Hard disagree. As a. swiss voter, this is close to my heart.
50% of all energy in the swiss economy is oil / gas. Of the remaining 50% (electricity), 2/3 are generated by hydro. The remaining ~1/3 by nuclear fission.
Swiss electricity prices are sky-high, and the demand for electricity is going to continue to rise.
To remain a competitive industrial economy, to transition away from oil/gas, and to offset any potential losses of hydro power as glaciers melt, nuclear + solar is the only real path for switzerland.
Why hasn't Switzerland deployed solar/wind? That seems like a pretty big miss in general. The Swiss grid has almost no wind which is strange for such a mountainous nation. And solar is also quite low which is also strange given how much empty land exists in Switzerland along with it's relatively low latitude.
Regarding wind and mountains. Some perspective from someone from neighboring Tyrol:
The reason there is so little wind power: Probably the same reason the western, alpine parts of Austria have basically zero wind power - and why neighbouring Carinthia recently voted in a referendum to ban it completely.
People who live in the Alps generally don't like seeing the mountains altered. It is treated almost as sacrilege. And since these areas are heavily dependent on tourism, where the appeal rests on a romantic, Disney-fied fantasy of wild, untamed nature, locals worry that turbines would make the region less attractive to tourists. Of course, this "untouched" landscape is largely a fiction in the first place: most of it looks the way it does precisely because people have lived in it and shaped it for centuries.
They do and it's a problem, but it's a minor issue compared to, say, cars or rat poison. Both kill lots of birds, but somehow when it's wind turbines people suddenly care about the birds. See also: https://www.zmescience.com/feature-post/technology-articles/...
As you are Swiss, where would you get the uranium from? I expect that the Swiss Alps have some mine, especially in the south west (I didn't check) but is that enough? You might end up swapping a dependency from foreign providers of oil and gas with a dependency from foreign providers of uranium.
to my knowledge, the cost of uranium is almost negligible compared to the capital cost of building the plant. so as long as a market exists, you can choose whatever strategy: buy a big buffer, or just don't care if price oscillates x times.
I will probably vote in favor of nuclear, but you have to admit that us not having any uranium and having huge solar and pumped hydro potential up in the alps makes Switzerland pretty bad match for nuclear.
Like I said in another comment: nuclear only makes sense if you build it at scale, because you need very specific skills and knowledge that is hard to get to build it securely, on time and cheap. Ideally you would have one company/conglomerate that would get one plant off the ground per year across the EU, but currently that isn't possible.
...You guys have mountains everywhere, which means dirt cheap hydro energy storage for solar and wind?
I'm a lftr enthusiast, but everyone needs to keep in mind that fission is just fundamentally economically non-competitive compared to solar and wind.
And all those stories about fusion being right around the corner? Yeah, that won't be economically competitive either.
I personally am not in favor of closing down existing fission nuclear plants. By the construction of new fission plants is an economic boondoggle: big, long time, cost overruns, more expensive.
I had hopes for smrs to fundamentally change the economic game but they aren't. I just don't think that solid fuel rod nuclear can ever be economically competitive.
I think I'm back to my original lifter enthusiasm, where lifter is able to use 90% plus of the core nuclear fuel and breed more of it from ultra cheap thorium, and is safer and can be scaled by design....
I think nuclear industry should spend another 10 to 20 years engineering developing a fundamentally economically competitive nuclear plant that will also give time for the price improvement, curves of solar wind and storage to stabilize.
Because solar wind and storage still have a lot of runway for improvement between sodium ion batteries perovskites and just general improvements to wind rotors and general economies of scale
Mostly all of our potential for pumped hydro is already developed, and there is not a lot left to do for non-pumped hydro.
We can't grow hydro at the required scale, and the usual problem with solar and wind (that we should develop nonetheless, don't get me wrong) apply: we can't produce enough power with those all year (winter nights need power too for heat pumps etc...)
Wind would be particularly effective in Switzerland and it's fast to deploy. The swiss grid has less than 1% wind which was pretty shocking to me. It seems like Switzerland has a particularly bad renewable story for an EU nation.
Wind is not that developed in Switzerland because it's not actually that great of a situation... We have a lot of steep mountains which make building wind farms a real challenge, and the flat plains in between have "meh" levels of wind. And a very strong NIMBY mentality. We do have some projects but those are more exception than rule.
The really awesome wind spots are more the coastal or offshore farms, which... well... we can't have (no access to the sea does that to you).
Solar is really really booming right now however, many houses take themselves off grid completely. Mine is a net producer for example.
Oh wow, I didn't realize that! That's crazy, basically everyone that borders them are EU members. I was also under the impression (but haven't checked) that it was pretty easy to cross the swiss border both into and out of the EU.
> I'm a lftr enthusiast, but everyone needs to keep in mind that fission is just fundamentally economically non-competitive compared to solar and wind.
