* https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/fil...

* https://docs.kernel.org/filesystems/smb/smbdirect.html

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49122590

Points: 6

# Comments: 4

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49122478

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

The oil companies in the 1970s for one:

* https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

Recent report on restarting German nuclear:

> The easiest group of reactors to restart could produce electricity at an average of €37 per megawatt-hour before the end of 2031.The most difficult restarts could produce electricity at roughly €58 per megawatt-hour by the mid 2030s.

* https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/restarting-german...

* PDF: https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/_files/ugd/ae75b7_bc5db59...

By default it sends you to new ("www"), but I've found (at least on non-mobile) I can edit the URL to use "old" and works (at least for now).

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49108982

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

Germany coal is not estimated to be eliminated for another 5-6 years:

* https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-coal-exit-quie...

How many gigawatts of coal generation could have been shutdown already if nuclear was still generating its gigawatts?

With or without externalities like climate change costed in?

The strategy would be to have economical, non-intermittent generation. It would be non-intermittent supply because that part of demand is non-intermittent.

Even other plants built in the same timeframe as Chernobyl are safer (not even getting to newer designs/builds), because in the West they were built with containment.

The founder of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank isn't anti-nuclear:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Thomas

* https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/26/obesity-...

And how much lower would have it been if they had chosen to keep their existing nuclear and reduce/retire their coal and/or gas? Certainly if they did not want to build new nuclear that's one thing, but they chose to keep the emitting stuff, which was really stupid IMHO.

Even now it'd be viable to re-start some of Germany's nuclear if they really wanted to reduce emissions:

* https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/restarting-german...

* PDF: https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/_files/ugd/ae75b7_bc5db59...

HVAC and electrical (e.g. UPSes) need somewhat regular maintenance, so once build-out is done, if you're with one of the OEMs, you'll probably have regular work babysitting the gear.

Also worth considering how often you change camera bodies: if you get a new one you may have to upgrade CO to get support for the new RAW format. (AIUI, they don't backport things like that.)

If you're in Canada, or a G7/EU nation, it's in the 80s, so you may have 10+ years to go, so the chances of Substack being around in the same form for that time period is lower.

Donate to archive.org.

I think that one should at least have one's own domain instead of example.substack.com. Substack allows for exporting posts (which would be good to do regularly just for backups in case of (account) compromise):

* https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/360037466012-...

so if you ever feel like the company is acting questionably, you can take that file and bring it in elsewhere, e.g.

* https://wordpress.com/support/import-from-substack/

* https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-monitors/