They are about as helpless as they are on Windows or Mac, that is, completely. Non-tech people in a work setting normally have very little control over their computer, and that is by design. As long as they can access their browser and office applications, they are good. Anything beyond that is a lost cause.

I'm not sure this will to be the major stumbling block. This is the "Ministry for Digital Government" after all, and some of the interoperability issue can be "dictated away". I'm more concerned by the sheer lack of IT-professionals with relevant experience with open source, so that they simply won't know what to do and how.

True. That is certainly a pattern we've seen a lot. A reason why this may be a bit different (may be. I'm not at all sure how it will pan out), is that this is a very visible organization in the public sector and that we (in Denmark) are in a bit of a squeeze regarding our relationship to the US. Besides the general cost and vendor lock-in considerations, we now have to consider if the US is an adversary, and the dependency on Microsoft as a US company is becoming a national security threat.

Dane here. This is indeed a positive move, but it's very early in the process, and we're likely to run into bottlenecks regarding expertise, because most IT-professionals have little experience with open source. Denmark is the almost quintessential Microsoft-country, more so than neighbouring countries Sweden and Germany. Up until recently, among decision makers and a IT-professionals alike, Microsoft was seen as "professional", "trustworthy" and the obvious default choice.

Many people are simply convinced that this shift can't be done, and that it's impossible to do professional work outside the "Office 365 universe" (yes, I've had people tell me this with a straight face). We can hope for the best, but don't expect any revolutions from Denmark.

No, no. Not even wrong. You asked if anyone did the numbers. Obviously a lot of people has. If you were really right, then others would certainly have raised a concern a long time ago. I (and others) have tried to explain in several ways how and why your calculations are wrong, and you are simply way too stupid, way too stubborn or likely both to understand it. Sorry mate. I hope you get better, even if it doesn't seem likely.

Type idiot, type.

ha ha ha :-D

Why would I even engage with that? You can't even get basics about power requirements correct. Why on earth should I take you "calculations" about metals serious?

Because it doesn't matter if the you draw your joules quickly or slowly over the grid. You are using the same amount of energy. It's completely analogous if you are pouring 200 litres of water into your bath tub; It'll go a lot faster with a big bucket than with a small one, but it's still 200 litres. If you are using a 1,600,000 kW power plant to charge a bunch of cars, you could be charging 145,454 cars @ 11kW or 6,400 cars @ 250 kW, but it's not going to make a whole lot of difference. Because.. here the shocker .. the cars charging are the higher wattage are going to charge for a much short period of time. Even a toddler can understand this basic concept.

Then you are a moron, because the measure for energy is not amps but joule.

No it doesn't. What are you rambling on about? If I put 40 kWh on my battery, I'm drawing 40 kWh from the grid. No matter if I'm doing it quickly or slowly, I'm still drawing 40 kWh.

Just plain wrong. Even when considering a few 1000 cars, this will even out completely.

So, mr. Amp. Does that mean that in a European setting, where the voltage are higher and the amps are lower, then, by your logic, we will be able to charge many more cars? I mean, as you stated, amp draw is amp draw, right?

This is why you fail so badly and why nobody wants to engage with your nonsense. The "lowest value" is not amps. It's joules. Amps doesn't tell you anything on it's own. You have to use voltage to give you anything useful (watts) and again with time to tell you the actual energy amount (joule). A Tesla Model S uses around 720,000 kJ to travel a travel a kilometre, but given that Joule is just a factor 3,600,000:1 to kWh, let's just stay at kWh, as it'll make the rest of the maths easier.

No, of course it doesn't. A 1.6 GW nuclear power plant at 85% capacity factor will produce a whopping 11,914 GWh (1.6 GW * 24 hrs * 365 days * 85%) a year, or 11,914,000,000 kWh. That'll charge 2,978,400 Tesla Model S, so your 2,200 nuclear power plants will charge 6,552,480,000 Tesla Model S's @ 4,000 kWh/year. That's almost 5 times the total number of cars currently in existence and 13 times the amount you stated in you calculation. If this is your best and most honest try at calculating these numbers, I have a hard time believing that you are actually working in building offgrid setups.

That would be 13476 / 3.1 obviously.

What the h*ll are you smoking? Of course a Tesla doesn't consume 4,000 kWh/month. Why aren't you doing some basic sanity checking on these "calculations" you conjure up? A Tesla Model S will go 5 km / 3.1 miles on a kWh (I would know. I've driven one for 8 years now). If you are using 4,000 kWh/month that would be almost 240k km or 150k miles PER YEAR!. Nobody does that. Here're some numbers for the US. We're pretty far from 150k miles/year. In fact, the average of 4,347 comes pretty close to the 4,000 I stated in my first comment.

Yes, obviously someone did this. The difference was that, unlike you, they are actually able to do the maths.

A typical EV consumes in the order of 4,000 kWh of power a year, so 1,000,000,000 cars will consume 4,000,000,000,000 kWh or 4,000 TWh. That may sound sound like a lot, but given that the annual electricity consumption in 2022 was 25,350 TWh, it doesn't seem insurmountable. A global 16% increase in electricity production certainly doesn't require the pretty outlandish numbers you just quoted. For sure it won't require us to be a Kardashev level 2 or even level 1 to achieve.

Not even wrong. This particular case is not even an issue with fertility, but an attempt to fix an issue that would have arisen with a near 100% certainty if left untreated. The problem is that the fix didn't work 100%. Also infertility is almost never purely a genetic problem. There has been a sharp increase the recent couple of decades in infertility that is impossible to explain primarily as a genetic problem. Environmental and to some degree lifestyle problems are mostly likely to blame. While we attempt to fix those, doing fertility treatment is a completely logical, moral and benign practice.

Adoption is most definitely NOT the default answer. What if there's not orphans "enough"? Child trafficking has actually been an issue in some parts of the world. Adoption is not supposed to be done for the good of the potential parents, but for the good of the children. Offering adoption as an alternative to fertility treatment puts this moral logic on its head. And what if the parents simply want their own genetic offspring? That's not a "cultural" problem, but a completely natural urge that most of us have. Who are you to tell them that they can't do that, even if the medical technology is available?

It's really impossible to say with any high degree of certainty. Medical advances to this date have not increased the maximum lifespan as much as it has decreased mortality in all age brackets.

With new medicine and technology, lifespan may eventually be unbounded, and that may well happen within the next couple of decades. Or it may stall, and we find out that lifespan has a fairly hard limit. Neither would surprise me. A more important question might be the quality of life beyond 80. If you are blind, deaf and unable to walk, would you want to continue on? Not likely.

Gee.. something from Microsoft that is broken by design. Say it ain't so. Who would have thought?

Nuclear may have a lot less carbon than coal and gas, but that is completely besides the point. Your comment is marvelously ignorant of the details of swedish energy production. Sweden has a ton of hydro, which provides all the "baseload" and load following capacity needed. In the swedish market, the "stable output" feature of nuclear just doesn't justify the 4x price compared to wind. The only thing nuclear can add in Sweden is excessive cost.

But no need to argue about it. The swedish government has not stated an intention to subsidize new reactors, they have stated intention to allow new reactors. We'll see if any contractor is going to apply for the new permits. We've yet to see any interest from investors (you know; the people that has their money on the line. Not the people moaning about "leftists" on social media) to do so. FWIW, if somebody can make it work without asking the taxpayers for a handout, then I'm all for it, but it looks extremely unlikely that anyone can do this.