No, they are not. There are terrible digital locks as there are terrible mechanical locks. Good digital locks use sound encryption algorithms that makes them incredibly resilient to attacks. You can have digital locks that are not connected to the internet. Makes no sense to hack a physical door you have no access to anyway.

Mechanical locks are so easy to break into with minimal tools. My friend that sells security doors uses digital locks for that reason.

Actually the biggest European producer is Enel’s 3Sun Gigafactory in Catania, Italy, not Meyer Burger.

The problem with EU and nuclear is of scale, nimby and bureaucracy. If we unify and simplify the certification process, and we build lot of reactors at the same time like France did in the 70s and 80s, then cost will go down significantly, on the same level as Korea, China and Japan.

Nuclear fuel can be recycled, we need to build an EU nuclear industry with that in mind. Uranium is cheap and potentially infinite if we get it from the ocean. Ukraine has uranium deposits. Canada is also a reliable partner.

The CCP can explode a nuclear bomb in Beijing also, but why should they?

A well maintained power plant is a resource and the maintenance cost less than building a new power plant. And if the power plant lack maintenance it will stop working and that’s it.

If you perfectly and simultaneously clog all eight primary injection pipes (a statistically impossibility, must be elaborate and deliberate sabotage) the reactor will meltdown, and the corium will sit at the bottom of the containment dome where natural air circulation will reduce the temperature with all the radiation trapped inside.

I trust an AP1000 in China more then an older reactor in France. Your critique is based on fantasy. No dictatorship can decree that physics stop working.

Just because is China that does not make it unsafe.

CAP1000 is an incredibly safe 3+ generation design that uses multiple redundant passive safety system. A reactor like that can cool itself without electricity nor human intervention.

The comparison with Chernobyl is laughable. That design had a lot of flaws that do not exists in modern reactors. Just so you know there are still 7 reactor like Chernobyl running in Russia. I would worry more about those instead of one of the safest industrial facility ever designed by humankind.

So given it is possible to create a nuclear power plant in 6 years (China did it, France did it), we just need to understand what needs to be done to make it possible again. And the answer is economy of scale (build more then one at a time) and streamlined bureaucracy (unify component requirement and simplify certification procedures).

The problem is nobody want to invest in the effort to make these changes against misinformed public opposition and fossil fuel lobbies.

Yes, China is not a magical place. If UAE was able to build a nuclear program from nothing at 8 years for each reactors, then we also can do that. (this time a Korean Design). We just need to understand why they can and we cannot. This is a regulatory problem, not a technology problem

The technology is there. We need solar, wind, batteries, hydro-storage and nuclear, which is hold back by fear and costs driven by bureaucracy. What we lack is political capital and supranational coordination. We need to scale up production and learn from the Chinese. The demand for batteries is there.

And the power plants in china took 6, with some that took 4 year. You can make nuclear faster if you want to. This is not a technology problem (or at least, not only), but a bureaucratic one. Chinese are building plants based on the AP1000, the same the US are building. It is a US design.

china may not be a reliable partner, but what was said is true. Solar is not fuel. There is zero fuel cost involved. Once it is installed it is there until you need to replace the panels, decades in the future. Same with batteries. And arguably the same with nuclear, given the low amount of uranium and the refueling cycle every 2 years.

The best progressive writing Trek did was when they addressed a social issue by having the actors pretend it wasn’t an issue at all.

Is Jay-Den being gay not exactly that? Nobody cares in universe. But somewhat it is a big thing for a lot of people for no reason at all.

I understand your point, but I think you are having a lesser opinion of new trek because you are missing some of the messages they want to share with the viewer.

In Ko’Zeine the conflict is not between self and tradition, but more about the internal conflict of Darem. The enemy here is his own crippling self-expectation, not society. I think this conflict resonate a lot with modern morality topics such as LGBTQ+ acceptance.

In Vox in Excelso is the same: the fake battle is a compromise. Both the federation and the klingon knows it is a farse. But they go with it anyway as a way to preserve their own self representation in a post burn galaxy. To me Vox in Excelso is political realism. The klingon are not treated as an obstacle to be tricked, but as political partner in a mutual charade. In the episode this is explicitly framed as a klingon solution to a klingon problem.

I am not disagreeing with you, but old trek does this all the time.

In season 5 episode 17 (the one with the J’naii androgynous race) the setup is exacly the same as Ko’Zeine: from the start you get the answer that suppressing your true self is bad. The J’naii are seen as bigoted and the federation position as the right one. I do not think there is any ambiguity about which side the viewer is supposed to take. The only difference is the end result. Or look at how Dr. Crusher treats Klingon ritual suicide in season 5 episode 16: their culture is treated entirely as a stubborn, barbaric hurdle to be overcome by the ‘sensible’ 24th-century human perspective.

And TNG is also full of examples of “the federation knows best”. In Season 7 Episode 13 the federation works around a similar problem with the forced migration on the holodeck. Or Season 2 Episode 18, where the enterprise force the merge of the Bringloidi and the Mariposans. Or when in Season 1 Episode 8 we dismiss Edo society position immediately as immoral despite them living in a paradise society.

Discovery writing is all over the place I agree, but Starfleet Academy writing does not look that bad to me. What is so much worse then previous trek? If we do not cherry pick the best of the past against the worst of the new, writing is better or on the same level of what we saw before.

Can you give me a practical example of Starfleet Academy lacking the kind of nuance you would like to see?

Speed is relative to a frame of reference, so my understanding is that percentages of impulse are about power, not about speed. The 0.25c limit is a safety limit against a fix reference (maybe the center of the galaxy?) to reduce the relativistic effects, and does not require power to maintain. Effectively, with “full impulse” you are asking for the maximum power output until your speed relative to the galaxy center is 0.25c. Given in this example it is said we need to keep at 1/8 impulse because of power constraints I can only assume this is referring to power, not speed. With no reference frame and time component, none of these dialog make sense whatsoever, but we should be used to writer not understanding physics by now 😬

There is no paywall in Bruno, nor login, in the open source version. It is file system based, with no external dependency.

Bruno does not have any of the characteristic in the meme you shared. And still I do not understand what do you mean by modern api client. Every single application using an API is an API client. Do you mean stuff like curl or postman or things like first party SDKs or what?

What do you mean by modern api client? Postman? Try bruno.