I agree that a piano demo seems like a bad idea. But damn if I don’t daily long for the iOS 6 days where buttons and tappable areas were well defined and there were some fun and whimsy to the interface. As compared to the flat unintuitive desolate landscape of recent years. I would rather have a big animated cassette deck in my music player than the current overly polished full page advert I get every time I open the app. At least Forstall and his team cared enough.
I’ve had this for, I think, two or three years now and really liked the hardware in both aesthetics and battery life. Bought it after abandoning Fitbit when they became part of Google.
The software has become noticeable worse recently, and this is the last straw where I will actively recommend _against_ buying them. The brands doing enshitification has to stop and Withings is now one of them.
It’s worth noting that EU puts clear limits on the size of credit/debit card fees. You can’t add card fees on top of the price either, with some small exceptions.
> Traders in the EU are not allowed to charge you extra for using your credit or debit card. The only exceptions to this rule are American Express/Diners Club cards and business or corporate credit cards, where your employer is billed instead of you. If you use these cards, you may still be charged a fee but the fee can't be more than what it actually costs the trader to process your payment.
Or we can have a highly functional train system and not use freight trucks for long haul transportation. Small and medium sized trucks for last mile delivery is significantly less problematic.
Comparing miles of track to square miles of a country the US ranks 40th, with ~26 miles of track per 1,000 square miles of land. Just under South Africa, Pakistan, and Tunisia. #1 Switzerland has ~208 miles of rail per 1,000 square miles of land.
The US moves up to 25th comparing miles of rail per million people, with 278, but is trounced by #1, Canada, with 782 miles of rail per million people.
The obvious answer here is "the one that you hate." Or, the Christian god of Abraham.
The preamble is not subtle: "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."
Now, legally/philosophically speaking, the Canadian concept of free-speech is laughably weak, as is all Canadian rights. Specifically, section one clearly states that rights are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Effectively, if the government decides that you're "not reasonable," you have no rights.
The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God, where the idea is that the government is to uphold the existing divine rights afforded to all human beings, as opposed to the British system of which Canada (and the rest of the common-wealth is based off of) is a part of, where the government _grants_ the rights.
Another example of this is the British crown, in which authority is given by God. Many of the older cities derive their local authority in the same way. If I recall correctly, I believe that the city of London is so old that they actually mixed it up, and derive theirs from "time immemorial."
> The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God
No, the legal system is not; there are non-legal documents which claim both of those things, but being subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” is very much how the US elgal system treats them. There is even, in federal Constitutional case law, an established, gradated system of tests (rational basis test, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny) depending on which right is at issue and for whom it is being limited as to whether there is sufficient justification.
It's a strange affair when swedish leftists are the economically responsible parties and the right wing wants to use government subsidies to prop up an industry which is not economically viable compared to all the other electricity generating methods are cheaper and easier to implement.
I know HN comments should be more constructive than that, but your comment is setting all these trumpesque fires in the form of lies, that no constructive debate or rebuttal would be useful. You would not be convinced, and anybody reading the back and forth would be under the misapprehension that "the truth is probably somewhere in between".
I know there was a bit of liberty with the phrasing that the leftish parties in Sweden aren’t always considered the strongest on the economic arena. But that was not my main point, and sorry if I stepped on your toes. My main point is that all science and facts point to the truth that NPP are not economically viable without significant government subsidies. No matter how much I (and perhaps you?) want NP to succeed, it should do it on a level playing field compared to the other energy industries it should never do that with unfair advantages not offered to others.
While we may not disagree on the base facts, I don't think that's a fair characterization. First of all, you say that there have never been solar panel subsidies, which of course there have been. So the advantage has most certainly been offered to non-nuclear.
By law, opting in to "green energy" on your personal electricity means to have a definition that excludes nuclear, so that's government steering of the market towards non-nuclear green energy. Certainly qualifies as incentive, if not downright subsidy by manipulating market forces. (I even contacted my energy provider saying I would gladly check a box if it included nuclear. They said it was out of their control)
Of course on oil lots more has been spent fighting over the resources. For a given country the cost of acquiring the resources may be more political than directly monetary. But I don't think you're defending fossil fuels, so I probably don't need to argue that being controlled by Russia has a cost.
Now, if nuclear is not economical as base load, I'd like to see a comparison with solar & wind for base load compared to nuclear. And it should be a calculation for the (very nearly) 100% use case. So comparing like for like. The cost of wind&solar is extremely different if aiming for 90 or 99.999%.
Some Greens say "shrug, what's so bad about power outages?" (yeah, good luck with that). Some say "we'll just import in the greater European grid!" (greenwashing).
> not economically viable without significant government subsidies.
Nor is gasoline or road maintenance. I'd like to price in those externalities first.
Oh, and as for the left-ish opinion in this issue. IIRC only Greens and Communists were actually against nuclear. The big one (Social Democrats) manifesto could be summarized as "Well, we're pro-nuclear, but we know we have to give that up because we need Greens & Communists to be able to form a government". It was very transparent.
reply