natmaka

14 ms·

121.
by natmaka 1y ago
Thank you, therefore my first impression seems right: without any provision for UDP this isn't an easy-to-setup and transparent way for any user to preserve his/her privacy.
122.
by natmaka 1y ago
Isn't all this reserved to TCP, in other words in which way may it protect non-TCP activity?
123.
by natmaka 1y ago
> "pacify" a place and to take control of it has little to do with a full annexation Indeed. No objective is intangible. Actions taken to reduce an aggressive enemy to inaction can lead to a promising discovery (in this case,
124.
by natmaka 1y ago
> The French invasion of Algeria has always seemed unique and odd to me It began with centuries of piracy and enslavement in the Mediterranean sea, leading to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars , which i
125.
by natmaka 1y ago
> plenty of anti-nuclear money floating about years ago They had much more efficient targets than old waste dumped in the ocean, especially after Tchernobyl and Fukushima! >> It would have been way more expensive. > I was coming
126.
by natmaka 1y ago
Tall grille, heavy... they are more and more dangerous. "only a quarter of truck owners use their trucks’ towing capacity more than once a year. Only about 30 percent of truck owners go off-road more than once a year. And 35 percent of
127.
by natmaka 1y ago
> I tend to set up a small, but completely separate block device (usually on enterprise SAN storage or cloud block store) just for WAL/redo logs I'm not sure about this, as this separate device may handle more of the total (agg
128.
by natmaka 1y ago
> Would have thought a long-term study of these sites would have already been underway As far as I know those studies are far from extensive and there is no permanent effort. > given their apparent potential hazard The good'ole &
129.
by natmaka 1y ago
> not just by keywords, but by intent A relatively "simple" approach (augmented associative memory) gives very good results, check for example the good old "Remembrance Agent", and it may complement a LLM(?)
130.
by natmaka 1y ago
> Do those old dumps generate high doses? Nobody knows. A new exploration campaign is running (named 'Nodssum' https://www.myscience.org/news/2025/dechets_radioactifs_une_... ), targeting North-Atlan
131.
by natmaka 1y ago
> this not dust escaping during normal operation Indeed, however past accidents now forbid to claim that "this dust will never wander around, everything is under control". > If they were all N4 they would have been kept runn
132.
by natmaka 1y ago
Many are now burnt in cement kilns. A fair part of new blade models are recyclable (check RecyclableBlade, ZEBRA, PECAN...). Research may even enable to somewhat recycle old ones: https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/02&#x
133.
by natmaka 1y ago
We even know how to feed gas turbine with hydrogen, and how to make hydrogen thanks to renewables' overproduction ("green hydrogen").
134.
by natmaka 1y ago
>> A "large portion" isn't all > Setting the bar too high. The major underlying point is a comparison: renewables vs. nuclear. And on those accounts (effect of a major accident, waste...) renewables are clear winner
135.
by natmaka 1y ago
> some level of radioactivity being discharged to the sea is deemed acceptable by experts Doses now tolerated are way below those of ancient dumps. This is a classic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the
136.
by natmaka 1y ago
> ocean disposal of radioactive material still happens, and experts are OK As far as I know ''certain Annex I materials dumping may be permissible if present only as "trace contaminants" or "rapidly rendered harm
137.
by natmaka 1y ago
> we don't seek unanimity before proceeding with something. > this is a settled matter since at least 1972 This is an opinion. My (dissenting) one is that the more someone is or could be impacted, the more we have to take his&#x
138.
by natmaka 1y ago
> Disagreement Indeed, my point was about a form of propaganda quite common in France, which states that long-term waste repositories (now work-in-progress) will be perfectly safe. They won't. > assess the waste? Most of renewab
139.
by natmaka 1y ago
Because a mix of renewables deployed on a continent (most grids tend nowadays to extend on whole continents because it enhances continuity of service while offering many ways to optimize for emissions, costs...) is better (cheaper, less dep
140.
by natmaka 1y ago
Scoop: it now is not about "nuclear vs. coal" but "nuclear vs. renewables".
141.
by natmaka 1y ago
The bar is the comparison with the other set of pertinent electricity-generating equipments: renewables. The LNT debate isn't settled, effects of added background radiation is difficult to assess. Moreover the dust escaping from a nucl
142.
by natmaka 1y ago
> File earthers Whatever they believe or not isn't impeding others' lifes. The underlying point is about how much renewables and how much nuclear may we build in order to tackle current challenges (climate, pollution...), one o
143.
by natmaka 1y ago
> definition of safe? Some claim that nuclear waste repositories are perfect (0 risk), and experts disagree. > backfilling Yay, such a superb gift to our children, their children, their children...! The underlying point is about how m
144.
by natmaka 1y ago
Indeed, however it was loosing traction to the point of "The phase-out plan was initially delayed in late 2010, when during the chancellorship of centre-right Angela Merkel, the coalition conservative-liberal government decreed a 12-ye
145.
by natmaka 1y ago
No containment is perfect. In French nuclear plants it has to "contain" most of the stuff for at least 72 hours, but no one sees it as a sealed repository and it sure isn't.
146.
by natmaka 1y ago
The misdeeds of some (nuclear...) do not constitute mitigating circumstances for others (cars...).
147.
by natmaka 1y ago
There are dissenting opinions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#Current_progress In not-so-ancient times "experts" were also OK with ocean disposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki&#x2
148.
by natmaka 1y ago
> one country should be able to influence other countries in the EU. Who pays decide (Germany is the first financial contributor), that's business as usual. > Whereas the CO2 is in the air In the UE the question is how much renew
149.
by natmaka 1y ago
> Just like more people are afraid of airplane accidents This doesn't compute: avoiding being a victim of a plane accident is rather simple: don't hop on any plane and your are something along the .99999 covered. Avoiding being
150.
by natmaka 1y ago
Germany sets the tone in Europe (at least financially) and used to refuse to pay for nuclear power which (since Fukushima) it does not want at home and which, deployed in other nearby nations, exposes it to risk. I suspect a trade/swap

More ›