mpweiher

11 ms·

181.
Lazy Loading Dynamic Libraries and the Plugin-Architecture on iOS (2025)(medium.com)
1 points by mpweiher 4mo ago|0 comments
182.
Text Files as a User Interface(ratfactor.com)
2 points by mpweiher 4mo ago|0 comments
183.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
We did that in my physics high school class. Then we took away components until we had virtually nothing left, a diode I think(?), and still we had some signal. Turns out there was a transmitter on the top of the hill the school was also on
184.
How to Write an Effective Software Design Document · Refactoring English(refactoringenglish.com)
1 points by mpweiher 4mo ago|0 comments
185.
The Cost Yagni Was Never About(newsletter.kentbeck.com)
2 points by mpweiher 4mo ago|0 comments
186.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
There is valid criticism to the barriers to entry that do exist. The problems the post describes are not that. They are barriers that the author created himself by selecting a complex corporate setup.
187.
2.7 Fexpr vs. Vtable(github.com)
2 points by mpweiher 4mo ago|0 comments
188.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
It's not.
189.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
Nope. But the GmbH & Co KG setup the poster wants is not needed for limited liability. You get that with a plain GmbH (or UG), which is much, much simpler to set up.
190.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
The GmbH has the tax structure of a business, as it is a business. He wanted something more special than that. Which is possible, but complicated.
191.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
I am pointing out that his claims are, in fact, not true . It is not this complicated to set up a limited liability company in Germany. It is this complicated to set up his choice of a two company setup. Which is, I repeat, his choice
192.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
One of us is lying. It ain't me. As one example of many see previous post on nuclear production records.
193.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
Yes, what you are doing is complicated. I did a GmbH with "Musterprotokolle" so virtually no lawyer fees and quick and easy to set up. And a GmbH is limited liability. It's in the name. Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Ha
194.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
That is an obviously mis-designed "market" as it only prices in marginal costs. This worked when most if not all producers actually were reliable. It doesn't work when you have a high share of intermittents. For mis-designe
195.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
It's even worse: the problems of that reactor type were, in fact, well-known at the time. Which is one of the reasons that reactor would never have gotten an operating license in any western country. Oh, and not having any containmen
196.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
They actually do not. Struggle, that is. But yes, it absolutely makes more sense to run those plants 24/7 at 100% capacity. And we have base-load that matches this reliable generating capacity very well. The 40%-60% base load absolute
197.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
Baseload is a large part of the total load, so it absolutely makes sense to provide solid plants that can run predictably at close to 100% capacity for most of the time (maintenance and occasional outages excepted). Storage can paper over t
198.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
Canada just finished the Bruce Power refurbishment ahead of schedule and under budget, and that seems to generally be the track record in Canada. https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1007558/ontario-delivers-...
199.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
PV doesn't work "just fine" in Northern Europe.
200.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
Yes, it's a joke. Maybe not an intentional one, but a joke nevertheless. It has nothing to do with reality.
201.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
Fitting description of what you are peddling. I am not buying. And neither is anyone else these days.
202.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
Good grief. Your source shows exactly that what I said is the truth, and that you are lying. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by... The highest number for nuclear electricity production are 202
203.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
1. Once again, when you take full system cost into account and not just spot prices (marginal costs), nuclear is absolutely competitive, even compelling. 2. Nuclear is not heavily subsidized. In fact, it is intermittent renewables that a
204.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
The part I explained: disposal is, unlike your claim, not a significant part of total cost of nuclear power. Therefore, even assuming for a second your counterfactual that nuclear power isn't cost-competitive, it wouldn't be due
205.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
> Who said [that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe]? Not "who". "What". And the answer is "the data". The data say that. Empirically. Completely independent of whether you understand h
206.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
We were talking specifically about the problem of a finished nuclear power plant, built successfully to the specifications in the build permit, not getting an operating license (or taking very long to get it). With the combined license, tha
207.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
Yes. Have you? Are you of the opinion that the comments on that article are conclusive evidence for all SMR startups failing? If so, how? Please try to be specific. I don't see evidence of even one startup failing there, never mind a
208.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
"How" is not really a relevant question in this context. They are, empirically. Though it has to be said that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe, meaning it doesn't really matter that much which of these you
209.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
How does the BLU-122 relate to a deep geological repository, in your esteemed opinion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
210.
by mpweiher 4mo ago
"Solved problem" does not imply it is 100% safe. Because no technology is 100% safe.

More ›