The problem is that if a country treats money as unlimited and without a cost then inflation will mirror that and people in that country will lose their savings, their job will not pay for their bills anymore and so on
It's not as simple as "just spend more"...
The problem is that "both" isn't a valid option unless a country has unlimited finances.
Otherwise you have to decide on what's the most feasible option and then renewables win big time
I sometimes feel as if the current push for atomic is from the fossil-lobby as they are aware that it either works and they get 10-20 more years to sell oil until the reactors are built - and even if it doesn't work out it still will slow down rollout of renewables
If you have 100 billion to spend on energy producing you have to choose if you want to go all-in with one source or split it up which would move the end of fossil fuels Back further
Not to mention having to buy the radioactive materials from dictatorships and having problems to cool down the reactors with rising temperatures and rivers running dry
I just don't see how atomic isn't a huge gamble that can backfire hard (and I'm not even talking about catastrophic events like Fukushima)
I just wanted to make clear that if someone were to read this with malicious intentions to discredit this as not doing much for the climate at all that it's not as easy as just looking at this simplified pie-chart
Kind of oversimplified when railways and public transport is grouped under infrastructure when it could as well be in the climate protection category
What would swapping servers achieve?
Centrists are just right wing but too embarrassed to admit to it.
So no USP any more?
TBF the "flying empty trains around the world" were different companies that only bought the planes and had to adhere to stupid laws that would void their plane spots if they didn't take off.
That's like making Toyota responsible if a Toyota fanclub decides that you need to make 100k kilometers a year to stay in the club
Both are horrible but in this case it's not useful to throw both in the same basket
SEO is wrong - it's like an arms race where the shittiest party spending the most wins and every one else needs to play by the rules to even exist.
The world would be better off if noone did it in the first place and search engines could just do the job they intended to do.
Google totally went to shit in the last years with their first page often full of websites great at SEO but horrible in whatever you were actually looking for.
Meanwhile the little ultra-specific forum that had a thread years ago about your specific search and no money for SEO is somewhere on page 5 while websites just repeating the search phrase over and over with no answer in sight are at the top.
That whole industry can cease to exist from one day to the next and nothing of value would be lost - if anything value would be gained for the average person
The Venn diagram of "people that like Elon musk and want to support him with their money" and "people that consider buying an electric car for environmental reasons" is having very little overlap in recent years