Like I've said to someone else, the contrarian part isn't the issue. While I disagree with the race to the bottom, it reads like a Reddit shitpost, which was frowned upon once upon a time. But strawman me if you must.
I understand the criticism: LLMs, on their own, are not going to be able to do anything more. Release in this sense only means this: to fully embrace the means necessary to allow technology to overcome the current conditions of possibility that it is bound under, and LLMs, "AI" or whatever you call it, merely gives us the afterimage of this potentiality. But they are not, in themselves, that potential: the future is required. But its a future that must be created, otherwise we won't have one.
That's, at least, what the other commenters were saying. You ignore the content for the form! Or, as they say, you missed the forest for the trees. I can't stop you from being angry because I used the word "pussy," or even because I addressed the users of HN as directly complicit. I can, however, point out the mediocrity inherent to such a discourse. It is precisely the same mediocrity, the drive towards "politeness," that makes ChatGPT so insufferable, and makes the rest of us so angry. But, go ahead, whine some more. I don't care, you can do what you want.
I disagree with one point, however: it is not a race to the bottom. We're trying to go below it.
I am aware and have a rate limit rule for the AI bot category configured in Cloudflare which defaults to returning a 429.
But I was mostly being sarcastic. No other bots are this aggressive. I see tens of thousands of hits per day from other bots, Amazon, Apple, etc. OpenAI is the only one generating hundreds of thousands of hits per day to a small niche website. Rate limiting the AI bot category ends up impacting the better behaving bots also.
For comparison it takes Google about 45 days to make the same number of requests that OpenAI makes per day.
Author stats also doesn't include projection for 2024, where France exported a record amount of energy, and nuclear recovered from the maintenance schedules issues due to covid. The currently amount produced is already greater than 2022.
Germany also imported 9TWh this year because of the weather. Germany energy grid profit of the stability of it's neighbor.
I keep seeing people saying that kind of things, and at the same time, seeing _professional_ in the sector all agreeing that the way France managed their infrastructure was terrible.
It does not mean a nuclear pathway is not good. But it really makes you look very uneducated on the subject and very biased when you need to twist the reality that way.
Thanks you for this ad homimem attack.
Adding additional information the author didn't mentioned looks very uneducated, thanks you for this observation.
"Ad nominem" is saying "this argument is wrong because this person is bad". Here, what I'm saying is that the arguments are wrong because they are simplistic, looks unbalanced and don't correspond to what people who work on the subject have observed.
I've brought new information: in the professional sector, including pro-nuclear actors, France situation is presented as "the example to not follow", and the reasons are way more diverse and unbiased than "it's because of the bad anti-nuclear". You can check if it's the case if you don't trust me.
It's a bit like if someone says "python is never used to do ML stuff", and I answer "but I see plenty of people using it, it looks like it's not really an educated argument: the person seems to not know the community who do ML stuffs". Is that an ad nominem? If yes, does it mean that the first person argument cannot be criticized?
I made some claims, that invalidate the data the author is using to make claims, some were sourced, the others can be easily verified and are well known.
You come and spew out anectodal evidence, which you fail to notice that can be heavily biased, and present it as "the professional sector", and reduce what I said to "the bad anti nuclear".
Then you try to parallel with an example, like this was our scenario.
At least, bring some source when you say someone doesn't know anything.
> I made some claims, that invalidate the data the author is using to make claims, some were sourced, the others can be easily verified and are well known.
And what I'm saying is that, as usual, pro-nuclear people like you (there are intelligent pro-nuclear people that are way less unbiased) will explain the situation by cherry picking explanation that fit their ideology rather than also accepting the elements that don't.
You had the opportunity to say "it's of course not just due to that but ...", but you did not, you really cherry pick as if the French situation is due to sabotage while it is in great part due to plenty of other factors, include intrinsic to the difficulty of nuclear.
