But then remove the management oversight

There are a class of American privately owned dams that recently got press for being at risk of catastrophe. I think that’s what informed that lemming

Nuclear is difficult in Australia because of our low population. I agree it would have been nice to have some 40 year old reactors now (Lucas Heights doesn’t count as it isn’t a power reactor) but we don’t because we don’t and didn’t have the population to support enough reactors for maintenance of one to not cripple the grid until small reactors were invented recently

Remember it’s not really about building nuclear, it’s about promising nuclear in a short enough timeframe to prevent investment in renewables, and then keeping the date moving steadily into the future until maybe 20 years later a reactor is built. It’s about giving 20 more years to coal (and coal has the most radioactive exhaust of any power generation technology)

If you told people they weren’t allowed to export solar anymore, so many would disconnect from the electricity grid, starting the grid death spiral where wealthy individual subscribers unsubscribe, poorer people get higher bills and it gets relatively cheaper to get solar and go off the grid, etc

You end up with only the poorest buying electricity with government or charity money and industry using the grid

That would be really bad for nuclear, losing the bulk of the home market

Just take them down? With what people paid with what money? Keep in mind that these dams are our best black start capability, that they have important use

We are talking in the Australian context where the dams were built in the '50s for hydro power.

I’m sure I have also heard on radio national that Australia would have a lot of trouble running on nuclear because we only have ~26 million people.

We could only support about two or three normal sized reactors with our power usage

If we only had three, taking one down for months for maintenance would knock out a third of our supply, half if we had only two

We really would want to use small reactors and have dozens of them, but they’re even more expensive, and we probably couldn’t support the expertise to run them due to the small population

Solar and wind and batteries is cheaper. Solar and wind and pumped hydro is cheaper.

It looks like the largest effect of an attempt to go nuclear would be to extend the lives of coal plants under a promise that the new reactors are only five years away for the next two decades

1995 calling would be telling you you need to roll your own kernel to be efficient on your 486

So they sold it to people they knew couldn’t comply with the TOS, then started enforcing the TOS four months later.

They know where their customers live. They know customers ignore system requirements if the game works.

Neat!

They couldn’t use it. MS DOS is released under a licence that restricts redistribution

Yes. You could make menus and capture keystrokes in batch files

My autoexec.bat back in windows 3 asked if you wanted windows or a command line (most games didn’t like the memory overhead of being loaded from windows)

Especially they sprawl when the developers are allowed to do as they please. They want the most profitable option, which is barren and opposed to what people and local government usually want

Radio was an option. If you followed no music, then yes you were odd

And it was a 6 stacker, not ten

The idea is that since the company is French and France has excellent consumer protection, The Crew is the best example of this practice to fight

It’s not about whether the game is good, it’s about Ubisoft being French

PV prolongs dependence on fossil fuels

That’s an unusual take.

Lena herself has the right

No she doesn’t. Playboy owns the image and have the sole right to control how it is used

My sister in law bought a plotter, I should suggest that name for it