It's also easier to scan payments via app than go to the bank, something that is only possible via native like apps

If i send a golang binary to someone with a mac via signal or other mediums, apple simply displays a dialog that the app is damaged and can't be run.

You need to use chmod to manually remove the quarantine flag to run it.

That for me is something that should be fined ad infinitum, because it is clearly designed to disallow non technical people to run custom apps.

I think the idea of an hud is better than the current paradigm, but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem.

The hard problem is not even necessarily building android, the hard problem is afaik the custom firmwares needing a very specific kernel version to work with and having security issues of their own.

If you then want to decouple software completly form any hardware chip it get's complicated fast, are usb ICs software?

Do all ic manufactures now need to hire external companies for their firmware?

E.g. you now use the wayland calls instead of x11 calls

Most reactors are old and in need of repair, most of these earlier than planned afaik.

There is also the bigger issue that some reactors are shut down in the summer because cooling water would leave the reactor so hot that it would be a danger to the animals living in the river.

I think that the "you are not allowed to scream fire" argument kinda implies that there is not a fire and it creates a panic which leads to injuries

I read the wikipedia article about brandenburg, but I don't quite understand how it changes the part about screaming fire in a crowded room.

Is it that it would fall under causing a riot(and therefore be against the law/government)?

Or does it just remove any earlier restrictions if any?

Or where there never any restrictions and it was always just the outcome that was punished?

Because most of the article and opinions talk about speech against law and government.

This seems to say there is a limit to free speech

>The act of shouting "fire" when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter, assuming the other elements of that crime are made out.

Your own link says that if you yell fire in a crowded space and people die you can be held liable.

Having most of the electrical grid already it makes no sense to scale it back or not connect the few not connected communities

I'm not arguing against renewable I'm arguing against the idea that in most of europe it would be better to use small grids instead of an european wide big grid.

Hydrostorage is cheap if it provides enough energy for more than one small community, having the ability to balance energy production and needs across europe is easier than being at the mercy of local weather.

A good example for that is austria, where the grid has a problem where a better connection between east and west is not finished/buid because of discussions about environmental impact.

This leads to overproduction in one place which can't be transferred to places that need electricity.

https://kommunal.at/wir-haben-ein-strom-problem

In germany a week long dukelflaute occurs every 2 years.

In germany a week long dukelflaute occurs every 2 years.

You don't need 30% more panels, you need to store energy for the all usage for about a week.

So you need to store energy for more than a few hours or generate it from something else.

You then have the choice to use batteries(costly for megwatts as of now), things like hydrostorage, fossil fuels(gas/coal/oil) or hydrogen generated from renewable sources.

If you need big energy storages anyway, it makes more sense that communities pool their money together and invest in something like hydrostorage, but then you need a grid to connect the communities and if you do that, you might as well connect everything in the country so the grid is better at balancing.

If you where a nato country you had the problem that by the time reinforcment from the usa could arrive, the udssr could potentially be in control of most if not all of europe.

While the udssr didn't really had that concern, as they had more than enough room to retreat, reform and defend.

In such a scenario it's very easy for the udssr to have a no first strike policy when there was simply no way for any european country to invade them, while smaller countries would have had a real concern that they either use their weapons to the full effect or have no chance to do so.

IMHO there is also the substantial benefit that the udssr now knew that any attack meant that they would trigger a war without winners, e.g. they couldn't fight and then retreat to safe bases deep in their territory