We're talking about a world were oil is going away. Switzerland is already using as much hydro as it can. Nuclear is not about replacing hydro, it's about replacing as much as it can of oil.
Even with as much nuclear, hydro, wind and solar as they can, we as a society (not just Switzerland) won't be able to replace oil. We will have less energy, that's a fact. So I don't understand the debate: why not nuclear AND renewables?
Build a solar plant in the Sahara desert and ship the energy long range,
Nuclear's probably still more expensive than that.
I'm not saying we give up on nuclear entirely. It should be at the well-funded research and prototyping phase for another 10 years.
In my opinion, at least for consumer energy, I think perovskite solar cells and sodium ion batteries for home storage will enable a very large oversupply or overcapacity start evening out the intermittent fears.
Your argument holds across the supply-curve of software-engineering-skills. However, there must be some threshold where a previously employed dev is now sol because AI+Human outcompetes him (ie the supply curve has shifted, and the point they used to occupy is not unprofitable)
The solutions is then them building a mental model for the desktop. Using phone strategy on larger screens is a usability issue, because it doesn’t translate well or take advantage of a mouse and keyboard. We went through this with windows 8. It’s a nice idea, but in practice it makes the desktop much more cumbersome to use. It might have a benefit for very new users, but it’s temporary in nature.
There's little future in catering to customers who come to you only because they hate Google. They will soon find a reason to hate you and fill up your support forums and Discord with complaints. After all, they are spending the gigantic amount of $10 per month on your service, and have a right to influence the company.
With Uruky, these customers can now move on instead, and the lower price will serve as another reason. And then they also don't have to worry anymore that their accountant is going to call at 3AM and demand that they "justify" the gigantic subscription cost.
And Kagi can focus on the only real selling point they have: Search results quality. Which is where their future lies and what most potential customers are looking to pay for. Not being anti-Google.
Off-ramping to fiat would be criminalised and pursued beyond the wildest dreams of La Liga/Cloudflare. A gambling site you can't withdraw your winnings from is of no interest to anyone.
To be a bit more specific, some Cloudflare IPs are unavailable for a few hours a week as Cloudflare, compared to other CDNs, aren't responding or acting on legal requests from Spanish judges.
Correct, to be even more specific. Cloudlfare uses a reputation pooling technique to provide anonimities to their clients (providers, through reverse proxies, in this case). Since cloudflare does not comply with requests to selectively stop distributing the banned content in Spain, and since ISPs cannot perform that filter due to header encryption like encrypted HELO, then the Spanish courts opt to perform the least destructive block which is to block based on time.
"Least destructive"? I can't access many sites and services during matches, but my colleagues tell me their pirate sources have barely been affected. This "least destructive" path is not working but is definitely destroying.
Ok, besides avoiding the blocks altogether, you seem to know of a less destructive approach, please do share it, I'll share whatever you come up with to my representative as I've managed to have a dialogue about this with them before.
But it has to be something, and cannot be "Don't do the blocks" obviously since it's already ruled it should be blocked, but since you've managed to come up with a block so it doesn't have to affect even those Cloudflare IPs, could you please share the method you've come up with?
Why does the end justify the means here? Revising the ruling should be an option: The blocks clearly aren't working, everyone I know who pirates matches tells me their sources have barely been affected, and others share the same here. Meanwhile I, that don't care about football but pay for my ISP, can't visit during matches most of the sites I regularly visit. Why am I an acceptable casualty in the piracy wars?
> But it has to be something
I think you're falling for the politician's syllogism. Pressure to do "something" doesn't mean we should do anything, specially if this "something" has already proven worse than even doing nothing.
Just to clarify your position, Spain should allow US companies to not comply with court orders for US company operations within Spain jurisdiction? So Spain should just allow another country to do whatever, or to use some extra-legal judgment criteria to discern whether something is worth following the law for and what is not worth the hassle?
Please point out where in my comment it says that's my position.
If the courts decided Cloudflare has to be banned, let it be banned. But so far they haven't had a trial, much less a sentence. We're just enabling a private company to interfere with the services of another, which represents a huge part of the internet even if we don't like it, simply because the former claims the trade-off is necessary and acceptable.
And since the only actual evidence I can access (weak as it is) points to these blocks barely working, I claim that this trade-off is not worth it and we're just inflicting pain on people not watching the matches for a very slim benefit to LaLiga. Bring Cloudflare to the courts if you must, but leave us alone until they figure it out.
I apologize if this sounds rude, but it just sounds like you aren't familiar with the case or the subject matter at all, please perform some research if you want to make claims about what ought to be.
Bullshit, that sentence just enables LaLiga and Telefonica to interfere with hosts like Cloudflare, which I claim is an excessive measure before a trial against them. It does not claim that Cloudflare is breaking the law, and Ctrl+F "Cloudflare" just shows one hit about Encrypted Client Hello.
Here's the list of companies that actually were sued here, to let them block:
I apologize if this sounds rude, but it just sounds like you aren't familiar with the case or the subject matter at all, please perform some research if you want to make claims about what ought to be.
