Extinguishing any fire with water is like saving the environment with nuclear energy. It might work, but if the fire turns out to be a metal or grease fire, you have a problem just like when the final waste repositories later turn out to be unsuitable.
> How did Germany evolve to be so anti-nuclear? Given the alternatives nuclear seems the way to go.
Nuclear power is currently by far the most expensive way to generate electricity. And this despite the fact that the insurance sum for the power plants is capped and the remaining risk is assumed by the state and the money that was invested for final waste storage will predictably not be sufficient either. Our early attempts for final storage since the 60s have failed and since 2013 we have been planning how to recover hundreds of thousands of barrels from a salt mine from which radioactively contaminated brine is leaking. And we have yet to find a suitable repository where long-term safety can be guaranteed.
We did that indeed for decades and then it turned out that the site was unsuitable, because of water inflows, and now we have been planning since 2013 how to recover the barrels again. The beginning of the recovery is planned to start in 2033 and is estimated to last for decades.
It's not true that Germany has no seismic activity btw.
We tried to bury the waste deep underground in the 60s and 70s already. Let's say it didn't work out so well and now we are still planning how to retrieve it since the decision was made in 2013.
We have not yet found a geologically suitable site in Germany. In contrast to the less disturbed granites of Finland and Sweden, the formations occurring in Germany are more fractured and thus less suitable. Currently, several salt and clay blocks are being investigated for their suitability as repositories, but they have other problems. (Water solubility for salt and lower stability for clay).
"According to the report of the Repository Commission, the final disposal of highly radioactive waste in Germany will drag on well into the 22nd century. The commission expects the end of emplacement to occur between the years 2075 and 2130, while the "state of a sealed repository mine should be reached between 2095 and 2170 or later." Accordingly, highly radioactive waste could be housed in interim storage facilities until after 2100. At the same time, final storage costs are projected to range from about 49 billion to 170 billion euros; significantly more than the 23 billion euros in payments transferred by nuclear power plant operators to the government for this purpose on July 3, 2017."
You find "interesting" that someone just wants to report a security vulnerability without having to accept any conditions first?
Funny, I find it interesting that they want to pay a bugbounty even though nobody asked for it. But I guess paying hush money is just cheaper than having to seriously fix the issue.
If they had taken the risks and incurred the costs of development themselves, of course. But they were massively subsidized. In that case, the state should either get a share of the profits or negotiate fair prices that exclude all too huge profits.
The market is not normal because countries have invested massive sums of money into these companies without acquiring shares in return, so I just hope they have negotiated other terms to get the vaccines at fair prices.
Mainly sugar causes a secretion of insulin, as you seem to know. But you seem to assume that insulin or frequent high insulin levels cause insulin resistance. As far as I know, that's not the case. Insulin sensitivity can be affected by many different factors and it's not perfectly understood why cells become insulin resistant. Known risk factors that can lead to insulin resistance include obesity, genetic factors and inflammation.
Regarding sugar vs. fat: large amounts of saturated fats are known to be unhealthy. In small amounts, sugar can even be healthy, e.g. after exercise.
One problem with taxes on addictive substances is that they have little effect on consumption behavior. A higher tobacco tax makes smokers poorer, but only very few will smoke less as a result.
The costs of the pandemic are one side. The other is the cost of developing and producing the vaccines. In a normal market situation, prices are determined by supply and demand. But that's really not such a situation here. The question from the government's point of view has to be whether you could have had the vaccine cheaper. After all, large sums of money have already been invested by the states for research and development. The question is what the contracts and conditions were for these investments. But if the manufacturers had hardly any costs and risks during development and are now allowed to hold the rights to the patents and make large profits with the vaccines, then in my opinion something has gone wrong. However, I don't know if that is actually the case here.
With sugar I could at most harm myself, not others. A tax on sugar but not on fat would be discrimination of one diet form or even lifestyle over another. I can offset a lot of sugar with a lot of sport myself.
Interestingly, the whole thing now seems to have turned into the opposite. sugar = bad, fat = good. But that is not true. Sugar is actually only problematic because it's a bit addictive and it's easy to eat a lot of it. The real problem is taking in too many calories (in whatever form) and/or burning too few.
This is a common misconception. Insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes is mostly caused by obesity.
Sugar has a relatively high caloric density and can be addictive, leading to obesity. However, you can eat large amounts of sugar if you do a lot of sport, for example, and then burn off the calories again. Then you don't get diabetes from it either.
It is actually my best example, as it shows very clearly how much he is willing to say untrue things in favor of Tesla. Why should only mechanical engineering examples be valid?
> I've seen him say quite negative things about Tesla, and quite positive things about Tesla's competitors.
What I've seen from him, he always shows a clear bias towards Tesla.
> Can you give me an example of something Sandy Munro has said which IS NOT something good about a Tesla product, where he has clearly sacrificed engineering concerns?
When I say he's a Tesla shill, it's specifically because of the positive things he says about Tesla.
For example, here [1] he claims that the FSD Beta is currently at level 4 and "full self-driving" is just around the corner. Do you agree with that?
Sandy Munro, by now, is a Tesla shill who can't be taken seriously. Andrej works at Tesla and understandably says nothing bad about his boss.
If I thought my boss was technically clueless and needed to say something nice about him, I would probably phrase it the same way:
"He's obviously a pretty incredible person in many ways. I'm still trying to really map out his superpowers. He has incredibly well developed intuition in many aspects where he makes the right judgement calls in what I perceive to be a lack of information. Because he's not in detail about all the things but his judgement is extremely good. I still haven't fully understood how that happens."