Wojciech Wiewiórowski was intent on calling mastodon a failure for political reasons. When pressed on the harms of public services using Twitter and Facebook, he defends them on the basis of content moderation. Of course what’s despicable about that stance is that a private sector surveillance advertiser is not who should be moderating who gets to say what to their representatives. Twitter, for example, denies access to people who do not disclose their mobile phone number to Twitter, which obviously also marginalises those who have no mobile phone subscription to begin with.

Effectively, the government has outsourced the duty of governance to private corporations – without rules. Under capitalism.

The lack of funding on the free world platforms was due to lack of engagement. When the public service does not get much engagement they react by shrinking the funding.

We need the Facebook and Twitter users to stop engaging with gov agencies on those shitty platforms. Which obviously would not happen. Those pushover boot-licking addicts would never do that.

tl;dr: is it a good idea to put Elon Musk in control of who gets to talk to their government?

I’ve only been to Denmark but certainly concur with voting Denmark last.

• society is designed to render people without a CPR № dysfuctional
  • could not check out a library book without CPR №
  • could not make a photo copy without CPR №
  • could not open a bank acct without CPR № (bank falsely advertised to expats the possibility to process paperwork before even arriving)
  • could not get student rate on trains until the CPR № was granted. Took a month to get the number, the clock of which only started ticking after finding a seemingly legitimate place to live. Not counting time sleeping in a classroom. No way to get the train fare difference back retroactively.
• society is designed to render people without a bank account dysfuctional
  • many restaraunts refuse service to cash payers, including university campus snack shops
  • university events required electronic payments (someone has to use their personal bank acct to let cash payers participate)
  • someone could not simply do laundry
• university e-mail outsourced to Microsoft, forcing everyone on campus to share their school-related email with a US surveillance capitalist
• university itself used Facebook to announce events, thus excluding those who do not use FB
• university forced 2FA on some academic resources, which then required SMS (thus denying students without a mobile phone or the will to share their number access to school resources)
• university outsourced e-book service to a Cloudflare service (Proquest), who then blocks access to some demographics of people
• banks themselves are cashless. If your ATM card fails because of some persnickety paperwork issue, you have no money access unless you visit a branch during opening hours, at which point a banker actually has to walk down the street to an ATM with you, carrying a special internal ATM card. So getting your own money out of your bank account is comparable to asking dad for money.
• banks app can receive inbound international money, but cannot send outbound international transfers (only domestic)
• housing crisis: the waiting list for an apartment is years; had to sleep illegally in a classroom and dodge night guards, or deal with lots of dodgy landlords exploiting the crisis. Had a landlord who was illegally subletting, who demanded cash payment (fine) but then refused to give a receipt.
• severe shortage of on-campus dorms. Just enough to house foreign exchange students. All “dorms” for locals are scattered in private apartments. Getting one close to campus is a competition.
• was denied a CPR № because the dwelling had more people than officially allowed on paper, despite some of the officially known people not actually living there.
• expected this country with the world’s highest degree of income equality to be quite liberal, but the people & culture were ironically conservative. No concept of privacy.
• cycling actually sucks. You might expect it to be the best place in the world for cycling, but the cycle paths are so popular they are like driving on a highway. Overcrowded. If you cruise along slowly a bicycle traffic jam becomes possible. Car driving stresses are there on the high traffic cycling lanes.

That’s just off the top of my head. The nannying is endless.

Can anyone confirm or deny whether many of these issues are replicated among Denmark’s neighbors?

Luckily you don’t need to burn uranium to avoid 5 steps of energy transformation.

No you haven’t. Read your own source. Hint: biogas

biogas was used in 2009, not in 2020 when the stats were collected. Nor would it matter if it were still used. Hint: it would be an increase on the 80%.

recall: fuel energy → heat energy→ steam → turbine → transmission → heat energy

Also, nuclear fuel is not gas, so this speaks for electric stoves, silly.

That’s fuel. That’s in the 80%.

again: fuel energy → heat energy→ steam → turbine → transmission → heat energy

Ignoring other renewables

I have accounted for all the renewables mentioned in the linked wikipedia page, which covers sources as insignificant as hydro (<1%). What else is there? Have you thought about updating wikipedia with whatever you think is missing?

Ignoring French nuclear imports

That would only increase the proportion of fuel energy even more, which only works against your botched claim. If you want to count French nuclear, then the portion of solar, wind, and hydro is proportionally even less. Brussels currently has a nuclear power plant inside the region. Why do you think it would it be sensible to transmit over such distance? That would introduce even more substantial inefficiency in the transmission.

