TheTechnician27

It's a British invention, not an American one.

Sort of, but not really. Peat accounted for 2.9% of its electricity generation in 2021 (page 14).

Lmao what? The Nazi Party publicly and loudly identified with religion and persecuted and purged the Jews who had been treated awfully by Christians in Europe for centuries. Sure Hitler wanted to see the end of Christianity, but he was quite religious himself per the Goebbels Diaries: "The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed." So privately Hitler was religious, and publicly the Nazis were religious, and one of the most sickening, widespread, and prominent atrocities they committed was the persecution and genocide of a religious minority.

As someone who very much wants to see wind and solar power, it's weird to me how much this article harps on about wind and nothing else. Not mentioned anywhere in the article is that expanding nuclear energy helped Finland considerably in its shift away from coal (page 3) and is its largest source of electricity (page 147), accounting for about 1/3 of its total electricity production (page 147). One of the other largest ways Finland has shifted to renewables in the last 20 years is biomass (page 20, page 82).

Finland has been rushing to add more wind, and that was seen as an important step to helping increase renewables in the energy mix (page 84), but as of 2022, it accounted for an extremely minimal portion of said energy mix (page 82). I would be interested to see how doubling the figure seen on page 87 where wind accounted for ~10% of renewables (not electricity generation in general, just renewables) from 2020 somehow made its share jump to 25% of all electricity production as the OP's article claims. I trust the IEA pretty firmly here.

At the very end of this article which I'm not bothering to read because I've seen nothing but trash (if not outright AI slop) from earth.com in the past, they write:

The study is published in the journal bioRxiv.

bioRxiv is not a journal. It's a preprint server, and calling it a "journal" either means they have an inflexible template to slot this into reading "This study is published in the journal [blah]" or less generously that they genuinely don't know this, which is concerning as fuck.

Here's the actual preprint, but I want to emphasize that preprints like this haven't been peer reviewed. You should really wait until the paper is released in a peer reviewed journal to get the best, most accurate version of it (which earth.com couldn't be bothered to do, instead choosing the sweet, sweet ad revenue knowing 0.01% of their readership would actually read the original).

so you dont have to manually manage memory

Not sure how this got upvoted with this glaring mistake. You have to manage memory. The point is that the compiler catches it if you make a memory management mistake, making things like data races, uses after frees, etc. literally impossible (short of intentionally using the unsafe tag).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4HhLQEc_2o

I used to watch TYT in the early 2010s and typically liked what they did (edit: except for when I later found out Cenk denied the Armenian genocide). What's happened to them?

I don't actually watch wrestling, but I wanted to appeal to a specific audience instead of going for the easy Dateline NBC joke. (Here you go btw)

What OP forgot to add: https://gizmodo.com/new-birth-control-shot-transforms-into-a-long-lasting-implant-no-clinic-required-2000580306

The open-access study to avoid taking Gizmodo's word about anything related to medicine: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44286-025-00194-x

It's also just dumb that imagery taken from a street isn't doing anything privacy-invading or illegal yet they still feel the need to coddle paranoid NIMBYs. Street View can sometimes be useful for OSM, since you might've been there but forgotten to document something, are too far away, etc. Street View as a concept works to the public's benefit, although Google owning it and it being proprietary isn't good. I can see this removal feature being a good thing by probably one out of every thousand times it's actually used, namely in the case that you have some kind of stalker (even then, though, satellite view 99% of the time would give you a concerning amount of info compared to Street View).

That's not a dumb headline at all.

• America's car centrism is so bad that other options often functionally don't exist in a lot of areas, completely disenfranchising those who don't drive. 33% is a staggering amount when you consider how awful micromobility and public transit are in the US.
• "2/3 of Americans do" isn't the entire picture. If we start with "33% of Americans don't drive", logically we know there's an additional chunk hidden in that 66% who wouldn't drive if decent alternatives existed. We can see from countries in Europe and East Asia where those alternatives exist that that's a very sizable chunk of people.
• Treating "drive/don't drive" as a binary also doesn't reveal the whole picture. For instance, there would surely be people who would still drive with decent alternatives but would prefer public transit when they go out drinking, bicycling when they go to the park or to their nearby job, etc. 1/3 of people don't drive at all, but guess what? Most people still walk places in some capacity, and car-centric infrastructure hurts their ability to do that.