And, sorry, I cannot really bring source so easily, because I work in the sector, and when I keep hearing someone casually saying "well, France difficulties is due to ... and ...", I don't make a note thinking "I need to keep the source for Kuinox in 3 years from now". I think it's a good proof that you are not working in the sector: the sector does not play the ridiculous "renewable vs nuclear" game, it knows it's way more complicated than that in consequence does not pretend one is better than the other. It's just not how it works.
As usual, fake news and cherry picking takes few minutes for you to generate, and if I want to source that it's crap, I will have to spend hours and hours digging up in my conference notes from years and years in the past. And for what? You have absolutely no idea of the reality and you will just say "na, you are bad, you lie, I don't believe you". You are clearly not worth the effort.
If you are honest and want to make sure you don't spread misleading info, the ball is in your corner, you can have a deeper look to check if what I brought to the table is bringing useful nuance (it does). But I doubt you will, you will just reject the idea that maybe you, the armchair militant who only read things that goes in the convenient direction, maybe does not understand the complex situation so perfectly.
Let's be clear: I'm not saying that your claims are fundamentally incorrect (even if sometimes they are a bit bullshit, like the German sabotage where the report is not able to give anything concrete, just that French people who think nuclear is not a good idea are unsurprisingly friends with people who think nuclear is not a good idea in other countries, and that political groups that think they have understood the situation well will fund reports, like it happens all the time including with pro-nuclear reports). My problem with your intervention is that your claims are not representative of the situation.
You criticize the sentence "France has lost more annual kWh from nuclear than Germany since 2011", which is sourced and is true (even when accounting projection for 2024), by bringing several correct elements. But you are doing the same error as the sentence you criticize: you bring cherry-picked arguments.
The point I've brought up is that your view of the situation is not the same as the view of the situation in the sector, that your view is just ... caricatural.
For example, how would like react if someone says that the failure of the Energiewende is due to France funding pro-nuclear in Germany and sabotaging the program? I would personally say that it is biased: even if we entertain the idea for the sake of argument, in itself it's way not enough to make the Energiewende fails.
For the French situation, typical reasons given for recent difficulties with the nuclear park are: the mess the government made with EDF privatization, the loss of technical expertise, the short-term vision where the electricity was sold too cheap and did not create budget for infrastructure maintenance/renewal, the fact that now we are going toward a flexible grid (something that was not expected even 50 years ago) and that the initial strategy was not accounting for that at all, the fact that the public/politic opinion is stupidly about "nuclear vs renewable" instead of using the best in specific situations, the learning in the nuclear sector that things are intrinsically complicated which burst the investment enthusiasm, ...
You will notice that these reasons are not "anti-nuclear": some of them implies that the French situation is not due intrinsically to nuclear, but due to the specific French situation.
The problem is that you don't mention any of them. You just mention reasons that are supporting the fact that somehow French nuclear is in fact great or in fact the victim of bad anti-nuclear. Some of these reasons are really anecdotal and never appear when professional discuss the subject. So, yes, it looks very biased, and you sounds like a living proof of what the initial article (I'm not always agreeing with it on all the points, btw) is talking about.
> The Heinrich Böll Foundation has had a physical presence in France since 2016. Based
at 80 quai de Jemmapes in the 10th arrondissement - the same address as the Sherpa
association92 - the Paris branch conducts influence operations against French nuclear power
in several fields: public, media and political. The aim of its presence in these fields is to create
an unfavorable environment for the deployment of nuclear power in France, with the
support of other anti-nuclear relays.
Initially, this presence has manifested itself in the recurrent production of content between
2018 and 2021. Publications included: [...]
And the publications are targeted to the french audience.
It looks like you only read the document superficially.
> You criticize the sentence "France has lost more annual kWh from nuclear than Germany since 2011", which is sourced and is true (even when accounting projection for 2024), by bringing several correct elements. But you are doing the same error as the sentence you criticize: you bring cherry-picked arguments.
Something having multiple causes and pointing them is not "cherry picking".
I gave 3 differents reasons why france lost more annual kWh than germany in their graph, it isn't because you dislike the information that it is cherrypicking, in order to provide it, provide more context that contredict so said "cherry picking".
As I said, there are at least 3 reasons:
- aftermath of the covid, that is now completly recovered only as this year.
