There's more than enough of us to block nuclear power so you don't have much of a choice if you want to see it happen.

There aren't as many of you as you think. Gallup typically shows the US split 50-50 on nuclear, and that's for the half-century old fission plants.

Nuclear is not zero-carbon. It's not even literally zero-carbon while operating, though it's close. Over its lifecycle, it is responsible for more emissions than solar, let alone wind.

This isn't correct, but even if it were it'd be ridiculous quibbling. Look up a chart of full lifecycle emissions for different power sources: nuclear, wind, solar and hydro are all clean by any reasonable standard, when compared to anything involving burning fossil fuels (including natural gas). Arguing about the relative ranking of the different clean sources is completely besides the point.

Here's one, using IPCC data from 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

(1) Why would you expect that an investigation of things on the "unidentified" list would suddenly find some way to identify them? Leaving a bunch of them unidentified doesn't strike me as some smoking gun of insanity, it's more or less what I'd excect.

The number of cases here is not exactly large: 144 in, 143 out.

(2) Recruiting people to work on this can't possibly easy, so of course one of the first takers was one of the crazies And the entire point of doing the investigation is to try to shut up some of the crazies (most likely in vain), and if you didn't have one of them represented that'd just give them something else to complain about.

Remote display (i.e. when you do DISPLAY=my.other.machine:0.0), is something that really ought to be done at a higher level these days

ssh -X

Or to force everyone else to do it their way or no way at all.

Well you see, running Linux is all about choice, the question is who's.

I've seen people claim that the "too cheap to meter" claim

And it's something one guy said.

You could make an impressive list of stupid things said by solar power advocates, for example, we don't typically do rotten cherry picking of things like this to evaluate what a technology can do.

In the early days of the web, I was someone people would ask for advice on where to look for stuff-- somewhat oddly, I found I had a knack for choosing which place to start to find things (sometimes very *odd* things... like, hm that guy Andre Sandberg has a bunch of occult links up maybe... yes, there's something on "The Temple of Set").

Then altavista came out, and you could do a lot with it if you understood booleans and didn't mind skimming through a few screens.

Now that the google roller coaster is coming to an end, I feel like we're back to the first stage: if you want to find some information, pick a good place to look and go straight there. You want medical info? Go to the mayo clinic, the cdc or maybe the who. A web search is going to be a sewer full of con-artists and the blind leading the blind.

A web search on any topical subject tends to yield a screen full of links to MSM news "sources", all of which are typically rewrites of the same AP story and say very little (with a maximum amount of javascript and auto-play video ads).

Google originally worked well by analysing the network of existing links, but it's success meant that people stopped doing their own link-farming, so they switched to tracking click data, and as the popularity of the web increased, the group that the click data has been tracking has been increasingly less intelligent...

So now they're trying to do filtering of the less established sources? Well okay, but the "established" sources have been rulling search results for over a decade. And if they're going to filter out things that are Wrong, well that could be okay, but you need to be able to figure that out algorithmically to do it at the search engine level...

Before posting this, I thought I'd better check how google works these days-- I've been using duckduckgo for years-- ye gods what junky search results-- a search on "January 6th" gets you a bunch of tiled thumnails for video links and twitter shit. The quality of the duckduckgo links aren't great (two gov links with lots of cnn coverage and the like) but it beats google.

What are you talking about? The UI is completely customizable

No it isn't, and even when it is the customizations keep breaking on upgrade.

... on the recommendation of many of us with our friends and families

When you alienate a small percentage of people who have been using your software for years, you just lose them, you create a vocally hostile faction among the experienced computer users that many people respect.

They really did complain about this, which is why I remember it. The whining was insufferable.

And you, and mozilla.org are still not getting it, despite hearing it for decades.

"First they hate it, then they love it", even if correct (it isn't really) is not a good justification for making your users hate you.

My main complaint about Firefox is not that new features get added sometimes, it's that if I don't like the new features, they won't let me shut them off. Or rather they *do* let me shut them off, but then they break that customization, add a new one, then break that customization, add a new one, and so on.

I'm living with tabs-on-top for now despite the fact that I bleeding hate it, I hate the way it looks, I hate the underlying logic for the change, I hate the fact that it was foisted on me, and most of all I hate the fact that the five or six ways I've learned to change this are all broken now. And no, I don't care that chromium followed suit, I'm not *using* chromium, if I wanted something that was like chromium I could just use chromium.

Once the panels are installed, they'll keep working

Until they break and need to be replaced.

"Renewable" energy doesn't work magically without material inputs, we just call those inputs "repairs".

We don't know about the lifespan of the present generation of solar cells-- they haven't been around long enough. We do know we need a hell of a lot of them to generate an appreciable amount of energy.