Egregious cases can lead to immediate dismissal, you also don't have to let anyone continue working even if you still pay them if they are on the notice period (the notice period is for both sides, honestly - for employer to have chance to find/train replacement, and for let gone employee to find new work).
There's a bunch of cases that can lead to immediate dismissal though in most EU countries, starting with illegal activity, some things that are borderline (disallowed in law even if sometimes tolerated by employer - for example being drunk on the job or otherwise under influence by ones own action, not accident), or explicit action against the company.
Because markets, as currently implemented for energy in EU, do not adequately include things like intermittency of demand.
If you take a source that has very low per-MWh price but very intermittent, it gets effectively highly prioritized and everyone else is paying price to match up with this wrecking ball. Except, usually, gas turbines which slot very very nicely into the swings in capacity related to wind and solar and thus benefit from them.
That's not true in Scandinavia (can't speak for EU as a whole). For example Nord Pool's market structure and pricing mechanisms are specifically designed to account for the intermittency of production and demand: https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/en/the-power-market/Intraday-m...
That's true for the UK and Spain as of 2023[1], but the other major energy markets in the EU incorporate significant capacity mechanisms in their pricing.
Edit: Spain added one in Feb 2025. Haven't looked up the UK yet.
Capitalism is exactly about amassing capital to make others reliant on capitalist providing capital for the tools necessary to do the work, then extracting rent from the value produced.
In true capitalist market you end up with oligarchy.
Another reason is that they are shorter range, and the better shielding also means that interference effects are smaller.
In comparison, twisted pair sending 10Gbit over 8P8C cable (popular "RJ-45") requires complex modulation schemes to provide solid signal over any meaningful distance, in a much less shielded cable, and with need to support longer distances.
Naughty Dog's GOAL was PS2 specific and essentially chock full of what would be called intrinsics these days that let you interleave individual assembly instructions particularly for the crazy coprocessor setup of Emotion Engine.
My understanding is that the mental model of programming in PS2 era was originally still very assembly like outside of few places (like Naughty Dog) and that GTA3 on PS2 made possibly its biggest impact by showing it's not necessary.
If by "mental model" you mean "low-level" programming, sure. But you might as well conflate "religion" with "Southern Baptist protestantism" then. You're working with the same building blocks, but the programming style is drastically different.
The vast majority of PSX games were done completely in C, period. Some had small bits of asm here and there, but so do the occasional modern C/C++ apps.
To your last point, before there was GOAL there was GOOL (from the horse's mouth itself):
The quote I recall reading about long ago summarized the semi-official guidance as "write C like you write ASM".
Because outside of ports from PC, large amount of console game developers at the time were experienced a lot with with programming earlier consoles which had a lot more assembly level coding involved. GTA3 proved that "PC style" engine was good enough despite Emotion Engine design.
Didn't help that PS2 was very much oriented towards assembly coding at pretty low level, because getting the most of the hardware involved writing code for the multiple coprocessors to work somewhat in-sync - which at least for GOAL was done by implementing special support for writing the assembly code in line with rest of the code (because IIRC not all assembly involved was executed from the same instruction stream)
As for GOOL, it was the way more classic approach (used by ND on PS3 and newer consoles too) of core engine in C and "scripting" language on top to drive gameplay.
> The quote I recall reading about long ago summarized the semi-official guidance as "write C like you write ASM".
You could read that in pretty much any book about C, until the mid-00s. C was called "portable assembler" for the longest time because it went against the grain of ALGOL, Fortran, Pascal, etc by encouraging use of pointers and being direct to the machine. Thus why it only holds a viability in embedded development these days.
I've written C on the PSX, using contemporaneous SDKs and tooling, and I've reviewed source code from games at the time. There's nothing assembler about it, at least not more so than any systems development done then or today. If you don't believe me, there are plenty of retail PSX games that accidentally released their own source code that you can review yourself:
You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point and, I feel, being intellectually dishonest. Believe what you'd like to believe, or massage the facts how you like; I'm not interested in chasing goal (heh) posts.
The title resonates well with mainstream dogma of capitalism being objectively good, ignoring that it was just one aspect of what made "the good years" and was in fact quite limited by both physical and legal constraints, and sometimes pure ideological bent of some behemoths of industry (i.e. messrs Hewlett and Packard, impact of US military spending, etc).
Welch exploited a combination of events when a lot of those limitations (especially legal) ended, acting in extremely capitalist ways.
>mainstream dogma of capitalism being objectively good
Is that what you perceive the mainstream dogma to be? When I observe use of the word "capitalism", it is usually in regards to rationalizations for interventions or other socialist policies. Whereas proponents generally use specific language, like market, market-based or laissez-faire. Opponents are can be observed using language like, neoliberal, deregulation, greed and capitalism.
>Although Karl Marx did not create the word, it was after his work “Das Kapital” (1867) when the term “capitalism” began to be widely used to describe an economic system based on private property as the means of production. Marx remains the great labeler: “capital,” “the capitalist” and “the capitalist system of production” appear repeatedly in his writings.
...
>Should we care if we lose the term capitalism? Assessing its popularity, or lack thereof, I recently reviewed the mission of 25 leading market oriented think tanks around the globe. I could not find a single one using the term. “Free enterprise,” “free-markets” “free-economy” and better yet “free society” will continue to crowd out “capitalism,” if not as a system, at least as a word.
A lot of the terms you recall are terms also coined by people who would be considered anti-capitalists today. That said, specific word use depends a lot on one's specific bubble. A lot of my personal contacts consider it implicitly bad, some with better understanding of why some not, but I do try to get out and see a lot of praise if not actually under the word capitalism, then under what was described yes by Marx as capitalism.
Personally (as I am not any kind of educated expert nor an oracle) I would say that a lot of "free enterprise", "free economy", "free society", even "market-based" terms are very much orthogonal to capitalism and behaviours described by it, but some of them push for conditions that enable said behaviours (deregulation - which I often encounter as positive term thrown around - or "laissez-faire". Or even absolute focus on "free" in "free market" to detriment of said market as bigger players destroy competition)
I find Amdahl's Law very useful for parallelizable work as well.
Or at least, I find it trivially scalable to parallel case. Often it helped for me in modeling how interconnect would be a possibly limiting element for a task even for embarassingly parallel tasks.
reply