- sabotage of our industry, I did not say the direct consequence, but it's closing perfectly working plants because if it.
> (even when accounting projection for 2024)
You again mentioned information without sourced it (well, you sourced none of it since the beginning), please show a projection, this is available public data.
> For example, [...]
You are again making up an exemple that is far from our current discussion to depict what I say as insane.
> nuclear is in fact great or in fact the victim of bad anti-nuclear
Are you saying that the loss of technical expertise isn't tied at all to the anti-nuclear movement ?
> The problem is that you don't mention any of them.
Are you accusing me of not depicting the full picture of the french energy industry when calling out that the author article is very biased ?
The example you copy is not really anything concrete. Yes, the Heinrich Böll Foundation exists, has physical presence is several country, as an association with a political party and has an opinion on some policies.
That is not at all unusual, and you have similar foundation, sometimes anti-, sometimes pro-nuclear, everywhere. Just put yourself in their shoes: if you were in France and convinced that the nuclear pathway was good for mankind and that some people in Germany were interested to publish results that is consistent with what you think, why would you not collaborate with them?
But what this report does not do is to provide anything concrete. There is absolutely not proof that any of this had any impact whatsoever. There is no proof that it is a inference attempt and not just some people wanting to share their ideas in a given subject. There is no proof is was with the explicit goal of misinforming people (you realize that if these article published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation are scientifically correct, then it is a GOOD THING they have been published in France, right?). There is also no discussion about pro-nuclear publications supported by other foundations and how they could have impacted the French policy.
At the same time as these publications, France government was very pro-nuclear, which is rather a proof that inference from Germany had few to no impact.
> it isn't because you dislike the information that it is cherrypicking
Of course not, and I don't "dislike" these information. I'm just saying that those are pretty low ranking when normal people discuss what's happening in France and that if you were neutral, it's very strange to randomly point to 3 different reasons that are all pretty uninfluencal on the situation while conveniently "forgetting" the other reasons. And I say it again: these other reasons are not particularly anti-nuclear, but they are just not framing the situation as "in fact everything is perfect" or "in fact it's all the fault of the anti-nuclear". They are showing that it is more complex and maybe less about "renewable vs nuclear" like you try to frame the discussion.
> You again mentioned information without sourced it
Uh? YOU were saying that the projection of 2024 is missing. So, I've assumed you had source for it, so I did not need to provide a source. That's really crazy: you seem to use "source" as a random free-of-jail card to reject things that are not convenient for you.
Normal intellectually honest interlocutors don't need to scream "source" each time the other interlocutor does not bring a source, only if it's not easy for them to find the source and therefore suspect the interlocutor got confused in their conclusions.
As you can see, the French curve is the same in the article than in the svg (you have to subtract the blue area). And as you can see, projection for 2024 are again dropping w.r.t to 2023. So, yes, the conclusion from the article is still correct.
So now, your turn: what are your sources to say that the sentence will not be true if the projection for 2024 are included?
> You are again making up an exemple that is far from our current discussion to depict what I say as insane.
You know what an analogy is, right?
> Are you saying that the loss of technical expertise isn't tied at all to the anti-nuclear movement ?
What? No its not. It's due to budget and short-term vision. At the same time, France was maintaining its expertise in plenty of other sectors that may or may not be popular, in military engineering, in spyware, in chemistry, ... The politicians in France have majoritarly supported the idea of a french nuclear sector until the 2000's, which is well after the expertise started to erode.
(some nice summary of the reasons: https://www.ft.com/content/d23b14ae-2c4e-458c-af8a-22692119f... I'm sure you can cherry-pick stuff, but they explain that the drop of expertise was because of a global drop on industrial jobs for an increase of service jobs and was not at all limited to nuclear. It also affected the automotive industry, for example)
> Are you accusing me of not depicting the full picture of the french energy industry when calling out that the author article is very biased ?
I am saying that you are more biased than the author article. The author article is not perfect, but I see more effort on their side to depict a fair and realistic situation (starting the article with "Nuclear energy has been great", with several sentence pro-nuclear in their article) than from you.
