Decentralisation. I don’t want to fall in the same trap picking a huge platform which can only be ran by a large entity. Federation in Forgejo is taking quite long.

We made a PoC on top of Solid which does work so it is clearly possible, but the code quality is too low to trust the solution.

I love the argument you make here. I disagree, but it’s a direct, hard and positive set of statements.

Nuclear takes a decade to build, it concentrates power to a large actor, and we have issues with handling waste (including closing down the plantO. The risks are huge when in a war zone (see Ukraine) and when things go bad they go bad for many. Further, nuclear can’t rapidly scale up or down so it’s not great at handling fluctuations in demand, similar but less extreme than wind and solar without batteries.

Progress has been made. With each step we think it’s now really safe. But a few decades later it turns out we still had a bit more to learn. In the seventies they were telling us it was safe too.

Ever since there was a glimmer of hope that costly reactors could get built again there has been a weird amount of positive posts about how great nuclear is. I don’t think we know how to store anything for 1000 years because we have not had the necessary structures in place for so long yet and thus we are de facto finding that out.

Batteries are not cheap. But solar and wind are! I think, based on what I’ve read, that that is a great path forward. It is safe, and it puts power in the hands of the people. No need to buy uranium from the next slowly corrupting regime. No need to get threatened by a company that they’ll ahut the plant down. You have read other things and believe nuclear is the right way. No CO2, safe, good power delivery, limited space use. Neither of us is calling the shots on these decisions.

I guess one will clearly be better than the other based on geography and available workforce.

If we can continue to choose the least impactful and most distributed and cheapest long-term (including plant cleanup, windmill recycling, solar panel recycling, nuclear waste storage, battery recycling) then we’re on a good path. I hope we can do that whilst subsidizing research on all these fronts.

The way I’ve used it is more that the text gives an explanation and a structure regardless of what the framework requires. It’s not the exact algorithm per se but it could if it’d ver very complex for some reason. It ends up reading like a book with code snippets in it which turns out to run the application.

I also generally edited the code directly and indirectly and then detangled or tangled such that the files were in sync.

I agree with that to some extent. It was probably not the engineers’ task, but as I’ve read in the past, our models of the seventies were not that far off. They did not plan for it probably because they were asked not to, or perhaps they (like many others) did not want to believe in the doomsday predictions, or perhaps they (like many others) believed it would be solved by science by now. The warnings were there though, we chose to ignore what was coming at us if we did not change our ways.

My point is that by stating the reactor could work, you imply that there’s a trivial solution: stop protecting nature to have nuclear electric energy in France. You could state explicitly that we should or should not. By leaving it open it feels to me like we’re pretending nuclear is ready for the climate change ahead of us if only we could get way with that stupid nature. An argument could be had I suppose.

As a side-note: It did make me wonder if you could work with complete evaporation. Not dumping any water back. That would also be horrible for nature but I don’t know if anything in the system has to run at less than 100C.

To my knowledge, but I did not look this up, these constraints were known at design time. I don’t recall these changing. Hence the statement may be true, but pointing at the known constraint after the fact shifts the blame to nature conservation rather than infrastructure and climate change. This at a time where climate change focus is of utmost importance.

Hence, albeit factually correct, it is disingenuous to give it the focus.

If these constraints were added in the past 10 years then that could be considered different depending on the reasons for the change.

What has changed are the water levels and base temperatures. Our environment has changed and the infrastructure has not been adapted to it. Luckily we have other tools for generating electric power ready to be rolled out.

That twists it to “protecting nature raises your electricity bill” where it’s just that that the plant, when built, did not take into account water levels could drop this low. As if they assumed climate change wouldn’t be this influential or something.

Our experience so far shows that using Linked Data can give you many apps that work together on parts of the data.

Depend on semantic data models (vocabularies of URIs such as foaf), use triples in your applications, and share these same triples whilst looking at the serialisation (such as xml, jsonld, ttl) as an implementation detail, and you’re a long way towards interoperable apps and information sharing.

If you have many interoperable apps and they can share data, then you’ve went a good distance towards and open market where software can compete. If the data is also openy available to you (as it should) then you took large steps towards sovereignty too. You’ll have a choice of applications to use and you can easily move the data between the applications.

