If they couldn't identity the person they would setup cameras or a passage system to identity who uses the staircase until the problem can be solved. The law here allows apartment owners to setup cameras in the case of resolving problems with property and shared spaces. For example, in my building there are cameras in the garage and the garbage room, and entry require tags that get recorded when opening the door. Those intrusive actions where done to address past theft and misbehavior which in turn cost money to the company who own the building.

CDU and the green could had done a 180 turn now when the bet on natural gas failed, and instead gone on a course for energy independence through a mix of nuclear, wind and solar, while investing heavily into making it as cheap as possible for the consumers. They would loose a lot of internal support, but it would demonstrate a clear alternative to the bet on natural gas.

Germany is thus paying the price for those failed investments, as is any country which energy market is connected to the German market. It is natural for voters to look to the government for a solution for a problem that the government is responsible for.

If history had gone a different direction and kept natural gas prices low, the bet that the government did would had been successful and people would likely had a very different view of the government. People would had enjoyed one of the cheapest electricity prices of the world, burners would be cheaper than electric heaters, and the chemical industry would possible be the biggest in the world. Emissions would still be high but the bet was always to utilize natural gas until green hydrogen could replace it, even if that part of the bet had dubious scientific support).

I would suspect that today they also process the traffic for llms and thus store a bit more of the traffic as weight and biases. All that can be done distributed and to different degrees based on how much access they got and under what operational conditions.

Wind is great to reduce fossil consumption to around 50% in regions where the conditions of solar is not great. After 50% the cost increase significantly as overproduction competes with existing investments and prices drops below zero (see Denmark as an example). Batteries is also prohibitively expensive to cover months of poor production, which is why regions that heavily invest into wind also construct thermal power plants for equal capacity that burn carbon rich fuel for electricity and heat (see all of central/northern Europe). Regions with colder climates also has inverse consumption behavior than warmer climates, which mean that solar produce the least when consumption is highest. This is where nuclear can be economical viable, but only if we discontinue building more thermal power plants that burn cheap fuel. EU voting to have natural gas defined as "green" demonstrate this perfectly well, as well as the complete lack of any political party advocating to building battery as the solution for low wind production.

The reason for the decrease in smoking is still being researched and debate, but the main arguments that I have seen is the main role of smoking as social stress relief and as such it has been replaced by other addictions like opium use (mobile phone use, social media, and games has also been argued).

If we consider food culture to be malleable, we definitely should move to aquaculture as a main source of nutrients. Farms on land compete with forests and human activity, and land based farms uses artificial fertilizers (derived from natural gas) and massive amount of fresh water. Shellfish, invertebrates, and seaweed can provide both protein and calories, and has the lowest environmental impact of anything we eat today and can even have a positive environmental impact if farmed correctly. Changing farming from doing harm to doing good would have massive impact, and all it takes is a cultural change.

A less-known aspect of this is that bike traffic (and scooters) are also limited to 7km/h. Very few people actually follow that traffic rule, and enforcement is very rare. There are shared bike and pedestrian roads where bikes are allowed to go faster, but they are more rare and has their own designation.

The price of gasoline is a actually a good example of an fairly open debate over what the costs should be on a national level for a global product. We are currently paying one of the highest electricity prices in EU, not because the energy is expensive to produce at the wind farms, but because construction of new transmission from the place of production to the place of consumption is carried by the consumer. There is very little political discussion on what a fair price is for electricity, and how the cost of the grid should be fairly paid.

The proof is as always in what get actually get constructed, and right now what we do know is that new thermal power plants is currently being constructed in the south that is expected to finish and starting to burn fuel in 2028.

That is the left side of the debate. The other side pushes for nuclear, but there is no actually ongoing construction for that. What is actually being constructed and supported by both side is more thermal power plants.

When you need multiple months worth of capacity to cover the winter, rather than hours to cover a day-night cycle, storage is a very expensive strategy. There are experimental tests, like the one in Finland that will heat a small number of buildings in a small town, but there is no political party that is going to the election on a platform with storage as the solution. The closest you will get is the far future plans in the green party platform that current oil and other plants could (in theory) be switched to burning green hydrogen, but the political capital in that area has been significant decreased in the last decade when cost of infrastructure and production has shown to be prohibitively expensive. The biggest project, intended to produce green steel, has been significantly delayed and costs increased, and is continuously demanding more and more subsidizes. To burn green hydrogen for electricity is about as close to becoming economical as fusion is.

You are indeed right that if we were to ban the construction of new thermal power plants, the result will likely be that private capital will simple not bother to do anything unless significant government capital is put on the table. Everything is simply too expensive and if you allow the market price to spike without limit, citizens will go and vote for government to step in. When electricity market spikes by 100x for a single month, the outcome is not that the market steps in and invest in more expensive power plants. Citizen instead goes to the government and elect one that will provide a stable energy market. That was the outcome of the 2020 energy crisis. That is how the economics of nuclear could become viable, or storage, but it is also why thermal power plants is the thing being built right now.

Take Sweden, since that is the country where I live in and which has an ongoing election right now. We are not building any new nuclear. We are building a bit more wind and solar, but both is close to 100% capacity and interest for overcapacity is low. New production is located in areas which has yet to reach 100% capacity. Hydro capacity is already at maximum capacity and need to be decrease in order to follow environmental rulings from EU and prevent extinctions of multiple species.

Thermal power plants however is seeing an increase with new plants being planned to burn fuel for electricity and heat. Private capital has great appetite for thermal power plants since those has great financial ability to extract rent from the government as part of the reserve grid and providing readiness to stabilizing the gird, and when they produce energy they can extract the highest price since periods of low wind and low solar create the absolute highest market price. The energy crisis a few years ago demonstrated that a single month can create market prices that exceed that of a whole year if the weather produce non-optimal conditions during the winter.

So the solution is really that simple. Do not build power plants that burn fuels. The economics will push the next cheapest solution to the top.

It would be interesting to hear what kind of domain are you working in where you have 3000 simulations connections to different service providers.

You can write this in async with a pool of connections to each provider, or you can have a pool of worker processes that each have one connection to each provider.

Which will be easier to debug, and which design is easier for the next developer to read, understand and modify? Performance wise the wast majority for both designs will be on waiting at the initial connections to the apis and time spent fetching objects.

Did you find readability to be improved by going async?

Looking at examples where it could matter, German Sharp S (ß) is allowed in domain names and so a list of trusted hostnames could be fooled if one hostname had a double ss idn-encoded name and the attacker registered a second domain with ß, but there is a caveat here. Looking at how .eu registry handle it, they will not allow two domains to only have the difference between ss and ß, unless they are the same registrant and explicitly request to have both variants (https://eurid.eu/en/knowledge-centre/domain-names-with-speci...). Thus the attack vector will depend on if the registry has protection against it or not.

In the past, the usual answer to people who need a programming language but did not want to learn programming was to give them a domain specific language that focused on solving the specific problem they wanted to solve.