> But what this report does not do is to provide anything concrete.
It is, this foundation is writing publications in France target to french citizen with germany money.
The Ecole de Guerre Economique argue theses funding are targeted.
> There is absolutely not proof that any of this had any impact whatsoever.
Proving that a political campaign had an effect is impossible, especially if the one running the campaign don't want to know they are doing it on purpose.
> At the same time as these publications, France government was very pro-nuclear, which is rather a proof that inference from Germany had few to no impact.
This statements right there shows:
- you don't know how propaganda works
- you don't know the political context of what i'm talking about: the french governement at this time was not pro-nuclear, they kept the line of the previous governement and followed the 50% nuclear target. The current governement adopted a pro-nuclear stance since around the energy crisis.
- You are critizing someone telling them they are out of breadth and the first thing you do is critizing the report of one of the best school in competitive intelligence.
> are all pretty uninfluencal on the situation while conveniently "forgetting" the other reasons
I think you are completely unaware of how the politics works and how they affect the real world.
I pointed politicals problems, which cause problems you point as "typical reasons given for recent difficulties".
> (some nice summary of the reasons: https://www.ft.com/content/d23b14ae-2c4e-458c-af8a-22692119f... I'm sure you can cherry-pick stuff, but they explain that the drop of expertise was because of a global drop on industrial jobs for an increase of service jobs and was not at all limited to nuclear. It also affected the automotive industry, for example)
The Financial Time is highly biased, your article is also behind a paywall, the main reason for the loss of expertise is because of the lack of investment in nuclear in the past.
This is what says the EDF CEO here in front of the french deputies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d91h-2fT2w8
> You know what an analogy is, right?
Yes, and your usage of it is manipulative. An analogy is used to illustrate, you are using it to depicting your interlocutor as an idiot.
> Normal intellectually honest interlocutors don't need to scream "source" each time the other interlocutor does not bring a source,
Normal intellectually honest interlocutors don't start a conversation by saying their interlocutor is very "uneducated". Then follows with a graph that finish in 2019 as a source for a projection for 2024.
> And as you can see, projection for 2024 are again dropping w.r.t to 2023. So, yes, the conclusion from the article is still correct.
There is no data past 2019 in your graph.
> What? No its not. It's due to budget and short-term vision.
It is, let me explain you why: the politicians sets the budget, the short term vision, is also sets by the politics.
- Hollande, which was elected with an alliance of the Socialist Party, and the Greens, have set a target to reduce nuclear from 75% to 50%, EDF had to reduce the budget for nuclear due to that.
- Penly 3 was cancelled due to the above line.
- Superphénix, was closed because of the anti-nuclear activists, and the politics bow to this minority.
- Sarkozy, before Hollande, while not being anti nuclear, under-invested in the energy sector, which was needed to correct the course.
> Proving that a political campaign had an effect is impossible, especially if the one running the campaign don't want to know they are doing it on purpose.
Yeah, so they wanted to hide it but have been explicitly stating their funding on their second page?
Again, look at all the publications in this list, they are all open about their funding, nothing is hidden.
> - you don't know how propaganda works
You don't. You are saying that ANY publications with funding from Germany is propaganda. My point is that it's obviously stupid: some of them may be, some of them will not be.
You can find pro-nuclear publications funded by other foreign foundations. Is that propaganda? If yes, why are you saying that anti-nuclear propaganda is the reason it failed while not saying the pro-nuclear propaganda is the reason some stuffs that should have failed did not?
> - you don't know the political context of what i'm talking about: the french governement at this time was not pro-nuclear
It was certainly not anti-nuclear, and that's the point. You are pretending that the situation in France is due to the fact that Germany made a successful propaganda campaign that destroyed the French nuclear sector. This is obviously not what happened because the government was not influenced by this so-called propaganda campaign, otherwise they would not have done what they have done.
> - You are critizing someone telling them they are out of breadth and the first thing you do is critizing the report of one of the best school in competitive intelligence.