Ignoring current state but talking about possible future plans

The status quo only has 1 year left on it. And nuclear power still has the same stages of energy transition loss you’ve failed to debunk. What’s the point? Your claim is nonsense either way.

Get your facts straight, or update Wikipedia to reflect your understanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Belgium

wind + solar + hydro → 20%

80% from burning fuels¹. With 3 new gas-burning plants under construction to replace nuclear, that’s not going to improve things.

Belgium is aiming to reduce its use of gas as much as possible.

Nonsense. I guess you missed the whole “Code Red” march against Electrabel last year protesting the plan to build 3 new gas-burning power plants.

there are two nuclear power plants, not one.

And that’s important why? From wikipedia:

“Belgium decided to phase out nuclear power generation completely by 2025.”

Whether there are 1, 2, or 5 nuclear plants is immaterial when it’s all being phased out, and replaced with gas-burning power plants.

Betting on gas, be it a stove or something else, is just stupid.

Betting in a way that neglects plans that have already been announced is stupid for sure.

¹ recall: fuel energy → heat energy→ steam → turbine → transmission → heat energy

Electricity is usually not made from fuel

You’re generally wrong on that:

“Over 60% of global electricity generated so far in 2023 was produced by fossil fuels” --Reuters

Belgium is what’s relevant in the case at hand. In Belgium ~20% of power is from solar, wind, and hydro. The other 80% is from burning fuel. I group nuclear with fossil fuel because the nuclear power plant in Belgium is being decommissioned and will be replaced with 3 new gas burning plants.

Gas stoves are far inferior in this step, losing most of the heat into the surtounding air. Induction stoves have almost no transmission loss.

That’s true but that’s stoves not ovens. You’d have to exaggerate quite a bit to claim more than half of the heat energy is wasted on gas stoves or ovens.

In order to use gas in the kitchen, you have to have a gas pipe in the kitchen, which has become very unusual.

Where? Unusual Belgium-wide? The cities concentrate populations. Brussels city is mostly old homes likely all piped with gas judging from the dominance of gas boilers. Are you saying there are lots of old homes that did not bother to branch a gas pipe into the kitchen?

During construction, it’s easier and cheaper to not lay gas pipes.

That’d be a false economy. Pipes are like ~€7 per meter so it would take ~1—2 years for the pipes to pay for themselves if they are used for daily cooking.

Most people do not have a choice – either you got an old house witha gas pipe in the kitchen or a newer one with a 400 V power outlet.

I do not have a 400V outlet. I have no idea how many electric ovens require that, do you? I’m using a crappy portable 220V oven. If the big properly insulated wall ovens are 400V, then I would have to run a new line to the fuse box. Not sure if I could wire that myself, which I assume involves bridging two 220V circuits.

I guess most people don’t do their own work. So you are implying hiring someone to add one or the other post-construction would be cost prohibitive. Sounds reasonable. But I’m not convinced kitchens lack gas pipes to begin with because gas stovetops are still popular in Belgium. Just not gas ovens.

(edit) In Brussels in 2011, “natural gas consumption was 10,480 GWh and the electricity consumption was 5,087 GWh”, according to Wikipedia.

I’m still waiting for someone to show me an induction oven. This is the same as saying “don’t use an oven at all”. Of course, if you don’t need an oven, then it would not make sense to install an oven at all.

It’s not an assumption. This is how power is produced in Belgium. There is only 1 nuclear power plant and it’s being decommissioned. 3 new fossil fuel burning power plants will be built.

If I were to open the boiler before and after using it just as I have a wood stove, that brief exposure to trace amounts of toxins once a day would not influence a choice to use it. That theory is quite far fetched.

The finding that gas stove toxins can be significant is also more recent than the popularity drop in gas ovens. IOW, to have a cause-effect, the cause must come chronologically before the effect.

(edit) also worth noting that gas stoves are still popular in Belgium, just not ovens. So this theory is bogus. People are not going to avoid ovens out of fear of toxins when the door opens while at the same time having no problem with gas stoves.

Why do you say that in the past tense? You can see from my figures that in Belgium gas is still cheaper.

This is something that varies from one region to another. In the US, some states have cheaper electric than gas. Electric is less efficient because of big losses in all the conversion steps:

fuel energy → heat energy→ steam → turbine → transmission → heat energy

Gas simply has:

fuel energy → transmission → heat energy

It is important to note that gas transmission is also lossy due to the impossibility of leak-free main lines, but it’s still more efficient in the end. Thus in most of the world gas is also naturally cheaper due to the efficiency difference. It gets inverted in some regions because of pricing manipulations as well as the drive to promote green energy (and rightfully so – social responsibility should be incentivized). And in some regions they cut down on the transmission losses by putting the power plant inside or close to the big city. But in Belgium gas is still cheaper than electric even despite Russia’s war and efforts to get off Russian fuels.

