Yes, but it is still preferable to have this behavior. Just as I think it’s preferable to have “please do not track”, even though it’s being removed now. See my other reply. 99% will use the reference implement unless it sucks.

You should still warn users that what you post on the internet probably stays on the internet. Somewhere.

I don’t understand what you mean. I don’t count on anything. See my other reply.

Yes, but all that is true for Facebook, Reddit and whatever. It’s still nice to have this feature in the “reference” implementation of Lemmy. I think. Then it will also be easier for instance owners and moderators to follow any local laws that requires this.

I don’t know if this is already in the ActivityPub protocol, but it would be nice if all instances who has a copy of some content, deletes it, if it has been marked “request for deletion” by the creator or the owner of the instance where it was first posted. There will always be actors that store specifically all posts that’s been marked for delete, but I still think this is preferable.

It would be really nice if this information was super explicit when one joins a community. In the default interfaces. And that users get a notification if community settings change.

I don’t think there is any should. A bad deal is a bad deal. It’s not like there are ideal markets at play here (or anywhere anytime). What we’re seeing is pretty much a case of socializing the costs and privatizing the profits. With a touch of colonialism.

And then there is the little issue that Germany basically doesn’t give a shit about the climate if you look at their actions. Mostly because of general NIMBY and popular fantasies about how nuclear related physics works, among the general public. Which is annoying.

We both know that Germany isn’t even close going fossil free with or without nuclear.

And as long as the current EU situation benefits Germany, things probably will stay the same. But fit for 55 plus a reformed energy market could lead to quite high German inflation which will boost the populist parties even more. And when they have the majority, if it doesn’t mean more Russian gas, then it probably mean nuclear. And if they don’t get a majority, there is at least no longer a strong Russian actor which can plant anti-nuclear disinformation among the population. At least not as easy as they could before.

Anyway, public opinion can change rather quickly. The anti-nuclear movement is mainly a boomer movement and they are getting old. Prepare for change.

That’s very true. The rational thing is to invest in nuclear on the European continent. The Swedish pricing issue can be solved through politics.

Yes, that sucks. And they for sure are religious when it comes to nuclear. There are more cautious and strategic ways than throwing hundreds of billions on private contractors on a dysfunctional market. The government should own and run all nuclear production.

It does not matter because the German production, grid and export is completely dependent on coal, gas, and even cheaper imports. And there is no serious plan to get rid of that dependence. Sure, French nuclear was down so they had to import. But that is a consequence of too few reactors. One should have enough nuclear so that one have redundancy for unplanned shutdowns and maintenance. They for sure understood that back in the day. Also, the French exception is German normal. It really isn’t a fair comparison. And that’s pretty much my point.

Politics is about changing exactly those circumstances. Nothing is eternal. If Germany really wants to, Germany can build nuclear within a decade (I mean Germany has previously done far more extreme things in less time, like energiewende, or inventing nuclear reactors while fighting a total war). It’s of course a big economic risk because of the possible high alternative cost. That’s why the government should do it. You have to compare that with the risk of not having a fossil free alternative to gas and coal within 15 years. Actually, the risk is not that great because you will get fossil free energy either way.

You sure write like a neoliberal. Maybe you’re just not aware of that. Not seeing politics as a viable tool is maybe the most neoliberal thing one can do. And it’s very damaging to society in all western countries right now. Unless you weren’t ironic…

That’s what’s happening. But it takes time. And it won’t really change anything unless the Swedish and/or the EU energy market or pricing model is reformed.

If the system isn’t changed the demand for Swedish fossil free electricity will just go up in Germany and Denmark, since their energy is much more expensive. Swedish households will pay for lower energy prices in Germany and in Denmark, plus greater margins for private and public Swedish energy producers. And the households only get more expensive energy in return. It’s just a really bad deal for Swedish households at the moment.

The only good thing with the current situation is that Germany uses less fossil fuels and that it might become slightly cheaper to import German goods, because of the larger energy supply.

Bush is a fucktard, but so is the German energy policy.

The neoliberal has spoken. You know that politics can change circumstances?

Net export does not matter here. What matters is that you have a stable system which does not rely on fossil fuels (which is the case for Germany). Germany has the shittiest energy system in western Europe. Destroying the country and the planet because some weed smoking fucktard had “intuitions” about nuclear.

Sweden needs a better domestic pricing model for sure. One that doesn’t punish households (who has historically voted for responsible energy policies and therfore created a great surplus) so that energy producers can have super high margins.

Also, Germany really needs to get their shit together when it comes to fossil free energy. Not just rely on countries like France and Sweden to solve energy for them. However, German industry will probably be nuked as tariffs enter the world scene, so maybe the demand will go down.

To the ones who down vote, is it because you don’t like the content of the podcast/video or because you don’t like the title of this post?

It’s for sure not impossible. But my guess is that it’s because you learn the new model and your behavior and expectations change. It’s a known phenomenon and I do believe the developers/companies when they say that they didn’t change anything. It’s also quite easy to verify/test this hypothesis by using locally hosted LLMs. There are probably a few papers covering this already.

Though it does happen that one is downgraded to a smaller model when using free versions OpenAI, Anthropic and others. But my experience is that this information allways is explicit in the UI. Still, it’s probably quite easy to miss.

Also, I’m almost exclusively using the free version of Mistral Large (Le Chat) and I’ve never experienced regression. But Mistral also never downgrades, it just becomes very slow.

This kind of talk is effective if you want to push EU towards China. Don’t really understand the tactics here. Trump in a nutshell I guess.

If he’s really interested in Greenland he should try to create more division between Greenland and Denmark. Maybe that’s what we’ll see next.

Honestly, I believe most people overestimate intellectual and conscious rationality. Among themselves and others. The rationalizing is usually there afterwards. To justify current emotions, actions and circumstances.

Self preservation, since one can’t control much anyways. And one needs a somewhat coherent world view.

Very true.