If all you know about the situation is what you get from an organism that is short-sighted to their small area of expertise, then, yes, you are out of breadth.
> I think you are completely unaware of how the politics works and how they affect the real world.
But again (and you haven't answered about that), if the french situation is due to politics, then why the Energiewende failure is not due to politics?
That's my point about the bias. You are doing a typical ultimate attribution error: the side that you like, when it does not perform well, it's because it's the victim of external actors, but the side you don't like, when it does not perform well, it's the proof that it's intrinsically flawed.
> The Financial Time is highly biased
Ah. So, Ecole de Guerre Economique is perfect (even if it was several times criticized for promoting a biased view of the world), but FT is "highly" biased. Not just "biased", no, "highly biased".
You are asking for sources and when there are, you just reject them super easily by saying "nope, does not count".
> This is what says the EDF CEO here in front of the french deputies
The guy WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE ORGANISM THAT FAILED. You are taking for granted the opinion of a person who is deeply not impartial. Of course the CEO of EDF will blame the failure on others.
(and don't get me wrong, what the CEO says is interesting, but at the time, I recall some insiders mentioned to me that it was not very accurate. Again, no source for that because it was just chat, you can not believe me if you want, but it is to illustrate that I'm not just choosing the CEO to be unreliable just because I like it that way, but because there is some reason for it)
And then you are saying that FT is biased. That's so ridiculous, you just pick and choose who is biased or not based on what is convenient for you.
> Normal intellectually honest interlocutors don't start a conversation by saying their interlocutor is very "uneducated"
From the guy who just said that I don't understand propaganda and the french political situation. Are you really sure you want to use this argument, because it does not make yourself look very good, you know.
> There is no data past 2019 in your graph.
Correct, that's not the graph I've used before. But again, when I checked, 2024 did not magically make the French reduction totally disappear (at best it means that the reduction was very slightly smaller, not changing at all the message).
> It is, let me explain you why: the politicians sets the budget, the short term vision, is also sets by the politics.
No, it is due to the strategy of allocating the budget inside EDF. They made explicit choice about not renewing their expertise, they drop local partnership for no good reason. In fact, they move the expertise to other countries for budget reason, and would have done so whatever budget they had. Same with automotive industry: delocalization to cheaper working countries.
> - Superphénix, was closed because of the anti-nuclear activists, and the politics bow to this minority.
And of course, the incredible excessive costs have nothing to do with that.
Again, that's so biased: if someone choose to close a nuclear plant, there is for you only one unique possible explanation: anti-nuclear.
Can you even conceive that, maybe, someone may not do exactly as you like not because they are anti-nuclear, but just because, sometimes, they have other reasons?
> You don't. You are saying that ANY publications with funding from Germany is propaganda.
Again, you are saying I said thing I did not say.
> You are pretending that the situation in France is due to the fact that Germany made a successful propaganda campaign
Again, I did not say this.
> You are asking for sources and when there are, you just reject them super easily by saying "nope, does not count".
You voluntarly miss the "it's behind a paywall part" how convenient.
> The guy WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE ORGANISM THAT FAILED. You are taking for granted the opinion of a person who is deeply not impartial. Of course the CEO of EDF will blame the failure on others.
I thought you knew things about the politics of the sector. The video I linked was in the context of a commission of inquiry.
The result of the commission are available here, they show a way more nuanced statement that you. https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/opendata/RAPPANR5L16B...
Principally, they are not blaming EDF direction about this failure.
> And of course, the incredible excessive costs have nothing to do with that.
The plant was fully repaired and working when it was closed, it was still expected to generate money to reimburse itself, or at least a part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix
This plant was also needed in order to be more independant on uranium.
> No, it is due to the strategy of allocating the budget inside EDF. They made explicit choice about not renewing their expertise, they drop local partnership for no good reason. In fact, they move the expertise to other countries for budget reason, and would have done so whatever budget they had. Same with automotive industry: delocalization to cheaper working countries.
I suggest to read the report I linked in this comment, which show you are making up shit, the reason are highlighted in it.
