Yes, and it is exactly what we are discussing: UN countries could vote to impose economic embargoes to Israel, but the US would veto it. That is exactly why the UN does not have power. The UN had power to embargo Iraq in 1990.
The UNSC can impose embargos, arms bans, travel restrictions, assets freeze. Can authorize military actions and deploy peacekeeping military divisions.
The ICJ, the ICC, the IAEA, the ICAO, the IMO, works under the UN.
Most international treaties are under the UN. All the maritime border and nuclear proliferation agreements.
There is lot of stuff the UN does and can do apart from being a forum.
Like is doing nothing for Russia invasion of Ukraine. Both Russia and US have veto power. This makes the UN useless. Same issue with all organizations that allow vetos. The same issue why the EU is so toothless in foreign affairs.
But a UN would not exist without veto ruling. The only way for the UN to work is for powerful countries around the world not to commit war crimes.
You say lot of things that are correct and some that are not:
nuclear is not good at following fast changes in demand (battery are the best technology for that) but are very good at following the grid load. Nuclear fleet in France can cycle down to 30% daily. And they do that when needed.
nuclear is safe in the same way that airplanes are safe: very few incidents with lot of consequences, but still very few incidents. Nuclear is one of the safest form of energy, and new design are even safer then the already safe old designs that are currently running. Given the current alternative to nuclear with similar characteristics (dispatchable steam turbine with cheap fuel) is coal, which is responsible for millions of dead, we need to keep nuclear efficient and competitive to save lives.
renewables, batteries and nuclear are complementary technologies that works well together. In places with lot of wind and hydropower the need for nuclear is vastly reduced. Not all places can enjoy the same conditions, and nuclear saves lives
the reason why we do not put the necessary effort in finding a solution for nuclear waste is that nuclear waste is very little, so, as all human do, we procrastinate as this is not really a problem.
We need to invest in renewable technologies, batteries technology, and nuclear technology. We want all of them to succeed in decarbonizing the grid, as those technologies insists on different industrial bottlenecks on their deployment. China knows this, and is building nuclear reactors at rate never seen before, while doing the same for solar, wind and batteries. Renewable will be the bulk of energy production because they are cheap. Nuclear role is not the same as renewable. Nuclear is to provide dependable baseload when wind and solar do not produce enough. Nuclear, renewable and batteries together are cheaper and faster to deploy then any other combination, so it is good to continue investing in all of them.
Nuclear is certainly ready for climate change ahead. Nuclear is one of the tool to use to solve climate change. There is no doubt from the technical prospective. 1970 nuclear is still a tool, given they continue to extend the usable lifespan of the plan. This is not a technology problem: Palo Verde nuclear power plant works in the desert, by evaporating sewage water. This is not a problem at all for power plants near the sea.
I will be explicit: we should use nuclear to fight climate change, we should not destroy local environment to cheap out on building more carbon free power generation.
Nuclear produce tons on stable carbon free electricity. This stabilize electrical grid. Without it, we have to use something else to compensate renewable instability. Hydropower (if you are lucky), batteries (still expensive but becoming more and more viable) or fossil fuel plants.
The opposite is also true. And it is part of the equation: you send cheap drones to force the use of expensive air defense. It is a war of economic attrition.
We are talking 1970. Scientists lacked the numerical models and the computing capacity to make these predictions. To accuse civilian engineers to not take into consideration recent hot topics of environmental science that lacked, at the time, rigorous models is disingenuous.
The design lifespan for those reactors was 40 years. We are extending those past lifetime because it is cheaper to do even if we need to shut them down more and more often.
The infrastructure have not adapted because it is cheaper to build a new power plant or to shutdown existing one occasionally then to adapt old existing design.
TikTok is Chinese -> true
China is under an authoritarian regime-> true
Freedom of expression is constitutionally guaranteed in Poland -> true
Is the bias in the implication that authoritarian regimes may exploit freedom of expression to promote propaganda? I think is safe to assume this is also true. Not exclusive to authoritarian regimes, but true nonetheless for authoritarian regimes.
It is not twisting it. It is exactly like that. The problem is not the water level. The nuclear power plant can work in these condition. The hot water discharge would raise the temperature too much on top of existing higher temperatures in the river for the flora and fauna to survive. We are doing this to protect nature. There is no twisting here.
Uuuuh, dozens?! I am so scared by this blatant misuse of the New York City Hall employees! They should buy bots from Chinese bot farms like everyone else!
But more importantly, why does World Zionist has access to the IPs of X users and the IPs of New York City Hall?
In Italy helicopter ride is free if you need to go to the hospital after the fact, and around 1000$-2000$ if there is no medical justification for the call. In the US you risk financial ruin with medical justification.
My answer was about the colloquial use of the term. When you discuss “Europe” you do it usually trough a political lens, not a geographical one.
I personally think that Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are culturally European countries. The common path in history is hard to ignore. The alignment in music, literature and philosophy is undeniable.
But there is a political rift, and that is greater for Belarus and Russia as they are dictatorships in a continent full of democratic entities and institutions. Belarus is for all intents and purposes a puppet state to Russia.
