It seems unlikely that the success of women in STEM was based on making STEM more feminine, and helping women understand that they can have STEM roles and still stay feminine. It seems more plausible that affirmative action, privileged opportunities, exclusive spaces, and preferential hiring practices had more to do in making women in STEM successful than words about femininity and masculinity.

We are not doing an apple to apple comparison if we are not actually looking at what people are paying. The cost of energy is to have the a stable supply of energy delivered at the time that the consumer wants to buy it. The cost of energy production is thus not just the price of producing one unit of energy in isolation, but to have it transmitted in a stable grid at a date and time specified by the consumer. Nuclear energy and solar energy both produce units of energy, but consumers need for transmission, grid stability and time aspects are completely different depending if they buy nuclear energy or solar energy. They are not interchangeable on those aspects.

The 9.71 ct/kwh is the levelized cost of producing electricity from solar. It is not the same as the average cost of consuming energy. Adding nuclear to the mix would not necessary increase costs of consuming energy, even if the average cost of producing energy would go up.

To make a very simplified illustration of this. A energy broker would happily trade 10 units for energy for 1 unit of energy, assuming that they can dictate when and where each unit get transmitted.

In absolute terms, the portion of the worlds population that deny that the climate is changing is a single digit percentage, and that include the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_climate_chan...). The portion is a bit larger if you include people who think that the climate is changing but that is mostly caused by natural causes, but it is still a small minority compared to the wast majority that see climate change as either caused exclusively by human activity or as a mix between human activity and natural causes.

The "It's all a hoax" is a popular talking point but their followers are fewer in real life. It much more commonly to find that people with opposing view who actually agreeing that climate change is real, but that they disagree on policy. As an example, creating environmental policy based on per capita create a complete different policy compared to absolute emissions. The later is no more climate change denial than the first, and yet the later generally get labeled as denial.

In that way, I don't really think the government need to design laws to have loop holes in them. With enough political pressure they can get the judges to make any decision they like.

Blacklist and whitelist would be closer to include/exclude, so the replacement would be a includelist and excludelist, or include/exclude as shorthand.

A month ago or so people on HN discussed facial recognition when looking victims and perpetrators in child exploitation material, and people were complaining that meta did not allow this fast enough. Neither the article or the people in that discussion draw any connection that the issues in this article could happen. People seemingly want to think that the lesson is "Never go back to North Dakota", as that is a much easier lesson than considering false positives in detection algorithms and their impact on a legal system that is constrained in budget, time, training and incentives.

With-holding permits is stupid, as are bans on new deployments, but neither are subsidies. You can cut subsidies to zero and at the same time give out all the permits people requests.

Norway has however started to cut down on those subsidies, with one cut 2023 and now a second cut next year, and then a third one in 2027. They are combining that with extra fees for ICE, and time will tell what that will do to voters.

Transmission and construction, crewing and maintenance of of thermal power plants (under the name of "reserve energy") cost a lot of money, which in turn becomes fixed grid costs. On top of that you got consumption costs during periods of poor weather, which in combination of high fossil fuel costs means that the consumption prices spikes. The cost of energy during optimal weather conditions is in contrast so low that at this point they can basically just be rounded down to zero.

This would be like if two trans women, who has not undergone any hormone replacement therapy or surgery, would compete in men's divisions.

For both the genetic disorders, they would have to be beneficial or at least not an disadvantage, for elite sport activity in order to be an issue for misclassification. For a sex-determination system, they could simply add an exception for Swyer syndrome and postpone the decision until such individual presented themselves at an Olympic competition.

I recall a study looking at genetics in general and how much of professional sport abilities that can be attributed to it, and the number were fairly high for most sports, especially those involving strength and endurance. Genetic disorders like AIS could however also be a hindrance.

I do recall that in some endurance sports, certain genetic disorders involving oxygen delivery were much more common in top elites than in the average population, meaning that people without that disorder is at severe disadvantage compared to general population. It is an ongoing discussion if people with those kind of disorders should be allowed to compete in for example long distance skiing, as the disorder becomes natural doping and would be cheating if a person without the disorder was competing with that kind of blood in their system.

Genetic testing, outside of the culture war about what defines a man or a woman, really comes down to what is fair competition. Personally I can't really say. Does knowing that maybe half of the top skiers has a rare blood disorder make it less fun for people?

The problem starts when you need the grid for some amount of the year or in periods over several years. As consumer we would like to pay 10% of an annual electrical bill if we can produce the remaining 90% ourself. The grid however want to have be paid for investments in power plants and transmission, and to them, costs associated with consumption is only one part of the bill. If the customer consume less energy, and the costs in infrastructure is the same or greater, then they will continue charge the consumer for the full year. In that scenario, you may only consume 10% but your bill will remain at close to 100%. As a consumer one could decide to go without those 10%, but that in itself can be dangerous or expensive, in which case paying 100% may still be rational.

The procedure that I got recommended in 2005 was to install a second fresh operative system (preferable windows) on the laptop on a separate partition/disk, make a copy of the old boot partition and disk encryption headers, encrypt the copy and store it online for later retrieval, and then overwrite the old boot with the new installation. Make sure to leave the old partitions alone.

The restore is then as simple as downloading the encrypted backup, decrypt and dd it back in place. Repeat the process before taking the trip back. It was advisable to test the processes before to familiarize yourself to it, and to use the fresh installation a bit so it wasn't completely blank.