My focus isn't on which type of energy is cheapest. An energy grid that is not predictable is worthless. Wiknd power, solar power, are great complements, but a grid using only those is not viable. Hydroelectric is great, but limited. Geothermal is not really viable in mainland Europe.

I'm worried about a realistic transition from fossile fuels to non fossile fuels. Nuclear is realistic, renewable as a main source in Europe is utopic and unrealistic.

No, what are you talking about? A nuclear power plant takes less than a decade to build.

Renewable energy at the scale of a country is impossible to achieve in such a short time in Europe. We dont have huge geothermal taps, which countries having achieved 100% renewable energy have, and we consume a lot more energy.

Cheaper is great, but it's not continuous, it's not scaleable in a short period of time, and requires a fuckton more maintainance capability than a dozen nuclear power plants.

I will reiterate: A full renewable energy grid in Europe is impossible with our current tech, especially in a reasonable timeframe. That's why instead of solar power plants, countries prefer to subsidies local, individual solar panel installations, for instance.

It is much faster to build nuclear power plants that can cover a country's needs than to fully transition said country to renewable.

It's expensive upfront. But it is cheap to operate afterwards, and cost efficient to renew. Look at France.

Germany made a major, major mistake when then phased out of nuclear energy.

We have uranium in Europe. We just don't exploit it. But even if we did not, there is plenty of countries in the world exporting uranium, on all continents. It's much less of a strategic issue than relying on rare materials for renewable, or on gas/oil.

Nuclear is a much better option in the short and medium term.

And renewable doesn't solve the supply chain issue, a lot of materials for construction and maintenance need to be imported as well.

Then the 2A is obsolete and needs to be amended out. At least the gun violence issue will see some positive.

Does this systemd change facilitate future verification softwares? Definitely. Will it become a part of systemd? Extremely unlikely. Should systemd rebel and refuse to include anything facilitating these disturbing laws? Eh, probably.

But let's not blow this change out of proportions. This is a way for systemd to not aggressively fight the laws, without enabling them either. This field changes nothing, and you will still be able to use distros that don't even employ the field at all. They might become illegal to use in the land of the free, but that's a separate issue that this change does not impact.

I'm not your search engine. If you don't see it and refuse to search for it, that's your problem. I'm not here to convince anyone.

I'll let you have a look at the difference of opinions between LFI and every other left party. All those differences are issues they refuse to compromise on :)

Do you really draw the line at a date of birth field, when every linux system has fields for full name and address for every user account?

But my clickbait!

If they don't need them, why aren't they winning? Only time they won recently was... When they compromised and united. Crazy how that works.

If they had no cards, LFI wouldn't need them. You're contradicting yourself.