I am just stating the fact that most of the time someone talk about European challenges, opportunities, positions, they are not including Russia and Belarus.
Ukraine recent alignment with European geopolitical interests is born out of necessity and opposition to Russia, not because of a cultural shift. That is the reason I say it is a gray area.
The problem with EU is the fragile veto system while the nation inside the EU are still very different from each other’s. Ukraine has demonstrated resilience, capacity to adapt, ingenuity and commitment to improve. For me that alone puts them well above other current members of the EU. Ukraine is a big country, with enormous potential. I think lot of politicians in the EU are just worried about the consequences of joining the EU as it will have a huge impact on the continent.
When people talk about Europe they often mean EU + UK + Switzerland + Norway.
When politicians says: “Europe must invest more on defence” or “Europe is stagnating” they are referring to the Western part of Europe, that is (was) aligned with NATO and the United States.
When someone says their are visiting Europe, they mean London, Paris, Rome, Prague, or other major cities in the countries above. Never Minsk or Moscow.
Russia, Belarus, Ukraine are not usually included in the colloquial use of “Europe”.
If someone ask me: “Is Russia in Europe?” I would say yes, no doubt about it. But if someone says “Europe needs to take seriously illegal immigration” then I am not including Russia for sure.
Ukraine sit in the middle, given the greater political alignment of recent years. More or less we see the same shift that happened with Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.
But Russia and Belarus are rarely considered European in normal conversation because the are perceived as politically isolated enemies of Europe.
At the same time, Turkey, while being partially in Europe, is not counted as European most of the time.
I hope it is ironic. Russia attached civilian infrastructure continuously since the start of the war: power plants, heating plants, gas networks, dams and water infrastructure, hospitals, ports, food silos, civilian apartments, shopping mall.
They attach nearly anything civilian they could find, even the churches!
Looks like it is the norm in modern warfare to inflict maximum economic damage by targeting civilian facilities. It is hard to ask Ukraine not to do it when Russia has done it Ukraine (the victim of Russia invasion) since 2022.
But is not just Russia and Ukraine that attack civilian infrastructures. The US is doing it, Israel is doing it, Iran is doing it, Saudi have done it, Syria has done it.
Swatch Scuba 200, user replaceable battery, up to 200m.
Before the “yes but apple is smarter/bigger battery” whatever excuses you find, this is a solved design problem. You use gaskets instead of glue. Glue is just cheaper.
I think that a user serviceable smart watch is a good idea. I want the freedom to service my devices. If a user does not feel comfortable in changing the battery they can go to the Apple Store. A user that chooses third party replacement parts has the same risk of a user buying a “third party” smartwatch. I have just replaced the battery of my Sony headphone. It was trivially easy and saved a good headphone from the junkyard. I see no reason why reducing the freedom of the consumer should be a good thing. Serviceable devices should be always the default position. It was the default in the past.
Yes, and it is exactly what we are discussing: UN countries could vote to impose economic embargoes to Israel, but the US would veto it. That is exactly why the UN does not have power. The UN had power to embargo Iraq in 1990.
What? The UN does not have tools to do stuff?
The UNSC can impose embargos, arms bans, travel restrictions, assets freeze. Can authorize military actions and deploy peacekeeping military divisions.
The ICJ, the ICC, the IAEA, the ICAO, the IMO, works under the UN.
Most international treaties are under the UN. All the maritime border and nuclear proliferation agreements.
There is lot of stuff the UN does and can do apart from being a forum.
Like is doing nothing for Russia invasion of Ukraine. Both Russia and US have veto power. This makes the UN useless. Same issue with all organizations that allow vetos. The same issue why the EU is so toothless in foreign affairs.
But a UN would not exist without veto ruling. The only way for the UN to work is for powerful countries around the world not to commit war crimes.
You say lot of things that are correct and some that are not:
We need to invest in renewable technologies, batteries technology, and nuclear technology. We want all of them to succeed in decarbonizing the grid, as those technologies insists on different industrial bottlenecks on their deployment. China knows this, and is building nuclear reactors at rate never seen before, while doing the same for solar, wind and batteries. Renewable will be the bulk of energy production because they are cheap. Nuclear role is not the same as renewable. Nuclear is to provide dependable baseload when wind and solar do not produce enough. Nuclear, renewable and batteries together are cheaper and faster to deploy then any other combination, so it is good to continue investing in all of them.
Nuclear is certainly ready for climate change ahead. Nuclear is one of the tool to use to solve climate change. There is no doubt from the technical prospective. 1970 nuclear is still a tool, given they continue to extend the usable lifespan of the plan. This is not a technology problem: Palo Verde nuclear power plant works in the desert, by evaporating sewage water. This is not a problem at all for power plants near the sea.
I will be explicit: we should use nuclear to fight climate change, we should not destroy local environment to cheap out on building more carbon free power generation.
Nuclear produce tons on stable carbon free electricity. This stabilize electrical grid. Without it, we have to use something else to compensate renewable instability. Hydropower (if you are lucky), batteries (still expensive but becoming more and more viable) or fossil fuel plants.