Feel free to ask questions should you have any.

Interesting read. I’ve glanced over sections and read others.

I’ve been involved in the use of some of these frameworks. They are good reference frameworks but they are most often overly heavy to get started and/or the implementation is most often not supporting what the marketing material suggests.

Good integration projects start from limited partners with limited datasets exchanging with each other knowing they want to exchange with more partners in the future. Limited can be two to seven and they can even be in the same organisation. Perhaps it works with more, I have not been involved in that. They contain only the necessary roles and know how they’ll expand. These frameworks are great to get the expansion options in place. However, to get something going we’ve seen that a cheap and structurally correct solution to data sharing gets the ball running more quickly and for longer, then an expensive and heavy project which needs all sorts of approvals (even if it would be superior).

Projects that start with the weight of all the roles filled in by different actors need substantial funding to get started and I don’t think they generally last after funding dried up. Projects faking their way through the extra roles and providing the most limited interpretation of some of these roles with the project having some (even vague) shared benefit seem to survive past the grant stage.

Get some basics right and get going is my advice. Identifiers, shared and extensible data models, and a clear way of sharing data.

I like these frameworks, they help set the stage, but my gosh do they see problems where there are none when a project is just getting started.

Cfr Hitler, sure. But either we should have slashed it back then or we should accept it as it is. It was nearly disbanded but the British though it was better to keep a workers’ factory (I should look it up though).

Perhaps it’s ok to look at the now. They are to my understanding one of the most worker-centered companies of their scale. Certainly not something for libertarians to like. BYD can improve worker conditions. That would be great and I’m all for that. I also like that they brought the price of BEVs down. I do believe that if we want to raise standards as humanity in a global setting, that we should demand products entering the market to have followed those standards. Like we already do with safety standards. That makes it interesting for regions to raise the bar also.

For dieselgate I was also very 🤢 about that and did not care too much for the brand. Yet later many other makes were found to do the same tricks but VW somehow got singled out. I still don’t know why, they were first to be discovered but perhaps there’s more to it?

I’m glad the scandal got discovered. It pushed BEV forward. We should do the very best we can to stop using oil, ideally in a fair and open world.

That is not entirely true. VW saw the risk and said that they could beat Tesla in three years’ time by producing a better electric vehicle than Tesla ever could due to their superior knowledge of vehicle construction and supply chain. They were too full of themselves.

We can ignore the early Tesla Roadster which was more a proof of concept and fun halo car than a daily driver for the masses. We can also ignore the EV1 with a far shorter range and a few compliance cars and experiments. Then there’s the model S which was available in Europe from 2013 which you could actually buy. There were barely any fast chargers at that point but the early Model S was a functional fast and cleverly packaged car for its time. It took a while for the masses to get convinced. I vividly remember driving that car at that time and the interest and questions people had.

VW did start development around 2013 it seems and it feels like they were targeting the cheaper Model 3’s future market rather than the much more expensive Model S. They saw the importance.

Where they failed was in building a feature complete car in due time. The ID3 was late and was functionally incomplete. I recall news articles of many produced ID3s waiting in the parking lot for engineers to update them. The ID3 was almost a prototype of what should have been. VW was right in that Tesla would not be able to get the factories up and running correctly, but by ignoring workers’ well-being Tesla did manage to produce. Quality control seemed non-existent but the car was for sale. The ID3 not.

Then there was the charging infrastructure which Tesla had largely set up at that time in a monopolistic way but VW did not have. People need that. One can argue that the Tesla Superchargers still provide a superior experience tot the alternative for other brands.

I don’t think they were blind. Neither was BMW for that matter and probably many others. I think they underestimated the value of the mix Tesla brought and the value of their supply chain. The Tesla was was fast but no one blamed you for it, it was a cultural icon, it was a very strong signal to move away from fossil fuels. A signal VW or any other brand had not dared to play in to. That makes it a tall order where you have to produce a superior offering and they failed at that. Even today Tesla’s vehicles have an efficient chassis design and you could only really destroy the company’s status by going openly against a human friendly stance (ie: Nazi style) or against an ecological stance which is what they did.

