I think you’re complaining that google ranks shitty products higher. Use a better search engine, add +opensource to your query?

Logo: Inkscape?

Pdf editing: libreoffice?

Youtube channels. A simple timeline of uploads, only showing chanels I care about.

Make sure everything starts automatically after a reboot, and reboot daily.

There’s no bank clerk that warns them the nigerian prince might not be who he claims to be.

It’s harder to do a panic transfer when someone claims their grandchildren are in urgent need for money.

Older people get scammed more often, so I kinda get your grandparent’s reasoning.

DVD player and a library card

there’s no such rule

Why can’t it be both?

It’s not an unpopular opinion?

Syngas, a mixture of CO and H2

It’s university press department stuff. That’s always shitty pop-science communication.

Then again, it works, as people post that to fora, instead of the actual research. And popularity, not quality, of work brings grants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetogen is a more promising technology in my opinion. It also does not require high pressures or temperatures, has been proven to scale to tons of co2, and uses much less energy than this paper.

This paper has the advantage of not needing a high concentration of co2 in the air. But on the other hand, such sources are readily available as a by-product of industry.

In the context of this tweet most important differences are:

SQL is a language for querying databases.

Most common used databases are relational databases. With relational databases you can setup, well, relations and constraints.

Imagine you have 2 tables (2 excel sheets) one with people, and one with home ownership. You can set the following constraint: (1) each person shows up only once in the people table. And the following relation: (2) every home owner must refer to an existing person in people table.

When modifying the table contents, the system checks if no constraints or relations are violated.

Excel, just like a badly designed relational databse, would, for example, have no problem with duplicate people, or home ownership referring to non-existant people.

Or mongoDB 🙄

Probably something bespoke/legacy.

Depends on your personal connections.

Aand, it’s gone.

the EU would contribute €50 billion with the rest pledged by “providers, investors and industry.”

make our own production more competitive and enable better salaries overall.

That’s the topic of this post: due to it’s central steering EU became technologically (and in a few decades economically) irrelevant. It doesn’t know how to make 21st century things. Tarrifs don’t help with that problem, au contraire. Nor does a national social security system. The latter does make sure that everyone’s quality of life degrades about equally fast.

That I know, I live in Belgium.

I wonder what successful capitalisation of that would look like?

That’s something EU countries are better at than the US and on which it should capitalise

What does that look like?

That, I think, is a symptom not a cause.

The cause is societal: the EU thinks that innovation should come top down. By giving established corporations subsidies, and a large administration that steers everyone every step of the way. To make sure nobody does anything out of the ordinary.

That works if you want to improve car crash safety by 5%. But, ofcourse, that doesn’t work for true, novel ideas. Concensus being antagonistic to novelty.

And it’s not solely a “bad politicians” problem. A majority of Europeans are simply afraid of change, want their 9-to-5 job to look exactly the same for their whole life. The elected reflect their electorate.

Too bad the world changes regardless of you participating.