And now more seriously, I've got a right to think the court's decision is wrong even if it's legal, get over it.
>And now more seriously, I've got a right to think the court's decision is wrong even if it's legal, get over it.
I just feel my personal opinions on the subject matter almost zero, especially since I'm not involved in the dispute, nor a citizen of either country. If you are american you are somewhat compelled, but I think that jurisdictionally, they have sovereignity, which is much harder to deny. Like even if you think the case itself and the sentence are wrong, ok, I get it. But I think we should compartimentalize and respect the venue, I don't think even cloudflare is arguing against the venue, claiming somehow that the US courts are proper for the case. But I could be wrong.
> It does not claim that Cloudflare is breaking the law
Right, I read that there was no trial or sentence at all. The linked trial was not claimed against Cloudflare at all, but the sentence does compel CloudFlare and refers to other several summons for CloudFlare (I read somewhere that it totals more than 100).
Here's a recent story I found on the CEO being personally sued on criminal charges:
Can't speak a lot on this specific case, but I personally wouldn't want to step into a country that sues me criminally. This is somewhat permissible for CloudFlare since it is a security company, so it probably isn't the first time they have had such an issue. But still, this is definitely not nothing.
What seems correct is that Cloudflare itself has not yet been the defendant of a civil suit for damages yet. But to be fair, they went straight for criminal charges, which to my estimation is way more decisive (and appropriate).
EDIT: Cloudflare is a defendant along with the CEO. With some nuances on terminology due to the common/civil, but I believe defendant is an accurate translation of "investigado"
Because society at large has to be pragmatic, you and I aren't the only people living here, and generally we (Spaniards) all agree that laws are generally made to be followed, in most instances, hence if a judge/the courts order something, we generally feel like that should be followed. You don't like it? Fight it legally, like the system is setup to work.
> The blocks clearly aren't working, everyone I know who pirates matches tells me their sources have barely been affected, and others share the same here.
Based on anecdotes, which I too have plenty of it working/not working, or based on actual data? Not sure it is the most trustworthy data, I personally don't trust La Liga so much, but last they said was that it was reduced by 60%, and if the blocks weren't actually working, I think they'd say as much, as they'd want to find a "better" way to actually fight it. But unless you have some more trustworthy data to share, I think this is as close as we get to actual evidence and concrete proof: https://www.laliga.com/noticias/fastly-y-laliga-se-unen-para...
> Meanwhile I, that don't care about football but pay for my ISP, can't visit during matches most of the sites I regularly visit.
What exact websites and services can you not visit during the games? I'm with Vodafone, and nowadays during the games Docker Hub is the only service that isn't available, everything else seems to continue working as normal. A year ago the situation was very different.
Did you report the websites you rely on to be victims of the blocks via the forms that are available for precisely this? Seems to eventually unblock the sites you report, give that a try if you haven't already.
> I think you're falling for the politician's syllogism. Pressure to do "something" doesn't mean we should do anything, specially if this "something" has already proven worse than even doing nothing.
I'm not, me as a private individual, before even speaking with anyone, also think it's stupid that Cloudflare chose to do business in Spain yet aren't willing to follow the law.
The ones who feel like you are an acceptable casualty in these piracy wars is Cloudflare, everyone else is following the law, that's why you're not seeing Bunny CDN or Fastly being blocked in the same way as Cloudflare, as they actually respond to legal requests.
Tired of Cloudflare grouping in providing services to clearly illegal services with clearly legal services? Well, maybe ask them to consider following the laws in the countries they operate, or use the actual service meant for reporting "unintended casualties".
Good points, but consider what this post does prove: people’s arguments against AI art are shallow; they often attack the artifacts themselves instead of making your deeper argument.
Here’s my guess as to Apple's reasoning: They like to dominate suppliers, but TSMC is in such high demand that they’re on equal footing now. Going into bed with Intel gives them the chance to set strict terms again.
Certainly an aspect; would you rather negotiate with a supplier who has more power, or less power?
But it’s likely not a one-dimensional decision. Supply chain diversification, China / Taiwan, Intel having established US fabs, on and on. Seems like a wise decision in every way.
Getting another supplier certainly makes negotiations easier but I doubt it's the main reason. The main reason is that TSMC simply does not have enough wafers no matter how much money Apple throws at them. TSMC is fully booked in 2026 and well into 2027 from reports.
It's not clear if it's going to get better either. It could get worse in terms of supply.
50% of all energy in the swiss economy is oil / gas. Of the remaining 50% (electricity), 2/3 are generated by hydro. The remaining ~1/3 by nuclear fission.
Swiss electricity prices are sky-high, and the demand for electricity is going to continue to rise.
To remain a competitive industrial economy, to transition away from oil/gas, and to offset any potential losses of hydro power as glaciers melt, nuclear + solar is the only real path for switzerland.
reply