Natanox

There's also an additional middleground between them, Slowroll. Still a rolling distro but slower with feature updates for additional stability.

Leap tends to be rather outdated as it keeps binary-compatibility to SLES. Of course makes it as stable as possible, but also more often than not uncomfortably lacking behind.

To be fair, OpenSuse is an umbrella of multiple distros other than Debian and Arch. There are

• Leap (Stable, binary-compatible to SLES)
• Tumbleweed (Rolling)
• Slowroll (Rolling but slower, duh)
• Aeon (Immutable w/ Gnome)
• Kalpa (Immutable w/ KDE)
• Factory (unstable)
• MicroOS (Immutable for Server)
• Leap Micro (Immutable, binary-compatible to SLES)

And then of course the whole Enterprise stuff around SLES (Suse Linux Enterprise Server). There's definitely a need to specify what "OpenSuse" actually means in any given context. 😅

I agree though, it's god damn great. The bootable btrfs snapshots that are set up by default in particular.

Would've been nice for them, wouldn't it? Given they are also the authority for who gets those god damm keys.

Always the same with the corposcum.

They're concerned about "their" people, because it's declining only in rich countries and those tend to see themselves as "better" and don"t like "unregulated immigration" (while the regulated one costs shit tons of money). Also those who bring thst up are usually right-wingers.

Or to say it bluntly: Xenophobia and racism.

Perhaps they also fell asleep during the movies. I certainly know I did.

It would risk "our" wealth.

But at least we now have thousands of individual humans who're as wealthy as whole countries! Truly an achievement. Now keep working, slave.

What's the third anime's name?

What the hell is a "Liberty University"? Do I even want to know?

We can also solve the risk of Kessler syndrome. Send catgirls / -boys to space, they'll push every object out of orbit.

To be clear, nuclear isn't inherently bad. Indeed it will most likely be very important to massively reduce CO² emissions quickly and cover bigger chunks of the base-load of our energy infrastructures. However to argue that nuclear could be cheaper or even a replacement for renewables is just completely and utterly wrong. Neither can it be less expensive in any universe, nor is it able to replace renewables since nuclear reactors are very slow regulators (indeed the slowest - they're best at delivering a lot of power constantly). Meanwhile solar can literally be simply switched off, and "rotating" renewables be turned into or out of wind / water flow / whatever else.

To quote some studies, this one from the Deutsche Bank has the following to say:

For nuclear power plants, different statements on the LCOE can be found in the existing literature. The U.S. investment bank Lazard estimates it at about 14 to 21 US cents per kWh for new nuclear power plants (in the US; for comparison, onshore wind power: 2.4 to 7.5 US cents per kWh). The cost of treating radioactive waste is explicitly not included here. In its latest Word Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency (IEA) put the LCOE for nuclear power plants in 2030 at 10 US cents per kWh in the US, 12 US cents per kWh in the EU, and 6.5 US cents per kWh in China. Wind and solar power are cheaper in all three countries/regions. For the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant that is under construction in the UK, the operator has agreed a guaranteed power purchase price of 10.7 pence per kWh. The LCOE of investments in extending the operating lives of existing nuclear power plants is significantly lower than that for new nuclear power plants. According to an IEA study from 2020, they ranged from less than 3 to less than 5 US cents per kWh.

Meanwhile the World Nuclear Report focuses on the LCOE which might be better suited for comparison (and even that says nuclear is 2 to 3 times more expensive) and points out massive delays and problems with nuclear reactor projects.

All of this doesn't include the dependency problems (only very few countries can produce refined uranium rods), and even specifically excludes the long-term costs. And "It's cheaper if you remove lots of the regulation on the most powerful and dangerous technology humanity ever developed" is probably the worst take one can have. Just as a reminder, the very reason for the almost total blackout on the Iberian Peninsula (Spain & Portugal) recently was due to miscommunication and a lack of proper regulation. It wasn't the renewables (the power stations that started the cascade were mostly fossils, and the energy companies didn't care enough to keep sufficient reserves that day), no matter how much right-wing media wants you to believe that. Enormous, continental grids would become unstable if we build it upon badly regulated nuclear reactors.

Still far away from commercial viability though, nothing we can count on right now.