Was torn between moderating and replying - am replying. Yes, it is and by 'backwards' I'm guessing you mean that as a good thing. Ives did fine with most hardware, but when he got his hands on software and produces macOS Funereal Edition (aka 10.0 Lion) stripping all colour and joy from the interface...yuck.

Bring it back, that's what I say. People still talk about BlingOS, Snow Leopard, as their favourite incarnation. There's a lot of functionality added since that I'd miss and I'm not totally sure on the 3D dock base, but I certainly get where they're coming from.

So what, we plunge to oblivion because we didn't hit good? If we're in a minimisation game, so be it. But we should still try to minimise.

There's still some good news on the UK, although it's less visible. There is a change to building regulations this year requiring new builds to have solar panels. It's long overdue.

There are pushes on heat pumps as well. In fact I had a worry with the original Green New Deal that it had basically been hijacked by lobbyists to concentrate too much on carbon capture, allowing them to carry on burning stuff but still claim the money from the deal. The EV mandate is on track regardless of the lobbying to soften it, which is a good thing, and also lower cost attractive EVs are starting to arrive. Our energy mix is improving too, with a smidge over half being generated by renewal last year.

There's the standard tabloid backlash rubbish, but in general green ideas are popular in the UK so they're likely to continue. Is it as big as the push from China? It is not and the deadcat bounce of loud and boorish objectors is annoying. It's still a pretty good picture though.

This makes no sense at all to me. While we're (I'm in the UK, this applies to the rest of Europe too) fretting about how to keep Russian gas supplies and other nonsense, China has built phenomenal amounts of renewal power and their emissions peaked this year, with a modest (1%) decline.

Here's a good source from the World Economic Forum. It notes the complexities and fragility of the decrease, but also shows the underlying path which lead to it. Their renewal energy capacity grew faster than their demand and interestingly, their demand was rising at a higher than average level just across for fifteen years.

The EU? Not so much. Energy sector is moving forward with a 2.9% drop, but outside that sector emissions are rising. The UK has a 3.6% drop, with coal in particular back to Medieval times and peak demand having passed over a decade ago.

The EU is playing politics here, nothing real. It is the EU that would struggle to live up to the example of China in the energy sector.

Steam has normalised DRM to the point where fans will defend it or try to breeze past the point. It's not just a happy friendly library, it comes with restrictions. The original animated GIF for Steam, for those with long memories, was not a kind one.

You mention you have the N version? That's the one with simulated engine noise and gear movements - how are you finding it? Fun? Or are you finding you're not using those bits?

Curious - I like the idea of the N, it's not a car for me but I can very easily see its appeal as a useful vehicle that still adds a bit of a fun factor.

I don't know why - 'an hour for my car to charge' hasn't been a thing for years. I owned a first gen (nose-cone) Model S and could spend 45 minutes getting to 80% of a 202 range if I ran it to the bottom. But that car came out eleven years ago. No car today charges like that - I have a Y right now and 10-15 minute stops if any are the norm, and that's on a much bigger range to start with (330 miles I think - says everything that I can't remember because it's just not an issue I hit).

Get through a day's driving on a single charge? Easily. Two days for most. Three days for some. Charge it while I sleep? Of course, I do that every day and have done for the seven or eight years I've been driving an EV now.

So what you're saying is it's back to the 50s then?

The original computers were human.

They've been pushing this, C. P. Snow Two Cultures-style, for some time now. Codifying the meaning of 'creative' to film, music...whatever. This coercion of language use is all a bit Eloi vs Morlocks for my liking.

It's not true. And I say that as someone who plays and writes music too. Toolmaking can be creative. Software design can be creative. I'm less well versed in physical industrial processes but I'd be more than willing to bet that there's creativity going on there too. On the other hand, acting is only sometimes creative as well, music often written to a formula...these 'creative industries' are often not very creative. And they often don't create, they use the output of some tools they were given.

I hate the language. I'm clearly not saying that all film making or music is bereft of creativity. I'm more saying that creativity as a word shouldn't be relegated and codified in this monstrously industrialised and high-handed manner so dismissive of everyone else.

I feel you need to elaborate a little further on that. The book lays out sources, equations and testable hypothesis. Interestingly it rarely suggests actual policy. Page 5 of the Motivations sections also laws out why - it is as scathing of campaigners as it is of incumbents.

That aspects are outdated 17 years after its last update does not surprise me. That it is fundamentally incorrect however...given the sources and calculations, I think you'll need a to provide a little more reasoning than "you should fee bad" (sic.).

As someone who has had a strong interest in this area for a while now, not professionally - just following along, it's been fascinating to watch almost every single prediction from the 1990s UK government advisor come true. These recommendations were, in 2015 this was put up as a web site - Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. This is not a political book, the "without the hot air" bit alludes to that. This is a quantitative book with the maths to back up all assumptions and recommendations.

In it, David McKay makes comments about future energy mix. If you look at the full PDF, the idea of a cable from northern Africa to elsewhere is explored starting page 178. Bear in mind this book was written late 90s/early 2000s with the last revision being 2008 (the author has sadly passed). Generating from Morocco appears on page 181.

Thoroughly good read and I recommend it to anyone interested in the mechanics and figures behind energy transitions. Clearly some will now be outdated...but it's surprising how little. A lot of what he suggested is now unfolding.

But what I'm saying is that's all vocational. Computer science is basic information theory, patterns, HCI...all of that kind of thing. I'm a graduate of Comp. Sci myself, though in the UK from 1992. During that time we were taught a programming language as an abstract for various concepts (I was taught ADA, for instance) but it was assumed you would go and teach yourself any language you were interested in. I self-taught myself C for instance.

What you seem to be looking for isn't Computer Science grads, it's programmers. From your description I don't think you'd care if they new Huffman's Information Theory or deep graph theory, but would care if they didn't know Javascript. And this is what I mean - that's not a Computer Science thing, that's vocational

I think that's an industry fault rather than yours for instance. I think pushing Computer Science as the name but turning out average programming people is an educational failure.

I hate to be blunt, but what has any of that got to do with Computer Science? This is the problem. To quote Dijkstra - "Computer science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes".

People wanting vocational programming degrees or courses should get them. Computer science is not about teaching Angular. And from my own observation over the years, I can clearly remember the first time I interviewed a programmer who clearly had no idea how a computer worked, or any of the theory behind one. They just knew syntax to type in - that was all. Came as a shock to me at the time, but it's decades ago now and I'm more used to it sadly.

At the risk of invoking the Death of the Author trope, I don't agree with him here (and I note that he leaves that open too, by saying he personally doesn't want to and not excluding others from wanting to)..

Markdown is now a way doing shorthand formatted typing, effectively. What it's original purpose was is interesting, but not a limitation ('make', for example, was not made for software development but for compiling books). I'm computer-centric, not mobile-centric. A way of formatting bullets and tables without having to move my hands off the keyboard is great for me.

Be interested to see how it handles the round trip - can I take an existing note and edit it using Markdown for instance. But overall - can't see this as anything but a good thing.