More than that, people are actually leaving.

It takes a lot to make people leave. Usually it's an idle threat to avoid being taxed, but once you start really messing with people - taking away their healthcare, deporting members of their families, destroying their research, that sort of thing - you start to see people with the skills and the motivation actually doing it.

The US tried that in Afghanistan. They had drone pilots in nice air conditioned offices in the US, flying over Afghanistan. Some of them got PTSD, made worse because when a soldier is on the battlefield they at least feel like killing is justified to ensure their own survival, or as revenge for what the enemy did to them and their comrades. Sat in an office thousands of kilometres away though, it's harder to rationalize.

The Afghans started to put big pictures of children on the ground near civilian targets to discourage the drone operators from firing on them too. A lot of civilians were killed, either accidentally as of "collateral damage".

There is some truth in it. Fossil fuel interests support nuclear because every time a new plant is announced it means 25+ years more gas or coal while waiting for it to become available. It means the grid won't be transitioned away from big central generation for another few decades.

And then there are the ones who are just bizarrely obsessed with nuclear power, like MacMann. I don't know what's up with them.

As it mentions in the summary, it's not full self driving, it's just driver aids that are common in cars now. Cruise control that automatically maintains the distance to the car in front. Automatic emergency braking. Self parking and summon. The only bit specific to scooters is the self balancing. It seems like it only works at low speed and uses the steering system to do it, not a gyro or something like that.

None of the bad DC movies were bad because they were "woke". They were just badly written on a technical level, and the stories were not that interesting. There was clearly a requirement from on high to make them into franchise set-up vehicles. The early Marvel stuff that was actually good worked because they were good movies by themselves, and most of the new stuff is bad in no small part because it's just there to set up the next thing.

The Snider ones had their own issues of course.

Gunn seems to have the formula. Movies that are good as stand alone stories, and he leans into the silliness of the comics. Peacemaker is a great example - low level criminal who for some reason that is never explained has access to sci-fi level weaponry from the pocket dimension accessible from his old white supremacist dad's house.

And ironically that show was actually kinda woke, at least as far as it mocked both white supremacists and gullible believe-everything-they-read-on-Facebook types. It's not the wokeness that is the issue, it's just plain old bad writing.

I'm not familiar with that particular case, but they might just be NIMBYs. For example the panned Severn Barrier, which would use tidal energy to produce electricity and combine it with a barrier that can hold water back and thus shift availability to match demand, has been objected to on all sorts of grounds. Actual environmentalists Friends of the Earth supported it. While there would be some disruption to wildlife, it would also create new habitats, and most importantly it would displace a lot of other sources of electricity that are far worse.

Generally speaking the UK is crap at infrastructure. It takes forever, it almost always goes over budget, and it almost always gets botched. It's a political problem and it's unfixable without radical changes to the UK political landscape.

Tides are at different times in different parts of the UK, let alone in wider Europe. They can always be used with tidal barriers to shift supply, as is being planned in the UK for the Severn. The fact that it is completely predictable and not subject to any weather also means that shifting demand to meet availability is as simple as setting a timer.

It's an excellent solution.

Kind of surprised that it's over half a gigabyte. I guess there are a lot of drivers for storage interfaces in there, but beyond that it's only using basic text for the interface, isn't it?

I suppose maybe they thought that as long as it fits on a CD there isn't any point trying to optimize the size.

The ICJ already ruled that what is happening is prima facie genocide. It's an accurate legal term.

The interesting aspects of Superman are to do with his wanting to be a force for good in a complex world. He can face challenges when the world makes it hard to do the right thing, and he explore what the moral good actually is.

I hate relying to AI slop, but there is a more interesting argument that it doesn't address here.

Imagine Superman appeared in the real world, today. There would be immense pressure on him to resolve current on-going conflicts. The situation in Ukraine is perhaps one of the easier ones, with Putin being the clear bad guy. What about in Palestine though? One side is committing genocide, while accusing the other of terrorism. Superman would be accused of anti-semitism the moment he got involved. Would be implement US foreign policy, even Trump's policy which seems to involve the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and turning it into prime real-estate, or would he become an enemy of America? Or would he just refuse to get involved, or only involved on a humanitarian level?

The point is that Superman couldn't be both a force for morality and good in the world, and not an enemy of half of it, including the country he lives in.

I'm surprised they even sell physical games for Switch 2. I'm expecting the next generation of consoles to be digital only, no second hand sales at all.

I'd like to question the argument for so-called "net neutrality" by comparing it to something I'll call "Postal Neutrality".

Under Net neutrality an ISP is prevented from charging users higher fees for faster service - that is the essential argument as I understand it.

Under "Postal Neutrality" the post office would be prevented from offering customers expedited delivery of letters and packages for a premium price.

You would never argue for "Postal Neutrality" but somehow "Net neutrality" makes sense?

The claim is that by somehow prioritizing certain traffic, you are putting services that don't pay for improved service at a disadvantage, well, yeah - paying for better service is a popular concept. There is the argument also that by the very nature of offering one customer increased speed/bandwidth you are slowing down all other traffic... People make that claim, but I've not seen it proven, just claimed as a possibility.

When ISPs have a financial incentive to increase speed/capacity/bandwidth they will, denying ISPs the ability to charge a premium fee for premium service removes the strongest incentive from ISPs to improve their network...

No, we're not - certain telecom services (think voip phone service) use information services to transport their calls, most telcom services use private data networks to carry their calls, not the public internet.

You don't think Verizon, southwestern bell, etc use the public internet to carry their phone traffic do you?

Are you arguing that no ISPs provide information services, or just your particular ISP?

Quite a few ISPs own streaming services, but you knew that, right?