> Again, that's so biased: if someone choose to close a nuclear plant, there is for you only one unique possible explanation: anti-nuclear.
> A 1998 "Inquiry commission on Superphenix and fast neutrons reactor sector" [3] reported that "decision to close Superphénix was included in Jospin's program ... in the agreement between Socialist Party and Green Party".
It's funny how you claimed being nuanced and we are down to you claiming that closing down fully working plants, that have history of anti-nuclear activists fighting against, and making political alliance in order to close it as "not anti-nuclear".
> Again, you are saying I said thing I did not say.
I'm saying that the interference of Germany due to propaganda had negligible effect on the french energetic situation.
You are pretending that your "reason" that France was impacted by German propaganda is not a bullshit reason.
You provide a study that fails to show that there was any impact and that there was any real interference. Just that some foundation is funding some article, something that happens all the time and is not a proof of propaganda.
> You voluntarly miss the "it's behind a paywall part" how convenient.
I'm reacting to, quote, "the Financial Time is highly biased". Very easy for you, if you can read the article and you don't like what you read, you can just say "yeah but it's biased".
> The result of the commission are available here, they show a way more nuanced statement that you
The result of the commission says a lot of things that I was already saying, and show that your reasons are at best anecdotical.
I've mentioned, for example, QUOTE FROM MY PREVIOUS COMMENT:
- "the mess the government made with EDF privatization", discussed in chapter 2, section 1 A 2, and chapter 2, section 2.
- "the loss of technical expertise", discussed in chapter 2, section 1 B 2 and chapter 2, section 2 C. A quote from it: "le déclin des compétences dans la filière nucléaire s’inscrit dans le mouvement plus large de la perte du tissu industriel français et de la disparition de nombreux emplois industriels" ("the decline of skills in nuclear is the result of a larger decline in the french industry").
- "the short-term vision where the electricity was sold too cheap and did not create budget for infrastructure maintenance/renewal", discussed in chapter 2, section 1 A 1c and 2b
- "the fact that now we are going toward a flexible grid (something that was not expected even 50 years ago) and that the initial strategy was not accounting for that at all", chapter 2, section 1 A 1b and 1c
- "the fact that the public/politic opinion is stupidly about "nuclear vs renewable" instead of using the best in specific situations", chapter 2, section 1 A 2c
- "the learning in the nuclear sector that things are intrinsically complicated which burst the investment enthusiasm, ...", chapter 2, section 3 B
Your reasons (you say three, but then only manage to explicit two) do not appear in the report as main reasons for the decline of French nuclear. QUOTE FROM YOUR COMMENT
- "aftermath of the covid, that is now completly recovered only as this year.": the report talk about all the problem that started well before covid. It is said that covid increased the problem and that covid arrived "on top" of the existing problems.
- "sabotage of our industry": can you find something about that anywhere?
In fact, the whole report is very much closer to my position than yours. The full chapter 2 explains that the problem of the french nuclear is mainly due to stupid short-term vision rather than just anti-nuclear things (there is some, of course, but the majority is about EDF governance (which includes the state) not doing the correct choices)
> Principally, they are not blaming EDF direction about this failure.
On skill gaps, EDF both says that it's not their responsibility AND that they are building capabilities to properly form new skilled people. So what's the correct one: either they cannot do anything about it and it's not their fault, or they can form people and they failed to start their program when it was needed.
In fact, the situation is the following: EDF got the message "we are slowly closing the nuclear", and, at the same time, saw the skill slowly disappearing but did nothing about it thinking they don't care, they will not need these skills in the future. When the government changed its mind (which was stupid, they should never have pushed to close the nuclear in the first place), then EDF said "well, there is no skills anymore" because they failed to maintain the skills that they should have maintained as long as possible instead of betting that they will not need them.
On the rest, distinguishing EDF from the state is pretty difficult. Decisions were taken in concordance, especially before 2015 where things were already falling apart.
> I suggest to read the report I linked in this comment, which show you are making up shit, the reason are highlighted in it.
In the video you posted, the CEO explicitly said that they get their skilled specialists in other countries.
