Prices are also expected to further increase as EU has issued regulations that customers should subsidize regions of poor transmission, in order to enable construction of more wind and solar farms where no such transmission exist.

Right before the last rush to build nuclear, Europe went through an energy crisis where they did also use reverse hydro. In recent time there has been discussion to modernize and reuse those old installations, but the issue is costs. Buying energy to sell it later, while maintaining and operating the hydro power plants and pumps are not cheap (not to mention building out transmission). Even at current fossil fuel prices, natural gas and oil is cheaper and thus reverse hydro is not economical viable.

Looking at the platforms of political parties who oppose nuclear in a nearby country like Sweden, all of them highlight how thermal power plants are necessary to support further expansion of renewable energy, and those thermal power plants burn some form of fossil fuels. This include the Swedish green party.

What EU need is a ban on fossil fuels in the energy grid. Without that natural gas there is no need to buy gas from current war zones and their participants, and it would significantly decrease emissions. As long as people who oppose nuclear also agree to stop using thermal power plants, same as with the ban on ICE cars that will come into action in a few years, then the discussion of nuclear vs renewables + battery will be a fair one with everyone playing by the same rules.

Naturally in the south part of EU there is little reason to use nuclear plants. Energy demand correlates with solar production, and the need for seasonal storage is minimal. Sadly the same can not be said about central and northern Europe where wind speeds are the current dominant factor when it come to supply of energy, but seasons dictate demand. The size of storage needed for a harsh winter is magnitudes more expensive currently than reducing the need through nuclear, but that will never be tested since what countries there are actually building right now are more thermal power plants to address the issue of low supply during periods of low energy production from wind.

It will be interesting to see if researchers will find any significant behavioral change from having half the fuel prices compared to nearby countries. Personally I doubt it will be a significant statistical difference, but it is a perfect time to get some real data if people treat fuel as a necessity and pay what the market demands, or if its a luxury product where consumption goes up and down based on price.

A few years ago EU voted to define two technologies as green. One was natural gas, and the other was nuclear. Which parties voted for natural gas, and which parties voted for nuclear?

There is a EU decision to phase out ICE in cars. A good continuation would be to issue a similar decision to phase out ICE in the energy grid. It would be nice if both sides could just join together on such decision.

That said, the death rate of machine gun ownership may still be lower than handgun ownership, with a possible explanation being that it is easier to buy a handgun compared to a machine gun. A further jump into the data would then explore who are the buyer demographic of a handgun compared to a machine gun, and how machine guns compare to handguns in locations where both has similar restrictions on those who buy them.

An other avenue to explore would be to look at purchases of ammunition to determine which guns are actually in use for non-murder purposes. Hunting ammunition for example may show a much more common use than guns used for non-hunting purposes, and thus have a lower murder rate per shot. Machine guns and handguns might share a much more similar profile in that regard, possible normalized towards how much ammunition each use in a target range.

It is technical possible that in small villages there is only a single Boy Scout leader and no other adults, who then spend a lot of time alone with children. In my experience however, after school activities involving children also generally involve several adults. That makes it a major structural issue among the adults if they fail to detect a problem like hundreds of victims, and the more common remedy would be to train people, apply some form of screening, and change routines that limit risk and encourage reporting in case of inappropriate behavior.

In addition, having trained people that regular meet and talk to children can help detect situations even when they happen in peoples home, like having school employees training in detecting signs of CSA.

Data and statistics is as always dependent on how and what you measure.

The party in question is a small local government party looking to primary get seats in their local government, but with aspiration to get into national politics under a special rule that provide a single seat (1 out of 349) in parliament if the party get enough votes in a local election. The politician in question has made some comments about national immigration policy during debates, which local government has no power over, and which is what the label ethnonationalist is exclusively based on. Last election they got 7 700 votes, and they would need around 20 000 votes to get that one parliament seat.

The specific quote in question has a bunch of context. The background was a parliamentary proposition that suggest that immigrants that are on subsidy programs should be required to do some social work as part of the integration process. The opposition disagreed, arguing that this would enable the government to exploit immigrants as free labor, and that is when this politician commented that if they want subsidy but refuse to work then they should return back to their home country (often translated as deported, which is not completely wrong translation but lacks context).

