c00lio's comments

It'll be fine even at 3.0C. The IPCC report has scenarios up to 5.0C, and if you carefully read those and compare the population adversely affected to the overall population of the planet, you'll see that mankind will not end from climate change. Not even remotely.

So I'll route my CI integration tests that test communication from application to database through the loadbalancer? And I'll teach the loadbalancer to talk to itself to talk to the autoscaling web backends it needs to talk to because only the loadbalancer has a valid certificate? Nice brain-knot.

And talking about security risks, wildcard certs are especially dangerous and should be forbidden from ever existing. They just lead to "copy it everywhere"-keys that, sooner or later, will leak. And that won't be revoked or replaced, because of course everything will break at once.

Oh, and the certificate errors will also come with external CAs. Chain too long? Error in some browsers. ECC signature? Error in some browsers. Chain with different paths? Error in some browsers. 4096bit certificate somewhere? Error in some browsers. Two different valid roots? Error in some browsers.

They don't. It's just verboten to do it without reporting it, and if they catch you there will be Konsequenzen!

There are tons of reasons to not use an external CA.

First, cost. Any CA that issues unlimited certificates will charge tons of money. Free CAs like letsencrypt do have rate limits that we would frequently hit with autoscaling environments, CI jobs, and such.

Also, CAs require the use of certificate transparency logs. Which will expose your internal infrastructure data to the public. It will, by exposing autoscaling data, also expose financial data (at least in hints), e.g. by showing that last christmas, your scaling peak was far higher.

And external CAs are a security risk because you need to provide firewall exceptions and/or transfer mechanisms for certificates into your internal infrastructure that you would usually want to isolate.

Lastly, an external CA is an availability risk. Should your external CA be unreachable for some reason, you might not be able to run any CI jobs or auto-scale-up your infra.

No. The problem is overall resource consumption. Which is a product: people * consumption/person. Since consumption per person has a lower limit, there has to be an upper limit for the sustainable number of people on the planet. Since standard of living should be at least equal to that of your ancestors, resource consumption per person will also be above the bare necessary minimum. And since the normal mode of population growth is exponential, any change in consumption per person is meaningless anyways, the overall resource consumption would be exponential nonetheless. So yes, we are always on the verge of overpopulation, followed by catastrophic collapse. We only avoided collapse in the past because technology (industrialization, green revolution) enabled exponential growth in resource production. But that might be a one-time thing.

No. Prisoners' dilemma.

There are two possible answers to climate change: avoidance and preparation. Avoidance means that the world reduces its CO₂-footprint to zero or less to limit global warming or even to revert it. Preparation means that, if global warming cannot be avoided, states prepare for the changes in weather, sea level, agriculture, etc.

Avoidance can only work if all nations worldwide do participate to reduce their CO₂-footprint. If some big nations do nothing, or even worse, if non-consumption of fossil fuels by western nations causes a price drop and a shift of fossil fuel consumption to the rest (instead of an overall reduction), avoidance by the west is pointless and a waste of resources. All the world has to participate for avoidance to be successful.

On the other hand, preparation mostly works on a more local level. Nations with coastlines invest to protect those, nations threatened by water shortages invest in countermeasures such as maybe desalination or storages, etc. Even if the rest of the world doesn't care, preparation will mostly work for the local community.

Both avoidance and preparation need a lot of resources. But allocation to avoidance is only sensible if every nation agrees to it, otherwise those resources are wasted and far better spent on preparation.

No. I was just explaining why copper is better in that regard, not that I would personally care that much. I do prefer stainless steel, because it is more robust, dishwasher-safe and cheaper.

Yes, but for mankind to continue, there has to be less of mankind.

Germany

Over here, your water bill has 2 components, the price of the fresh water and the price of the waste water. Waste water is at least as expensive per m³ as fresh water, sometimes more than double. If you are using rain water, you save on the fresh water price, but you have to still pay for the waste water. And since waste water price is calculated from your fresh water consumption, you either have to have a second meter for the rain water (expensive) or you pay for an estimated amount of rainwater calculated from the roof area you are collecting from. Also very expensive, because the estimate is always not in your favour.

So not really "free" at all, and rather expensive enough that nobody does it...

Water bottles, if not cleaned properly with a soap and brush on the inside, will be coated with a bacterial "lawn". Copper prevents that. Lots of bacteria need such a lawn to propagate, only some can multiply without a substrate. So even if the "free" water part won't be desinfected, copper has an overall positive effect on the bacterial content of your drinking water.

11. No pets.

Your pet is more harmful to the environment than your car.

12. Less or no children.

All of the above, combined.

It isn't that there is no such thing as "a way to open/close transactions". It is that transactions usually break all the supposed ORM benefits like composability. Often, you cannot even method-chain transactions like foo.search().begin().insert().insert().commit(), you have to do it in multiple lines. Even worse, rollback handling is often an exception, breaking control flow of your application.

And most only support basic transactions, not checkpoints.

Also, most ORMs make it hard or ignore the possibility of using database transactions, checkpoints, partial or full rollbacks, etc. Which might be fine for trivial queries, low write load and unimportant data. But for anything moderately important or complex, transactions are essential.

There are no tropical forests in the EU. And German forests do only grow by increasing biomass of older trees, new saplings are completely eaten away by deer if not actively protected.

Forest protection alone isn't enough. If you rely on forests, you'd actually have to grow them. Which would conflict with growing human population.

Problem is, Germany is in a central location in Europe. Lots of east-west and north-south transit going through. That transit has to use the autobahn, for various reasons.

One is the EU: forcing them to use railway loading (such as in Switzerland) isn't possible due to the EU demanding free transit. Making transit on the autobahn prohibitively expensive by fees isn't possible, because the EU can and will veto higher fees or special transit fees. Changing status quo in the EU isn't possible, because all Germany's neighbours will veto.

Second is technical: Railways aren't standardized. Track width changes towards the east. Train station platforms and tunnels are different width and height per country, your load will bump into stuff unless you do lowest-common-size (which is smaller than a normal 20ft/40ft container crosssection, so non-viable). Signaling is different in each and every EU country. Rolling stock for goods transport is usually decades old and doesn't support any of the necessary modern safety standards like ECTS that are used on new tracks and cross-border. So you would have to have huge reloading terminals on each railway track and each border. Or you would have to modernize the railway system across Europe. Huge costs and lack of current demand create a chicken-egg-scenario here. Also, reloading creates delays, which the current just-in-time logistics are allergic to.

Third is domestic: There is also non-transit traffic, where origin or destination is somewhere in Germany. Those will still have to use roads, because the country doesn't have a dense-enough railway network. And building a sufficiently dense one would take forever, if at all possible. New construction is usually extremely expensive, delayed or stopped due to environmental/noise/landmark protection reasons (usually NIMBYs successfully abusing those regs). Only possibility is small extensions, such as "make this road/track/... a little wider", because it is already there which makes arguing against it on the aforementioned grounds harder.

So we maybe will debate if railways ever will take off and then just extend the autobahn. Because there is actually no other choice.

I think both groups (climate activists, surveillance-repression fascists) are separate, but the latter welcome the fact that the former gives them an acceptable excuse for more restrictive laws, more control, more surveilance.

Which will accelerate the trend towards far-right governments in europe, who will then roll back climate change laws.

Deutschlandtakt has nothing to do with electrification. And full electrification isn't planned for any point in time, there will (if it goes as planned) never be a fully electrified railway network. They are planning to either shut down small branches or use locomotives with batteries or hydrogen fuel cells.