariff is basically a tax that applies only to imported goods. So a tariff distorts the market, making imports from a region more expensive relative to other regions, or domestic goods.

Note that basically any tax is bad from an economic perspective. However for the government to function revenues must be raised. It is considered better for market efficiency to raise revenues in such a way as to least distort the market. Tariffs are a very distorting instrument, VAT is generally considered less distorting because it affects all parts of the market equally.

No magnetic confinement fusion reactor in existence has ever generated a positive output. The current record belongs to JET, with a Q factor of 0.67. This record was set in 1997.

The biggest reason we haven’t had a record break for a long time is money. The most favourable reaction for fusion is generally a D-T (Deuterium-Tritium) reaction. However, Tritium is incredibly expensive. So, most reactors run the much cheaper D-D reaction, which generates lower output. This is okay because current research reactors are mostly doing research on specific components of an eventual commercial reactor, and are not aiming for highest possible power output.

The main purpose of WEST is to do research on diverter components for ITER. ITER itself is expected to reach Q ≥ 10, but won’t have any energy harvesting components. The goal is to add that to its successor, DEMO.

Inertial confinement fusion (using lasers) has produced higher records, but they generally exclude the energy used to produce the laser from the calculation. NIF has generated 3.15MJ of fusion output by delivering 2.05MJ of energy to it with a laser, nominally a Q = 1.54. however, creating the laser that delivered the power took about 300MJ.

So the right is against self-service now? wtf

You may want to look into Grover Norquist and his organisation Americans for Tax Reform. It is one of the most influential political lobbying groups in the United States, and it has the support of essentially the entire republican party. They essentially consider tax to be evil on principle and ask every politician to sign a pledge opposing any tax hike.

ATR is strongly against automatic filing, as they want to keep taxes difficult and complicated to stoke anti-tax sentiment. That is to say, they fear that if filing tax is easier, citizens would be less likely to fight taxes in the way that the ATR wants (mostly they like a low flat tax, because it’s simple and good for rich people).

They are emissions credits. Every company receives some amount of “CO2 emission credits” from the government. These allow you to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide. If you don’t emit all the CO2 that your credits allow, you can sell those credits to other companies that need more than the government gives them.

The idea is to put a total limit on the amount of emissions in the country, while letting the market figure out where it makes most sense economically to invest in emission reduction.

Tesla makes only EV cars and so it doesn’t need all the credits a typical gasoline car company would receive. So they sell them.

The CEO said on twitter that even their $200/month pro plan was losing money on every customer: https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/05/openai-is-losing-money-on-its-pricey-chatgpt-pro-plan-ceo-sam-altman-says/

I don’t see how they would become profitable any time soon if their costs are that high. Maybe if they adapt the innovations of deepseek to their own model.

I was curious what the official supposed purpose of these tokens was, since i have a hard time believing anyone would seriously see themselves buying anything with these at any point. The official website is hilarious. They’re not claiming any purpose at all, you’re just buying an “official meme”:

Trump Memes are intended to function as an expression of support for, and engagement with, the ideals and beliefs embodied by the symbol “$TRUMP” and the associated artwork, and are not intended to be, or to be the subject of, an investment opportunity, investment contract, or security of any type. GetTrumpMemes.com is not political and has nothing to do with any political campaign or any political office or governmental agency. See Terms & Conditions Here, See Card Allocation Here

The grift is fully out in the open I guess.

Are we painting Stalin as a good guy here? He only fought Germany because they tried to invade. Before that he repeatedly made attempts to court Nazi Germany. He signed a nonaggression pact, made an agreement to secretly divide Eastern Europe together, and continued trading. Stalin didn’t really give a shit about the fascism part, he only cared once his own territory and sphere of influence were threatened. Same as all the other major allies, btw. Everyone tried appeasement first, nobody really cared about the fascism.

“Saving Europe from Hitler” paints it as a selfless act of heroism when really everyone was mostly concerned with maintaining their own power.

I had one in high school. The design was kinda gimmicky but the phone had good features for its time. it had an FM radio receiver, and I remember you could even transfer MP3 files onto it, although it was a hassle to do so.

The very first sentence of the article answers these exact two questions.

Here’s the thing, though. There’s no interest charged to the customer. I think Klarna makes its money just because companies pay them money for integrations and for the ability to advertise that customers can buy now pay later and such. And at least in the case of my company’s integration with Klarna, Klarna takes all the risk. They’re lending customers money and hoping the customers pay it back. My employer gets the money up front and isn’t out any money if the customer doesn’t pay.

Your company pays a transaction fee just like with a credit card. Except it’s usually roughly twice as expensive as a credit card. This is what allows Klarna to take on all that risk, generally. For your company this is essentially a marketing expense. Offer a convenient way to pay in return for a few percent of the transaction (3-6% + a fixed fee, $0.30 perhaps).

Klarna generally partners with some financial firm to finance these short term loans, and they use the merchant fee to pay interest. These can be as high as 25% APR. It’s a high risk loan.

This is how they make money. It’s the only way they make money.

That is not correct. Klarna is functionally a payment processor, like an advanced type of credit card, and charges the merchant fees per transaction. For example, see here. They are highly cagey about specific fees until you actually sign up, and it depends on region and business size. But interchange fees are where the majority of their revenue comes from. To my knowledge, the fees are typically 3 percentage points above what the merchant would pay for a credit card transaction.

The reason merchants still accept Klarna despite the high fees is of course, improved conversion rates and decreased risk. Klarna assumes all the risk of the customer not paying, the shop gets all of the money instantly and doesn’t have to worry about it for the most part. That mainly makes it attractive for high margin shops that don’t mind spending lots on marketing to get a few extra sales (fashion, perfume, high end electronics).

I’m not too knowledgeable on how Klarna deals with late fees, but I’m pretty sure it differs per country they operate in. Many places have regulations limiting the abuse of late fees. I wouldn’t be surprised if the US is not that kind of place, and people who are late get fucked with fees.

In general, I agree with the second part of your comment and I do not recommend using any buy-now-pay-later kind of scheme, because you’re taking on additional risk for no real reason. Lots of stuff can happen even through no fault of your own (check engine light? Job downsizing?) that will affect your expected future income.

There’s a lot of stuff that isn’t really efficient to own individually. I need a power drill one day a year or less, it’s just gathering dust in my closet the rest of the time. I bet most of my neighborhood does the same.

I often dream of a local community center of sorts that lends out tools, and other such things, maybe for a small yearly fee. They could spend to get something robust, good quality that lasts for a long while. And the whole neighborhood could benefit. Sort of an expanded version of a library? I guess none of that is very profitable.

It’s really about quality imo. Not all 4k video is equal, and streamed video tends to be especially bad. It’s possible to download decent quality video files, but they are all from blue ray rips. If blue ray goes away, streaming sites might be the only remaining source for digital video files, and high quality digital video will essentially die.

Seems like the pirate environment is especially suited to this type of democracy. Pirate ships operate outside the protections afforded by law, so the only thing really preventing pirate captains from being ousted (or murdered) is the crew’s support.

I guess a CEO would need to maintain shareholder support, but shareholders are generally fairly disconnected from the company’s day to day operations. Most individuals own shares through mutual funds or ETFs, which means they don’t actually have share ownership themselves and can’t vote. All you have is the fund owing you a fiduciary duty to vote in your best interests, which generally translates to whatever makes the most money. So the CEO just needs to keep a few large institutions happy, and possibly some large wealthy individual shareholders that he knows from the rotary club (where the heads of aforementioned institutions are also members)

In other words, the way the financial system is set up systematically deprives the less wealthy from their right to have a say in the operation of the companies they nominally own a part of.