The opposite is also true. And it is part of the equation: you send cheap drones to force the use of expensive air defense. It is a war of economic attrition.
We are talking 1970. Scientists lacked the numerical models and the computing capacity to make these predictions. To accuse civilian engineers to not take into consideration recent hot topics of environmental science that lacked, at the time, rigorous models is disingenuous.
The design lifespan for those reactors was 40 years. We are extending those past lifetime because it is cheaper to do even if we need to shut them down more and more often.
The infrastructure have not adapted because it is cheaper to build a new power plant or to shutdown existing one occasionally then to adapt old existing design.
I do not understand what is your point here.
Of that I agree. This is also a problem on western platforms like X for sure.
What is bias in that sentence?
TikTok is Chinese -> true China is under an authoritarian regime-> true Freedom of expression is constitutionally guaranteed in Poland -> true
Is the bias in the implication that authoritarian regimes may exploit freedom of expression to promote propaganda? I think is safe to assume this is also true. Not exclusive to authoritarian regimes, but true nonetheless for authoritarian regimes.
It is not twisting it. It is exactly like that. The problem is not the water level. The nuclear power plant can work in these condition. The hot water discharge would raise the temperature too much on top of existing higher temperatures in the river for the flora and fauna to survive. We are doing this to protect nature. There is no twisting here.
Uuuuh, dozens?! I am so scared by this blatant misuse of the New York City Hall employees! They should buy bots from Chinese bot farms like everyone else!
But more importantly, why does World Zionist has access to the IPs of X users and the IPs of New York City Hall?
People of Salzburg and burning Jews?
In Italy helicopter ride is free if you need to go to the hospital after the fact, and around 1000$-2000$ if there is no medical justification for the call. In the US you risk financial ruin with medical justification.
My answer was about the colloquial use of the term. When you discuss “Europe” you do it usually trough a political lens, not a geographical one.
I personally think that Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are culturally European countries. The common path in history is hard to ignore. The alignment in music, literature and philosophy is undeniable.
But there is a political rift, and that is greater for Belarus and Russia as they are dictatorships in a continent full of democratic entities and institutions. Belarus is for all intents and purposes a puppet state to Russia.
I am just stating the fact that most of the time someone talk about European challenges, opportunities, positions, they are not including Russia and Belarus.
Ukraine recent alignment with European geopolitical interests is born out of necessity and opposition to Russia, not because of a cultural shift. That is the reason I say it is a gray area.
The problem with EU is the fragile veto system while the nation inside the EU are still very different from each other’s. Ukraine has demonstrated resilience, capacity to adapt, ingenuity and commitment to improve. For me that alone puts them well above other current members of the EU. Ukraine is a big country, with enormous potential. I think lot of politicians in the EU are just worried about the consequences of joining the EU as it will have a huge impact on the continent.
Russia, at least the European core, is culturally European. Politically it is not European. And I guess that distinction is very relevant.
The Cold War removed Russia from Europe.
When people talk about Europe they often mean EU + UK + Switzerland + Norway.
When politicians says: “Europe must invest more on defence” or “Europe is stagnating” they are referring to the Western part of Europe, that is (was) aligned with NATO and the United States.
When someone says their are visiting Europe, they mean London, Paris, Rome, Prague, or other major cities in the countries above. Never Minsk or Moscow.
Russia, Belarus, Ukraine are not usually included in the colloquial use of “Europe”.
If someone ask me: “Is Russia in Europe?” I would say yes, no doubt about it. But if someone says “Europe needs to take seriously illegal immigration” then I am not including Russia for sure.
Ukraine sit in the middle, given the greater political alignment of recent years. More or less we see the same shift that happened with Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.
But Russia and Belarus are rarely considered European in normal conversation because the are perceived as politically isolated enemies of Europe.
At the same time, Turkey, while being partially in Europe, is not counted as European most of the time.
I hope it is ironic. Russia attached civilian infrastructure continuously since the start of the war: power plants, heating plants, gas networks, dams and water infrastructure, hospitals, ports, food silos, civilian apartments, shopping mall.
They attach nearly anything civilian they could find, even the churches!
Looks like it is the norm in modern warfare to inflict maximum economic damage by targeting civilian facilities. It is hard to ask Ukraine not to do it when Russia has done it Ukraine (the victim of Russia invasion) since 2022.
But is not just Russia and Ukraine that attack civilian infrastructures. The US is doing it, Israel is doing it, Iran is doing it, Saudi have done it, Syria has done it.
Swatch Scuba 200, user replaceable battery, up to 200m.
Before the “yes but apple is smarter/bigger battery” whatever excuses you find, this is a solved design problem. You use gaskets instead of glue. Glue is just cheaper.
I think that a user serviceable smart watch is a good idea. I want the freedom to service my devices. If a user does not feel comfortable in changing the battery they can go to the Apple Store. A user that chooses third party replacement parts has the same risk of a user buying a “third party” smartwatch. I have just replaced the battery of my Sony headphone. It was trivially easy and saved a good headphone from the junkyard. I see no reason why reducing the freedom of the consumer should be a good thing. Serviceable devices should be always the default position. It was the default in the past.