> It's funny how you claimed being nuanced and we are down to you claiming that closing down fully working plants, that have history of anti-nuclear activists fighting against, and making political alliance in order to close it as "not anti-nuclear".
Did you even read. I've said, I quote: "And of course, the incredible excessive costs have nothing to do with that". I'm not saying that the Green have nothing to do with that, I'm saying that once again, you "forget" to say that Superphénix bad reputation was not just the result of anti-nuclear propaganda, but also of a lot of failures.
Not enough to justify the closing of Superphénix according to me. But again, it's not "it's all anti-nuclear's fault".
Either you are pretending that German propaganda has an impact or you are not. If you say it has, then, it means you say that indeed the simple facts around the Heinrich Böll Foundation imply it is propaganda.
But enough bullshit, during this whole conversation, all you provided show me that your initial claims are misleading. Even the last report confirms that these so-called-three-but-in-fact-two reasons are in fact at best negligible in impact and that the most important reasons are due to governance failure as I was explaining.
Thanks for once again wasting my time and proving that indeed, as said in the initial article, there are people like you: everything is the fault of anti-nuclear, and they make up crazy stories, like German propaganda and covid, to pretend that the situation would be significantly different without these.
The failure of the nuclear situation in France are all due to external things, but at the same time, the failure of the renewable situation in Germany are all due to the fact that renewable will never work. Everything you say is framed in a biased ridiculous "pro-nuclear vs anti-nuclear" view. You were totally unable to even conceive that some problems were not the result of some sort of anti-nuclear propaganda.
It's incorrect, even the document you yourself are providing is explaining the situation, and, oh surprise, is re-explaining some of the elements I've explained to you and you were saying were incorrect.
Sorry, there is not much more to say, you just have 0 credibility after having provided documents that show that I was indeed pretty on point and that your reasons don't even appear in the document.
For this whole conversation, you refused the claim I brought, and I never said it was the single reason, as wrong because there are other factors in.
The loss of heavy industry did play a role yes, but not investing in building plants for almost 2 decades also play a major role.
Every of your response are like this, I say something and you claim that I says it's the single reason.
From the beginning of this conversation you have been manipulative (like your 5th paragraph) in this discussion.
Your manipulation even present logic flaw, you blame that i reject everything on anti nuclear and covid, and 2 paragraph later, "You were totally unable to even conceive that some problems were not the result of some sort of anti-nuclear propaganda."
> Then explain me then.
The things I claim are a part of the whole problem, and I never said that something was the whole cause.
From the beginning when I pointed at A cause you said the cause was the symptom, or alternatively, you said another problem was THE cause.
I'm not the one saying most of the problems are due to the directions of EDF
From very early in the conversation I've said, quote, "Let's be clear: I'm not saying that your claims are fundamentally incorrect".
Since the beginning, I've been clear: it's just bullshit to pretend that the two reasons you brought would have changed any of the conclusion in this article.
That's totally crazy. You have an article, you say "naah, it's just because ..." and then when someone says "not really, it's mainly because ..." you say "yeah, in fact it's not really because of what I've said, but I never pretended it was the case".
Again, if you now agree that your two reasons are not changing much of the conclusion, then you were just hyper misleading and ishonest when attacking the article pretending they did not explain well because they forgot to say reasons that the whole industry, including report that you have brought, agrees are at best negligible on the situation. You could simply have said "I don't agree with the conclusion because it was due to EDF governance". But you didn't did you?
Thanks, now go away, let the adults deal with the situation and continue to think you are not the problem.
It's powered by the same models, but it's not submitting questions to the Q&A prompt like people do when they ask ChatGPT to generate code for them.
(..I guess? I don't think any of it is public - one might naively suppose that by now it's actually using only a subset of ChatGPT's MoEs, or something, but who knows?)
Aluminium is far less dense, which in turn makes the whole cable bigger, which has other costs (eg. fewer kilometers of cable fit in a boat). Usually it's still the best choice overall though.
It uses google search behind the scenes. Among other search providers.
reply