Corresponding author is the head of the group, usually the one who coordinates the study, the one who knows everyone else. Is the "if you have any question about anything in this paper, contact me" person, even years after publication.
I am sorry, but that can't be the only reason. At my job we are free to choose. Some have MacOS, almost everyone else has Windows, I am the only one using linux. But the joke is that Windows users are heavy users of WSL and RStudio. We are not forced, or even suggested to use Teams, Office or whatever tooling Microsoft has, and in fact meetings were I am invited had to be done in Zoom instead of Teams only because of me.
I believe that it is more a familiarity issue, and seeing Linux/Mac as an obscure tool only usable by gurus.
I think your experience is the exception rather than the rule, most people work for a company that dictate the computer and OS to use, as well as the communication tools (teams, slack...) for which they have an enterprise license.
My comment was more on the line "when given options, people will massively choose Windows" just out of familiarity or fear of the unknown, and by people I also mean management. If I was manager, I wouldn't force Linux (which I use exclusively since c. 2000) unto my workers, unless I am ready to set Linux familiarity as a CV minimum requirement, reducing my hiring pool by 90% at least.
The parent comment implies there is some dark conspirancy behind the scenes to force Windows unto us. There might be a couple decades ago, today it is just what people choose if given choice. Windows 11 nags its users all the time, yet they accept it as it was normal and unavoidable.
And China is importing some of their reactors from France, Russia and USA. It is not like they become fully independent (maintenance and parts). More independent than oil and gas imports, but can't depend forever on these three either.
China also? How is that? China is a big importer of oil, and is heavily burning coal (more than 50% their energy mix), that is also partly imported. They are fighting for a cleaner energy not because they are green but because they don't want to be dependent on imports, and some people even accuse them of undercutting solar panel pricing to get all the world market.
They are installing nuclear power like no other country (1 GW yearly since 2014), and Wikipedia says that 50% of all nuclear capacity being built is in China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country): 37 new reactors, followed by India with 6 and Russia, Egypt and Korea with 4. USA and France, which are both pro-nuclear or nuclear neutral, are building 0 reactors. But yeah, China has interests against nuclear power.
You are not helping your case by spreading misinformation and calling other people misinformed by making a strawman ("radiation scares people"). I am against nuclear (or rather not pro-nuclear) because it is not economically sound, because it is massively subsidized by Governments for the private sector to profit.
Coal's share of electricity production in China fell below 50% in 2026 for the first time ever. This is despite idling nat gas plants due to the war in Iran messing up shipments.
Nuclear's share of electricity in China is below 4% and dropping. They do not use a significant amount of nuclear. That this insignificant amount of nuclear is more than any other country is quite telling.
Quite telling, but then so is climate change and it's not exactly hard to understand the motives of those who want(ed) to deny it for power and profit. We should be listening to their wise advice on this topic... why?
If china that is the number one producer of solar panels and batteries is investing in nuclear perhaps that shows that indeed it's not such a bad bet? Specially taking into account the military applications of such capabilities.
It would also seem that investing into it may perhaps render significant gains into the future as R&D becomes more involved with actual running systems and funded (skin in the game?)
It seems the only ones who lost by abandoning their nuclear programs were European countries (specially Germany) in detriment of Russia and other Oil trading countries... It's even probable that much of the "bad press" nuclear has had for the past decades was in fact instigated by oil-producing countries doesn't it?
Even if China is the number one in installing nuclear power, the installed capacity dwarfs compared to solar. China is "betting" on anything that produces electricity that doesn't depend on imports, and if that is nuclear they go for it. But it is clearly not their main bet:
Wind overtook nuclear production in 2016, Solar FV in 2022. Today both more than double it.
Tables in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#Ch... are also very telling. Total power production: 15% wind, 17% solar, 5% nuclear. Nuclear is almost stagnant, but they will probably finish what they are already building, or have planned. That is the way they work. But they are slowing the rate of nuclear installations, it took 5 years to go from producing 400 TWh to 500 TWh, while wind in the same time went from 500 TWh to 1.1k TWh and sun from 260 TWh to 1.2k TWh. These growing rates will drive nuclear from being ~5% of production to be irrelevant in 10 years. But you will read from pro-nuclears that they "plan" to double nuclear output in those 10 years, even when they barely put a +20% in last 5 years. I wouldn't be surprised it they pivot to solar, wind and batteries suddenly (a very China thing to do), abandoning all nuclear that is not already almost finished.
IMO China is not betting on nuclear. Just before solar was economically sound (c. 2015), they believed nuclear could be a solution for their dependency problems, and bet on it. As of today, they are no longer betting on nuclear, or at least the bet is crawling to a halt.
No nuclear debate without Germany. This is my opinion: Germany actually is winning. Not a lot, but their current situation is far from the catastrophe some predicted (massive blackouts! outrageous electricity price!). Nuclear was quickly replaced with solar and wind after an initial coal and gas spike. But now coal usage is going down, and gas is stable. Dependency from Russia is less than 10 years ago. OTOH, France is having serious problems to 1) increase their nuclear production and even maintaining what they have (average reactor age: 35 years, younger reactor: 18 years) and 2) to deal with the install of cheaper energy sources because their base load is so high and can't be easily phased out.
