banneryear1868

Fuck yeah was going to order a new one soon

Not that fossils/natural gas are required per se but their capabilities. Some places like Norway and Quebec are geographically blessed with distributed hydro that can fill a lot of that need. The variable load for a nuclear in that case could be many times larger than the generator itself but I'm not aware of any studies on that. Kinetic storage with massive flywheels is maybe the closest thing to that, or even batteries. You can ramp nukes by venting steam but that heat can cause environmental issues. Similar to hydro how their capabilites are reduced based on environmental factors like handling spring runoff.

There are some very recent reports out of the Ontario regulator who are dealing with this exact issue right now. Long term demand increasing for the first time vs carbon legislation, and the mandate to have a reliable grid.

Nuclear vs fossil gets in to why you don't/can't run all nuclear, else things would be very easy. Nuclear's capabilities are best suited to supplying the base load/minimum demand but they can't be ramped or dispatched, reactors basically run most efficiently at their designed output levels, so you can't use them to balance supply and demand. The use of fossils for base load is more a thing in countries with lower regulations, usually because of things like a growing manufacturing economy (ie "global south"), but also in some extraordinary regulatory circumstances (Germany) or just because of when fossil was brought online/refurbished. Fossil's capabilities are like the opposite and they are most efficient and economical used for load-following, which is even more important with renewables you can't dispatch.

So fossil is still the main control lever for reliability, and that's the crux of why a suitable replacement technology isn't available yet. If it was simply a matter of output level then we'd have no problem. Mitigations to reduce use of fossils when demand is high can even be things like a demand response/dr program for transmission-connected facilities, where they are incentivized to reduce their use during times of high demand. Basically instead of having a higher energy price and all this generation online, you take a bit of what that price would be and use it to incentivize consumers to reduce their demand. Smart stuff but fossils are still a thing with that and if storage could replace them we could easily just have nuclear+storage, even smaller nuclear like those SMRs/small modular reactors.

Another massive consideration with all of this is the logical location of each type of generation at the transmission level. In the event you might have to bring the grid back from 0, or even just handle expected equipment failure, the specific location in the logical grid where types of generation is attached has to consider the capabilities of each type of generation. For example in a blackout situation you can't just start a nuclear generator when the demand is effectively 0, you have to bring generation and loads online from scratch in very increments initially. During the 2003 northeast blackout there were opinion articles complaining about how the casinos were online before neighborhoods, ignorant to the fact those casinos were instrumental in providing an initial load on the transmission grid.

Depends on how much there is, what level of the grid it's connected to, and what the overall supply mix is. Without adequate energy storage yet, a lot of times it's fossil fuels filling the gap between renewable output and peak demand.

Edge is just a Chromium build with more manageability for enterprise use.

The true test is, would you install it for your mom. Have fun figuring out her public library and ereader shit on Linux.

Most industry standard software that people use in their jobs is closed source. When you watch movies or listen to music or play video games you're supporting proprietary software. Same with finance and basically any office job. Niche IT jobs are the exception but I've been in enterprise IT for 20 years and this is just how it is in a capitalist economy. I'd prefer for public ownership of technology platforms but it's basically reduced to a consumption model within the current system. Like the platforms people consume media through isn't very significant, which the open source community puts a lot of ideological importance on. Most open source projects are also abandoned and become obsolete too quickly. I've basically been relying on the same set of proprietary Adobe software for part of my income since the 90s, can't name an open source alternative that does what I need it to do or has this longevity even though I'd prefer it.

Btw a way you can verify the security of a chat app is by reading case docs from law enforcement about what's required to obtain communications through said platform. With whatsapp the closest they can get to message content is by retreiving cache from the iPhone chatsearch database, and metadata from WhatsApp about who sent a message to whom and when but not the message contents. Retrieval of WhatApp messages through proprietary security forensics software is limited to how certain phone models and OSs locally cache messages basically. This applies to different platforms the same way though and isn't something special about WhatsApp or Meta. The unique thing to Meta is how quickly they respond to law enforcement requests about metadata collection.

AtlasOS is great wish I discovered it before doing it all manually. All it really does is apply group policy changes and config management, which is what any enterprise workplace will do by default. I have 15 years experience as a sysadmin in a mixed OS environment in the operation of critical infrastructure. We're bound by intense regulations and audited often, and Windows is the workstation OS that we can easily manage security-wise. This is in contrast to the notion of Windows as a garbage consumer product, which yeah not wrong there, but people might not be aware of it's compliance with industry standards and security regs. Which is a shame because that's ultimately what's evil about the MS approach to business, they create a problem for businesses and offer the solution.

The only thing you can't disable here are the vulns, technically MS is obligated to patch though so I'd be interested which ones apply, I'm assuming there's a lot of vulns in certain features. My Windows SSD is 60GB fully loaded with apps and drivers. Search and other stuff are just basic config items and plenty of UI replacements and tweaks to be had.

My Debian servers and laptop run way lighter as expected, unfortunately I need the custom hardware support of Windows for some software critical to my livelihood. All I do is deploy Windows in the same way I'd deploy and manage an enterprise workstation. No store, no live, no "apps," no overlay bs or news feeds, just pure Windows. Gotta say I prefer 11 so far to 10, the window snapping and some other changes have been good for productivity, which is really the only thing I care about since I'd switch that machine to Debian in a heartbeat if I didn't have a use case.

Oh yay another Windows 11 being bad meme, and all the same comments about it too. Feel like it's groundhog day cause this place only has 2 jokes that get recycled on repeat.