My personal dream scenario is one, where renewables and nuclear become such cheap production methods, that electricity is cheap and abundant.
At that point one could just use that energy to synthesize fuel to avoid the hassle that is hydrogen storage.
This is a very promising approach I've heard of also. Places with reservoirs could benefit massively from super cheap energy.
In other places an alternative approach could be what we kinda do already. Nuclear or some other stable production as a foundation that is augmented by renewables. The foundation would guarantee that energy prices wouldn't fluctuate too much, but we could still reap the benefits of cheap renewables when available.
The only issue I foresee with using regular batteries as grid wide storage is cost. Many renewable sources are inherently unstable in output, so one would have to plan for potentially multi day deficits in production.
At least in my country some alternative storage solutions are being planned. One company wants to use excess wind power to produce hydrogen. That hydrogen could then be used to offset potential production deficits.
Otherwise I very much agree with your list.
Fortunately the nuclear reactor can be operated for >50 years :)
Might not qualify as a social network, but university hosted IRC servers were a thing once.
It's mostly the latter from what I've seen.
At least in my country IT departments have very little wiggle room as organizations have gotten more rigid with increased control from the top echelons. Some universities in my country used to host a lot of cool services for students to use. Nowdays it seems that the legacy stuff is kept online as long as the people maintaining them are around.
To me it seems that it would be worth it to repeat such groundbreaking tests before publishing the results just to avoid such negative press? Especially, if the material in question was relatively simple to produce.
However I know nothing about how this type of research works normally so ¯\(ツ)/¯
The fine Lucas got was from omitting the director's credit from the start of the movie. It's not like anybody was defending the guys doing the work behind the scenes.
This might be a needless nitpick, but had to bring it up, as it's not the first time I've come across this.
This! Britain, Germany etc. didn't have a reasonable exit strategy for avoiding the bombing. There is a potential exit for russia.
Russian population has to understand at some level, that these events are a result of actions russia has taken in a foreign country. They didn't happen before russian leadership dragged the country into this mess. The west has also given clear signals that the sanctions and military support are a direct result of russian actions. Their magnitude is driven by russian actions and escalation.
This is a form of backlash instead of oppression. Backlash is for signaling that what you're doing is a bad idea. The other is completely different.
Nyt vasta tajusin, että tuon voisi järkeillä niin, että toisella vuosineljänneksellä palkat on nousseet esim 3% (vuotuinen palkankorotus), mutta samalla aikavälillä inflaatio oli vain 1%.
Odotan innolla palkankorotuksia myös tuleville vuosineljänneksille :)
Mulla saattaa olla ymmärryksessä joku vaje, kun en viimeisen 1.5v aikana ole nähnyt ydinaseen käytöllä olevan saavutettavissa mitään hyötyä? Venäjän toiminnan on tähän asti ainakin periaatteessa ymmärtää, jos tavoitteena on ns. suur-venäjän rakentaminen.
Laajempi hyökkäys ukrainaan oli toki venäjän johdolta suuri virhe, mutta ajatus pohjasi luultavasti vääristyneeseen käsitykseen länsimaiden valmiudesta tukea ukrainaa. SIltä kantilta voi ymmärtää päätöksen hyökätä, kun tavoitteena oli venäjän aluevallan kasvattaminen. Nykyisellään huonosti etenevän sodan jatkamisenkin voin ymmärtää tietynlaisen maineen ylläpidon avulla.
Ydinaseiden käyttäminen on mielestäni kuitenkin sellainen keino, jolla ei saavuteta oikeastaan mitään venäjälle edullista.
Doesn't matter. Bad news at the time was enough to scare people for the next 30 years.