And please, stop with the "bad press" tune, as if everyone that doesn't blindly believe nuclear is the future is dumb and can be manipulated with ease, meanwhile pro-nuclear are very smart and impossible to manipulate. Do you think there is no nuclear or fossil lobby also releasing "bad press" about everything else and selling nuclear as the only solution? It only causes high friction unproductive debates: it is like Democrats firmly believing that Republicans are dumb, and vice versa. Either you accept that you are also being manipulated by the nuclear lobby to support them, or stop accusing others of being manipulated. Italy is running without nuclear power for more than 30 years, but only recently, when it makes absolutely no economical sense to start new nuclear plants if you have your production-demand figured out (not booming like China), some politics, not at all "manipulated" or "bought" by the nuclear lobby, plan up to 10 new reactors against people will (94% of voters against installing new nuclear in 2011). Yes, people are dumb, politics are honest and smart. That is the only possible cause.
I would imagine that China not having a world wide market for selling/dumping their reactors would have some relation too.
I have no horse in this race but anyway, I hope Europe goes back to nuclear, and then get nukes enough to wipe out anyone in the world some 35 times if needed.
Europe is already heavily nuclearized. Even the nuclear lobby recommends a "10% nuclear power in the mix", which many countries en Europe already meet... or way more than that. On average 24% (varies between sources) of European mix is nuclear. Yes, there are a couple of countries (Germany and Italy) that banned nuclear, but there are also the most nuclearized country in the world (France, 60% nuclear), and countries like Slovakia (60% nuclear), Hungary (40% nuclear).
Europe produces almost no uranium, and France has a historical problem with uranium mining in Africa, is not like Europe is giving up a free-of-trouble energy source. Honestly, sometimes it feels that some pro-nuclear won't be happy until 100% of the base load is nuclear. They are asking for more nuclear than the nuclear lobby does.
The problem source is that the "cost" of tokens are taken at face value from business that are losing money at record speeds. E.g. https://artificialanalysis.ai says "doing task A costed us $10 using OpenAI", and that is the "cost" the OP used as basis for "tokens are cheap". Meanwhile OpenAI is losing $19 for each $1 in revenue... So right now OpenAI should be charging around $200 to do task A just to break even, but that would mean their use base would collapse.
There is also the cost of the inference hardware that gets ignored because they already have it from training.
The main problem with the scenario of just doing inference is it relies on nobody else training models better than yours. As long as people are training private models that are better than yours, just inference isn't a viable business model.
Anecdote: we contracted a web page, and the guy started saying "it would be a Wordpress. It has very bad press, but it's because it is widely used". Ok, we start developing in the latest version of php, and soon he say "we have to go down a couple phpversions, because x pluging don't work in the latest". Requested version had a dozen critical CVEs. Plugin in question did something really basic, like a preview card with OpenGraph data, or something like that. Something a junior could code in a day.
And that is insecure Wordpress: people lego-mounting sites without touching code, only with plugins.
You can make it work. Odoo is making money selling services, and there are many businesses making money re-selling Odoo in one form or another: partially rebranding, SaaS, support...
A non negligible amount of FOSS follows a similar path: yes, they are OSS, but if you really need it, you'll be better served paying a fee to someone who knows how to make it work properly.
That's a different business model from trying to sell the software itself. Plenty of consultants make a living doing integration work. They don't claim to be in the business of selling FOSS software, though.
Another model is selling an enterprise-grade release that builds atop the FOSS version, but with closed-source features and support. This is the model that nginx (now F5) and haproxy use.
Spain was voluntarely isolated after Civil War because Franco and the Falange (read fascists) were obsessed with being self sufficient (autarchy). The thing was so extreme that there was smuggling of metals by foot (iron, tin, cooper...) from Portugal and France. But the autarchy was from Franco, and not a pressure against him. You can read about this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Spain_(1939%E2%80%9...
The "magical" event that happened mid/late 1950's was that autarchy was still not working and the other main faction of the government (called technocrats, mainly the Opus Dei) said "the national catholicism is cool and all, but we need to get profits and this autarchy shit isn't working". So the autarchy ended to the Falange dismay, and the country slowly opened economically and started catching up with Europe.
Sadly Falange is on the rise again (falangist Buxadé from Vox cleaned the party from capitalists in the last couple of years), and you can hear young people calling for closing and going "Spain first" again.
>Shortly before the end of World War II and the later beginning of the Marshall Plan, President Roosevelt ordered the American ambassador in Madrid to inform Franco that any "political or economic aid" from the United States would be "impossible" as long as the dictator remained in power.
>The decision was ratified in August 1945 by a joint declaration of Stalin, Truman and Attlee. In February of the following year, France closed its border with Spain, leaving the country completely isolated. The UN asked all its members in December 1946 to retire their ambassadors from Spanish territory, and did not revoke its condemnatory declaration until 1950. Spain joined the UN in 1955
[...]
>The government protested against the isolation, stating that Spain had "the right to buy on international markets", and criticized the international community for sabotaging the country's "right to live according to its spiritual values"
>The Spanish international reputation would begin to improve gradually in the late 1940s and early 1950s, after the consolidation of the Cold War, due to the explicit interest of the United States in promoting anti-communist governments in Western Europe. The diplomatic displays of approval by the American government helped to strengthen the regime and stabilize its economy, which would eventually lead to the liberalization policies that marked the 1960s
Which is exactly what I said in my previous reply. Isolation FORCED by the international community (Franco fought against the USSR and Cold War wasn't established yet), they embraced it sure because they had no other choice. They could trade with Argentina (Franco-Peron protocol, signed in 1946)
If you are going to build this, if possible switch the DHT for a Sensirion SHT40, 41 or a similar one. They are way better, and unless you are sourcing from Aliexpress binned stuff, they are similarly priced.
reply