The discussion around deportation from Sweden is also very different from the political discussion in US. Sweden has been deporting people for about 100 years if a person lacks permission to stay in the country, and there is no party that is advocating to stop this. What is debated is the definition used in the exception for unsafe home country, and a bit about what specific circumstances a permission to stay in the country can be withdrawn. Except for the above mentioned parliamentary proposition, I do not know of any political statements that Örebro party or their leader has said on those issues.

They are the official source for crime statistics in Sweden.

That said, GoPro is not the best for low light environments, and the battery is a bit temperature sensitive, both which can be an issue when diving.

Generic TLD are different. ICANN dictate to different degree each generic TLD, and is also the one that give accreditation to registrars. ICANN has given different companies the role of operating and handling databases and registration systems, like Verisign with .com, but it is still ICANN that dictate policy. ICANN could decide tomorrow that Verisign is no longer suitable to run the operation of generic TLD's and thus move it to a company located in a different country.

Moving the operations of generic domains to a less US-centric location is not a new idea, same with the legal locations of the organizations that are ICANN and IANA. As I understand it, they are mostly located in USA as a matter of history.

In concept, IANA and the group of global stakeholders could move the whole thing to a different country if US becomes too much trouble.

This should be supported by both those that advocate nuclear and those advocating renewables. Those that do advocate for a grid with renewables that are supported with a reserve energy fleet of fossil fueled power plants, like the oil power plant in south of Sweden, will just have to find an alternative. If that alternative is cheaper, faster and more attractive than nuclear then the choice is obvious, and if its not then fossil fuels are still not an option. This include using bio fuels produced with artificial fertilizers since that process currently uses natural gas (which is why people are predicting a food shortage and famine as a result of the war in Iran).

There have been recently in Sweden a discussion around party voting and block voting. In concept, every politician could vote independently based on their own views and opinions, but as a practical matter they vote according to party politics. Some has now voiced that this should be mandated according to election result, while others want to keep the current system where elected has a choice to ignore party politics and be independent after the election. The reason this has become an issue is that recent elections has been very close with only a few seats difference between the blocks, thus independent (called "wilds") representatives has the ability to overturn votes when the blocks artificial maintains the relative balances between each other.

Last, if we look at the actions, then guess how the green party voted when it came to construction of new thermal power plants in south of Sweden.

I know what the Swedish green party has on their platform, open to be read at any time on their website or in paper materials, or heard by their political representatives. Their position is that thermal power plants are critical to the energy grid in order to enable renewable energy and keeping costs down. They wish to use either bio fuels or green hydrogen to fuel those power plants.

The issue I got with that plan is that current thermal power plants in practice do not use exclusively bio fuels or green hydrogen, and that the environmental science around bio fuels are poor at best and full of green washing and practices that are extremely bad for the environment. The costs of bio fuels and green hydrogen has also demonstrated to be massively expensive, making the cost of nuclear cheap in comparison.

My views of the green will change when/if the green drops their support of thermal power plants, and their overwhelming dependency of using biofuels produced from corn as a way to reduce emissions. Biofuels need to be produced without using artificial fertilizers (natural gas), and without burning down forests to make space for the farming. It also need to be cheaper than nuclear, which disqualify green hydrogen as it is produced, stored and handled currently. Carbon capture and artificial fuels are disqualified on the same point, being overwhelming more expensive than nuclear.

As an anecdote, the Swedish green party leader and a right wing party had a political debate during last election. The Right wing party wanted to demolish an oil fueled thermal power plant that is currently operated in south of Sweden, and replace with new nuclear power plant. Paraphrasing what the green party leader said: "Thermal power plants are a natural part of the Swedish grid, and nuclear energy is way to expensive. We need those plants to keep the grid stable and prices low."

The government of Montenegro could, just like many other ccTLD, decide tomorrow that every registrant must be a citizen of Montenegro. Many countries do this today, and it is no big deal because it is the country of and ccTLD that dictate how their domains should be operated. They can raise prices by a factor of 100 if they wanted, decide on some form of ID for registration, or dictate that you must have a company located in the country. ICANN has no objection to any of that.

Otherwise just use which ever registrar is cheapest and who you think will handle any quirks or shenanigans that registries may do to domains you own, and which own system and processes hold high enough standard for you.

Board or sink anyone who don't surrender to the extortion. Flags only work if nations respect them, and nations that are willing to pirate ships is very unlikely to respect flags.

The Hormuz strait is now basically the same as coast of Somalia, except that now the pirates has missiles, rockets and torpedoes.