> The link is just about a move from one part of Munich to another (MS German HQ has always been in Munich).
Nope. They moved from Unterschleißheim (administrative district of Munich in Upper Bavaria) to Schwabing (district of Munich town), which tax-paying wise makes the difference.
That wasn't a correction; you were right to begin with. If it's so much a part of the city that you don't even know if it's formally part of the city or not... Then it's part of the city.
Fuck, it seems (from Google Maps) to be about half as far from the center of Munich as the Munich Airport. If schitt that far out is called "Munich", then so is Unterschleissheim.
Do they change the data or only the representation? Several people here argued that LibreOffice preserved the original data, which would be a pretty fundamental difference in this context.
So we need 4400 persons falling off a roof to be par with nuclear power plants. I still consider this ratio a much better outcome than a power plant going off anywhere near (radius to be defined in Mm depending on wind direction).
How? There has been a handful of nuclear plant accidents ever, but hundreds of thousands of people work on roofs every year worldwide to install solar panels.
As far as I can tell, the original pro-nuclear "deaths per TWh" calculation, and follow-up work, neglects mundane industrial accidents that occur during the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Only incidents involving unplanned radiation exposure are counted. But these same kinds of mundane accidents do get counted in the numbers for renewable energy. Further, as I note in another comment, the solar PV numbers neglect that more TWh come from solar farms than from rooftop solar installations, and that constructing solar farms is safer (lower risk of fatal falls). The methodological difference isn't significant if you just want to highlight how dangerous the fossil fuel status quo is compared to non-combustion options. But if you want to compare deaths-from-renewables vs. deaths-from-nuclear, it doesn't make sense to omit the mundane accidents from just one side of the balance sheet.
As an example of "mundane" nuclear deaths, 6 workers have been killed at the Surry Nuclear Plant. 2 were fatally scalded by an accidental steam release in 1972. 4 were killed by a steam explosion in 1986.
They did not include any numbers on wind, solar, hydro, tide, ... renewable energy; limiting the comparison to "the dominant" energy sources what they call "all major energy sources" shows how narrow the researchers' plate is.
World hydro power generation has already a greater percentage than nuclear fission, not in the U.S. though.. Add other renewable resources and all renewable surpass gas. Oil plays almost no role in energy generation.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Methods...
Doesn't change the picture. Hydro is surprisingly dangerous, in fact the single largest disaster involving an energy source was a dam that burst in China, killing 171,000 people.
Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – global average 100,000 (41% global electricity)
Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity)
Oil 36,000 (33% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas 4,000 (22% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind 150 (2% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (16% global electricity)
Hydro – U.S. 5 (6% U.S. electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity)
Try to "simply follow" when it's nested twelve levels deep.
Anyhow, with both approaches, nested or early return, the reader has to read the function from the beginning (or read back until the relevant part) to grasp when exactly a code portion will be executed. In both cases, all if's are relevant, there's no guessing.
when you want to change someone else code, nested blocks lets you know what conditions are needed for each line. when they are gathered at the start you know the condition for the function but for each line you could start a discussion what conditions are necessary and thus make the code atomic (change all by purpose\tests or change none)
As you referenced that bug and there also gave an example involving fractions and =0.1+0.2 you would certainly also agree that the binary floating point representation of =0.1+0.2-0.3 is not 0.0, still Excel displays 0 as result (and so does Calc) instead of 5.551115123125783E-17 because users expect that.
Your bit-level accuracy approach isn't as simple when it comes to user experience and Excel compatibility.
Exactly. You don't want documentation editors having to learn git and all cumbersome processes first. They may not even want to learn that. They want to edit and get their changes in.
Nope. They moved from Unterschleißheim (administrative district of Munich in Upper Bavaria) to Schwabing (district of Munich town), which tax-paying wise makes the difference.