As a scientist who lived in the US for a while. I definitely prefer Europe.

Indeed. And we can see that Germany does not import much power from France, e.g. less then from Denmark or Norway.

I assume you mean "less". I somehow doubt these numbers for deaths by TWh for nuclear (at least I found the sources I have seen not entirely convincing), although I do believe nuclear is better than coal. I am also would rather live next to nuclear plant than a coal plant. But there is no choice between nuclear and coal. Coal and gas can economically be used to complement renewables while nuclear simply can not. In terms storage, the prices are dropping.

You can not use solar or wind for balancing because you need something you can turn on when needed, i.e. gas or storage. But with enough solar (as Europe now has) it makes not much sense to have nuclear on the grid. Renewables will easily cover all demand in good times. Base load plants make no economic sense anymore so nuclear is basically out.

Exactly.

This is - as usual - misleading. The negative prices affect only a small amount of time while the costs are distributed over all. The income is certainly not dominated by subsidies. In Germany there also no subsidies but feed-in tariffs and for new plants there is no support when the prices are negative anymore. Finally, the lights "do not go out" when there is an oversupply. When the grid can not handle it (which is not the same thing as negative price) then then the plants are simply downregulated.

France does not export much to Germany. It is mostly renewables which undercut the prices of the remaining coal plants in Germany, i.e. this year Germany net-imported so far ca 5.4 TWh from Denmark (no nuclear) and 3.2 TWh from Neitherlands (almost no nuclear), 2.7 TWh from Norway (no nuclear) and 2.8 TWh from France which cause some imports (production from coal is well below capacity in Germany). It would also not help much in terms of energy security, because sometimes France relies on imports itself.

Maybe, but this does not imply that not having redundant checks is an issue with the original code, which was your comment.

Certainly not for the level of standardization or stability I expect.

Well, people in certain industries verify their code because the have to.

This assumes the missing initialization or bounds check is a bug, and not simply redundant.

You miss the most important aspect: "non-addressable piece of memory"

True, the question is whether this should not better be a level of verification on top of C.

It depends. Often it panics. Signed overflow is turned to wrap-around in production, so you get silent logic errors.

By your logic all compiled languages are equally fast. This is not the case.