Ja, ein Teil des Problems ist wohl, dass es deutlich einfacher ist, die Gefahren der Atomkraft zu vermitteln als das bei den CO2 Emissionen oder der Kohleverbrennung ist.
Jeder der nicht exakt der gleichen Meinung ist sofort ein Atomtroll?
Ich würde den Atomausstieg nicht auf ein Einziges Jahr beziehen, sondern auf einen Prozess der gut 20 Jahre gedauert hat. Wikipedia scheint das ähnlich zu sehen:
In Deutschland begann der Atomausstieg unter der ersten rot-grünen Bundesregierung (Kabinett Schröder I) mit der „Vereinbarung zwischen der Bundesregierung und den Energieversorgungsunternehmen vom 14. Juni 2000“. 2002 wurde der Vertrag („Atomkonsens“) durch Novellierung des Atomgesetzes rechtlich abgesichert.[120] In der Folge wurden am 14. November 2003 das Kernkraftwerk Stade (640 MW)[121] und am 11. Mai 2005 das Kernkraftwerk Obrigheim (340 MW)[122] endgültig abgeschaltet.
Der Punkt ist, dass Deutschland im Jahr 2000 ca. 170 TWh/Jahr an relativ sauberem Atomstrom produzierte. Diese Kapazität wurde schnell reduziert während die Erneuerbaren ausgebaut wurden und die Stromproduktion mit Kohle langsam reduziert wurde. 2023 wurden in Deutschland noch 135 TWh Kohlestrom produziert.
Eine alternative Strategie wäre ein Ausbau der Erneuerbaren und ein schneller Ausstieg aus der Kohle gewesen. In einem zweiten Schritt hätte man dann aus der Atomenergie aussteigen können.
Ich denke die zweite Strategie wäre sowohl aus ökologischer als auch aus gesundheitlicher Sicht eine bessere Wahl gewesen. Wenn man von einer Todesrate von 25 Personen pro TWh bei Kohlestrom ausgeht, dann hätte man mit den 170 TWh* Atomstrom ca. 4000 Tote pro Jahr vermeiden können! Aber weil die Atomenergie ein viel besseres Feindbild abgibt, hat man den Ausstieg aus der Kohle verschleppt.
*Ein Weiterbetrieb wäre aber wohl nicht bei allen Kernkraftwerken sinnvoll gewesen.
dass Deutschland auch vor dem Atomausstieg nur einen einstelligen Prozentsatz des Stroms aus den Atomkraftwerken gedeckt hat. Es
Hast du eine Quelle dazu? Der Anteil war vor 2000 wohl bei knapp 30% der Stromerzeugung: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?country=~DEU
It says "UNSUPPORTED: VSYNC is not available on the Linux platform." and runs at a stuttery 133 fps. This test shows 144 Hz: https://fpstest.org/refresh-rate-test/ The Nvidia settings app shows 144 Hz + VRR are active and I can see that the cursor is rendered at >70 fps.
I'm pretty sure that my desktop is drawn at 144 Hz (on the primary display) and xrandr also tells me that that's the active mode. 🤷♂️
Edit: This is with Nvidia (proprietary drivers) and VRR monitors.
Is that generally an issue on Linux Mint / Cinnamon X11? I have a 144 Hz and a 70 Hz monitor and they seem to work fine....
One way to do it is have a small Python (or any other scripting language really) script that performs text replacements in the Latex source file. This is much easier in Latex because it's plain text. I don't know of a solution that doesn't involve writing your own code (apart from LO/Word serial letters).
Is using Latex an option? I've done that and it works quite nicely. You can easily populate a template e.g. using Python.
I'm not sure I follow... Did the Fedora Council actually take a decision?
I understood Matthew's position as "this should be discussed in the Workstation WG first", not as a "no":
in favor of the process outlined above (tl;dr: talk to the Workstation WG, and if that does not come to a satisfying outcome, file a Council ticket for next possibilities).
It also seemed more likely that they would promote KDE without demoting Gnome.
But was there a follow-up on that (e.g. in the Workstation WG)?
That looks like a software issue... I would try a different distro or a different version of Ubuntu (e.g. 22.04).
Thanks for trying it out on your own system!
In my case, the problem was that the disk never showed up in the Fedora installer. I've quickly reproduced the issue in a VM (but I originally noticed it on bare metal):
As you can see in fdisk, the disk (/dev/sda) has been recognized correctly by the kernel and works as expected. But somehow the installer only shows the "internal" /dev/vda.
After some further investigation, this seems to be related to the specific USB drives. I tried three different ones. It failed on a USB stick and the original external NVME enclosure. However, it did accept my USB to SATA adapter. So I guess I could install Fedora on my 10-year old HDD... 😐
Did you do anything special to install Fedora it on the USB drive? I couldn't get it to do that and would be interested in testing F40 that way.
Ah, that would put a bit of complication into things. If you want to actually accomplish this though, you should largely start with the same steps as a standard system install, using a second USB flash drive to write the distro onto the external SSD, leaving enough space to build the rest of the partitions you need.
I've actually tried to install Fedora on an USB SSD to play around with it. But somehow the installer just refused to select the second USB drive as an installation target. I looked for quite some time but couldn't find a way to do it. I ended up trying to install it manually like Arch (for fun), but never got a bootable system 😅 I was able to install Arch and NixOS on the same drive without issue.
I'm actually not sure how OP could achieve something close to what they're looking for... A regular installation certainly seems like the right choice, but that may require using an internal drive.
The UFS storage inside an Android smartphone is basically an SSD. Both use flash memory, so it's reasonable to expect that they have similar failure modes. But I'm not sure if you could diagnose such a failure on Android.
I have seen multiple (quality) SSDs with unrecoverable read errors after a few years. All of them had plenty of spare area left. Maybe some kind of retention issue?
Yeah, NTFS being the problem actually makes a more sense.
OP could also just use the fuse driver then. I'm using it on 5.15 (Linux Mint) and it works quite well. I only had problems when I tried to use it for a Steam library.
You could also try to switch the kernel version. Ubuntu 22.04 currently supports two different versions: 5.15 and 6.5, you could switch to the other one and see if the problem also occurs there.