racsol

I couldn’t have said it better.

You have dictatorships you would not identify stereotypically as fascist, yet they silence anyone dangerous by calling them a fascist. Oldest trick in the book.

A very simple test: A f*ing fascist could use the same comic to justify repressing communists in a fascist regime. It just has to replace those “fascists” believes by communist ones.

That’s true about fossil fuels. But it seems you’re interpreting my comment as if I was defending the use of fossil fuels.

What I’m pointing out here is that the fact that hydroelectric energy production (although very clean) is not really an alternative for many countries as a substitute for fossil fuels. It is not a matter or decision lack of attention or investment. Many developed countries actually have most of their potential capacity installed, yet that accounts for very little of their electric demand. Take Germany as an example:

Germany had a hydropower installed capacity in 2016 of 11,258 MW (…). In the same year, the country generated 21.5 TWh from hydroelectric plants, representing about 3% of the country’s total electricity generation.

The hydropower capacity in Germany is considered mature and the potential already almost completely exploited, with limited room for growth. In recent years, growth in capacity has mainly come from repowering of existing plants.

Source: Hydroelectricity in Germany

Of course, there’s exceptions (% of total domestic electricity generation): Canada (59.0%), Norway (96%), Paraguay (100%) or Brazil (64.7%).

Actually, from what I can tell, hydro seem to be so convenient (it can be ramped up/down on-demand, used for storage, cheap) that most countries that can afford it tend to maximize their installed capacity to the extend their hydrography allows them to.

The thing with hydro is that it is limited by the hydrography of the country.

Once you’ve built all damns it was possible, that’s it. And that usually only covers a just small portion of a country’s energy needs.

When referring to the entire continent, I’ve heard “The Americas” in English.

Just a reminder: Central America is another division of the American continent.

I agree, but it’s not like using Meta is mandatory. You can decide not to use their services.

There’s also United States of Brazil.

But you’ve got “Mexican” and “Brazilian” for both of those countries that include United States in their proper names.

I’d continue to say “United statean” in Spanish because that’s an accepted name in the Spanish language. There’s no confusion to what country you’re referring to.

But in English it is a lost battle. If you mean to include people from the entire continent, you’d have to say “American, as in the continent”.

Edit: The current official name of Brazil is Federative Republic of Brazil.

That’s right. It’s a great recommendation for learning about Linux.

For anyone who needs something that just works, there’s a lot better options.

After that, you just start anticipating this feeling and unlock social anxiety.

Dude, that’s rough. Reminder to appreciate what you have while it lasts.

This price is absurd, sure. Even if I trusted Meta, there’s no way I’m paying that.

Having said that, they can charge whatever they want for the service. As company, their prices are up them.

I don’t get why you (no OP specifically, but in general) put it as if you must pay or give up your rights. We can just not use Meta, as many of us already been doing.

GDPR should be there to protect and enforce informed consent. Not to remove people’s ability to decide.

Why sholuld we regulate Meta’s prices and not whatever other suscription service exists out there?