Poor venting is not inherent in the technology. A diligent installer can run a duct from the oven to the outside just like we do for gas boilers. A diligent building code can even make it mandatory. The lack of gas ovens (and selection thereof) in Belgium is not likely a consequence of concern for toxic gases, because if it were, then gas boilers (which burn far more fuel than an oven would) would be far less popular than they are. So what is your theory on that difference?

Still sounds like you’re talking about stoves. To use a stove, you inherently need to stand next to it and your face is between the flame and the vent. Ovens are well insulated (this is important for energy efficiency), they vent to the outside, and you are not generally standing over the oven throughout the baking.

That depends on how well vented they are. Most people undersize their range hoods for aesthetics and don’t take venting seriously. Of course recent findings show it’s a bad idea to cut corners on that with gas stoves, and ovens to some extent. But it’s mostly stoves that have the issue you describe.

I was only there once or twice in off hours. I think I was there once on a Sunday (normally closed all day so only open to after hours members) and once in the evening. It was quiet as I recall but I guess I’ve not made use of it enough to have an idea. It’s not overly busy in the after hours.

W.r.t. alcohol, the rules forbid eating and drinking in the library, but water is exceptionally allowed. I don’t know if they review the video without cause, but if someone breaks the rules, their after-hours access is terminated.

In Brussels there is a library that’s “open” as late as 22:00. There’s an after hours program where you register for after hours access, sign an agreement, and your library card can be used to unlock the door. Staff is gone during off hours but cameras are on. Members are not allowed to enter with non-members (can’t let anyone tailgate you incl. your friends).

As far as we know, Google is not giving up any data. The crawler still must store a copy of the text for the index. The only certainty we have is that Google is no longer sharing it.

Here’s the heart of the not-so-obvious problem:

Websites treat the Google crawler like a 1st class citizen. Paywalls give Google unpaid junk-free access. Then Google search results direct people to a website that treats humans differently (worse). So Google users are led to sites they cannot access. The heart of the problem is access inequality. Google effectively serves to refer people to sites that are not publicly accessible.

I do not want to see search results I cannot access. Google cache was the equalizer that neutralizes that problem. Now that problem is back in our face.

From the article:

“was meant for helping people access pages when way back, you often couldn’t depend on a page loading. These days, things have greatly improved. So, it was decided to retire it.” (emphasis added)

Bullshit! The web gets increasingly enshitified and content is less accessible every day.

For now, you can still build your own cache links even without the button, just by going to “https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:” plus a website URL, or by typing “cache:” plus a URL into Google Search.

You can also use 12ft.io.

Cached links were great if the website was down or quickly changed, but they also gave some insight over the years about how the “Google Bot” web crawler views the web. … A lot of Google Bot details are shrouded in secrecy to hide from SEO spammers, but you could learn a lot by investigating what cached pages look like.

Okay, so there’s a more plausible theory about the real reason for this move. Google may be trying to increase the secrecy of how its crawler functions.

The pages aren’t necessarily rendered like how you would expect.

More importantly, they don’t render the way authors expect. And that’s a fucking good thing! It’s how caching helps give us some escape from enshification. From the 12ft.io faq:

“Prepend 12ft.io/ to the URL webpage, and we’ll try our best to remove the popups, ads, and other visual distractions.”

It also circumvents #paywalls. No doubt there must be legal pressure on Google from angry website owners who want to force their content to come with garbage.

The death of cached sites will mean the Internet Archive has a larger burden of archiving and tracking changes on the world’s webpages.

The possibly good news is that Google’s role shrinks a bit. Any Google shrinkage is a good outcome overall. But there is a concerning relationship between archive.org and Cloudflare. I depend heavily on archive.org largely because Cloudflare has broken ~25% of the web. The day #InternetArchive becomes Cloudflared itself, we’re fucked.

We need several non-profits to archive the web in parallel redundancy with archive.org.

Bingo. When I read that part of the article, I felt insulted. People see the web getting increasingly enshitified and less accessible. The increased need for cached pages has justified the existence of 12ft.io.

~40% of my web access is now dependant on archive.org and 12ft.io.

So yes, Google is obviously bullshitting. Clearly there is a real reason for nixing cached pages and Google is concealing that reason.