VW and many other makes because they were full of themselves. Nearly no new car maker succeeded in breaking into the market. Electric cars made that possible.

Volkswagen gets a lot of bad rep but as I understand it, it’s not a horrible company. They have a very strong worker union. To my understanding they can’t close a factory in Germany without a union’s approval. That in itself is a huge handicap over BYD where workers get far fewer rights.

Volkswagen used to be one of the largest exporters from the EU. If I were a liberal foreign entity then I’d love for some dirt to stick to that. They have continued to focus on keeping their German workforce employed rather than producing everything overseas though they were proud to announce that they could do a full car development and production cycle in China a few years back so things do change.

Not that I care too much for the brand but I find it very odd how Volkswagen is getting so much hate.

If we want a closer apples to apples comparison, we should at least demand that our imports have been produced under the same environmental and workplace standards as we have here or better.

Totally switch to a terminal first like you suggested and see if you can work your way from there. My suggestion goes after yours. Always try to fix the running system first.

It’s probably wise to check man pages and other introductory documentation for most system administration tasks. Even though they’re super low-level, they are in my opinion better to send than just pulling the power plug.

Even with a frozen system you can often still ensure data is written to inspect on the next boot. You may have a key labeled SysRq which likely needs an Alt modifier to trigger.

Alt+Shift+SysRq+s to sync data to disk. Alt+Shift+SysRq+u to unmount the disks. Alt+Shift+SysRq+b to reboot the system.

Execute them in that order.

This can help ensure the data about the mishap is written to disk so it can be inspected after the forced reboot. I also check the logs in /var/log but I suppose all of those are in journalctl too these days.

Oh you will suffer in the best way possible. You like the Slimbook now but in five years something will degrade, like the battery. You’ll think about getting a new one and you’ll look forward to it but nooo, you will not get a new one. You will look online and there will be parts available and you’ll repair it. Then you’ll need more disk space or ram so you’re hoping to get a new one but nooo, you will upgrade it. And then something will break and you finally see the part is not in stock so you mail them just in case but instead of an automated reply you’ll get a real response and they’ll get you the part you need. Sure, replacing a glued keyboard is a bit exciting but turns out a lot can be replaced. Not sure how old mine is but I like it, it just keeps running.

The camera is heated so that should not be the biggest problem. I don’t think they have the software to make it work.

I have not had obstacle detection work on the other modules aside from a person being nearby being detected. With that feature you will not see it working from close by, but it will destroy children’s toys, drive over poop, destroy its own antennas by driving under tables, drive against tractors, …

It could be capable one day but not with this software (team).

This company overpromises and underdelivers as if it’s a Chinese competition to do so.

Source: own the lawn mower and blower

Really depends on what is considered nice about MacOS. Just had a new on-boarding with someone who really liked their Mac keybindings and it seems getting those dialed in is nicer (easier? better?) on KDE. I’d also generally gravitate towards Gnome for Mac users though.

As a piece of advice for OP: Accept the use of keybindings over the touchpad. Mac has done a great job and I have not seen a Linux laptop/distro combination that nails it. Search for the pain-points after switching and ask about it (kindly) on a community like this.

Having experimented with this a lot, I’d say it depends :P

Keyboard only you can get by with 5fps or so, but there’s no real feedback at that point.

15fps is ok and quite usable. Artifacts are the more annoying thing at that rate. 30fps is really more then necessary (though I agree higher is nice on lcd displays).

What bothered me most is the limited contrast, pixel density and limited amount of colors on color eink display.

Lexend Deca from https://www.lexend.com/ because it’s the only font I could find which was studied during it’s creation for being more readable for many people.

Framework makes it their point but also charges for it. Some big make laptops also allow to upgrade parts.

But lets not forget Linux specific laptops. They generally allow upgrading ram and storage. Slimbook even sold me a newer (but also new) keyboard when mine gave up after 5 years or so. Most parts seem to be available still.

Some brands to look for in this group are Tuxedo, bto, slimbook, starbook. Clevo might work too.