GamingChairModel

I don't read it as magical energy created out of nothing, but I do read it as "free" energy that would exist whether this regeneration system is used or not, that would otherwise be lost as heat.

With or without regenerative braking, the train system is still going to accelerate stopped trains up to operational speed, then slow them down to a stop, at regular intervals throughout the whole train system. Tapping into that existing energy is basically free energy at that point.

The resulting low frequency wave shakes the foundations of Sagrada Família, setting the construction back another generation.

Ay, ¡qué lástima!

Opposite from the enemy's gate.

stop looking at those as "features of the keyboard and mouse that I purchased"

Seriously.

Maybe I'm an old timer but my idea of extra features on a mouse or keyboard are simply more inputs: more mouse buttons or wheels, more keys on a keyboard (like media keys). At most that just requires additional hardware, but nothing my OS can't handle on its own.

It's because Amazon requires the seller not undercut its Amazon store through other outlets, including their own website. If you are a seller and you want to take advantage of Amazon Prime, then you have to make sure your Amazon price is the cheapest price available on the internet.

That article has basically been validated over time. At the time it was written, the argument was that monopoly is bad for consumers even if it makes prices cheaper, and that consolidation of producer market power needs to be understood as consumer harm in itself, even if prices or services paradoxically become better for consumers.

It's no longer a paradox today, though. Amazon has raised prices and reduced the quality of service by a considerable margin, and uses its market power to prevent the competition from undercutting them, rather than competing fairly on the merits.

The retail side of their operations serves as basically a really big customer of AWS services.

Unless you are fine pairing solar panels with natural gas as we currently do

Yes, I am, especially since you seem to be intentionally ignoring wind+solar. It's much cheaper to have a system that is solar+wind+nat gas, and that particular system can handle all the peaking and base needs today, cheaper than nuclear can. So nuclear is more expensive today than that type of combined generation.

In 10 years, when a new nuclear plant designed today might come on line, we'll probably have enough grid scale storage and demand-shifting technology that we can easily make it through the typical 24-hour cycle, including 10-14 hours of night in most places depending on time of year. Based on the progress we've seen between 2019 and 2024, and the projects currently being designed and constructed today, we can expect grid scale storage to plummet in price and dramatically increase in capacity (both in terms of real-time power capacity measured in watts and in terms of total energy storage capacity measured in watt-hours).

In 20 years, we might have sufficient advanced geothermal to where we can have dispatchable carbon-free electricity, plus sufficient large-scale storage and transmission that we'd have the capacity to power entire states even when the weather is bad for solar/wind in that particular place, through overcapacity from elsewhere.

In 30 years, we might have fusion.

With that in mind, are you ready to sign an 80-year mortgage locking in today's nuclear prices? The economics just don't work out.

How would they get past the other factor, the password?

If you're gonna say "SMS can be used to reset the password" then it starts to sound like you're complaining about insecure password reset processes, not 2FA.

With nuclear, you're talking about spending money today in year zero to get a nuclear plant built between years 5-10, and operation from years 11-85.

With solar or wind, you're talking about spending money today to get generation online in year 1, and then another totally separate decision in year 25, then another in year 50, and then another in year 75.

So the comparison isn't just 2025 nuclear technology versus 2025 solar technology. It's also 2025 nuclear versus 2075 solar tech. When comparing that entire 75-year lifespan, you're competing with technology that hasn't been invented yet.

Let's take Commanche Peak, a nuclear plant in Texas that went online in 1990. At that time, solar panels cost about $10 per watt in 2022 dollars. By 2022, the price was down to $0.26 per watt. But Commanche Peak is going to keep operating, and trying to compete with the latest and greatest, for the entire 70+ year lifespan of the nuclear plant. If 1990 nuclear plants aren't competitive with 2024 solar panels, why do we believe that 2030 nuclear plants will be competitive with 2060 solar panels or wind turbines?

I don't think that math works out, even when looking over the entire 70+ year life cycle of a nuclear reactor. When it costs $35 billion to build two 1MW reactors, even if it will last 70 years, the construction cost being amortized over every year or every megawatt hour generated is still really expensive, especially when accounting for interest.

And it bakes in that huge cost irreversibly up front, so any future improvements will only make the existing plant less competitive. Wind and solar and geothermal and maybe even fusion will get cheaper over time, but a nuclear plant with most of its costs up front can't. 70 years is a long time to commit to something.

And then to answer your question I don't think it has much to do with the sport itself.

To think of another example, I've seen a lot more violent anger in living rooms triggered by a video game than a sporting event.