Oh, I totally agree – didn’t mean to give any impression otherwise. Filling the energy demand gap as quickly as possible with the least impactful generation source should be very high on societal goals, IMO. And it seems like that is what’s happening, mostly. Solar, wind, and storage are the largest share of what’s being brought up this year:
As I understand it, planning new, grid-scale nuclear power plants takes 10-20 years. While this isn’t a reason not to start that process now, it does mean something needs to fill the demand gap until the nuke plants (and other clean sources) come online to displace the dirty generation, or demand has to be artificially held down, through usage regulation or techniques like rolling blackouts, all of which I would imagine is pretty unpalatable.
Second. John Barnett was the first in early March.
Misread, but I’m leaving it!
“May you live in interesting times.”
Apple locks old devices out of updates
Dropping support for older platforms happens for a number of reasons, including hardware-level security problems and lack of interest for ongoing maintenance. Linux distributions even drop support for older hardware. Even the Linux kernel itself has dropped support. A decision to not keep supporting a piece of hardware is not the same as preventing updates.
The thing to focus on isn’t that Apple halts maintaining its own OSes on older hardware. Rather, we should press hardware makers and regulators on the boot loader locks and other obstacles that prevent end users from installing alternate OSes, especially once hardware makers end OS support for hardware. E.g., older iPads that can’t run modern iPadOS but could easily run a lightweight Linux distribution. This applies to more than just Apple, like some Android devices. “Internet of Things” devices are similarly affected – Belkin halted support for a generation of Wemo smart plugs when a vulnerability came out – they told consumers to buy new Wemos and provided no alternate path for the older, still functional plugs.
It’s exactly this. The policies put in place by “healthcare administrators” (MBAs and such with healthcare flavoring, not people that actually know how to care for people’s health like doctors and nurses) are designed to process the most patience in the least amount of face time possible, so that each doctor and nurse can see more patients per day, meaning more office visit fees, meaning higher profit. My dad calls it the “cattle shoot” and I feel that’s a pretty apt analogy. It’s the same general reason that fast food restaurants and pharmacies and department stores are perpetually understaffed: fewer staff members means lower “overhead” costs.