sushibowl

Another big factor is that every plant is effectively a completely custom design. Because of how few nuclear plants are constructed, every new one tends to incorporate technological advancements to enhance safety or efficiency. The design also has to be adapted to the local climate and land layout. This makes every single plant effectively one of a kind.

It also tends to be built by different contractors, involving different vendors and electric utilities every time. Other countries have done better here (e.g. China and France) mostly due to comprehensive government planning: plopping down lots of reactors of the same design, done by the same engineers. Although these countries are not fully escaping cost increases either.

You are completely correct that regulation is also a big factor. Quality assurance and documentation requirements are enormously onerous. This article does a pretty decent job explaining the difficulties.

https://greglewisinfo.com/2020/04/18/the-b-17-saved-by-a-miracle/

The ultimate source appears to be a guy's memoirs:

I came across this story in Elmer Bendiner’s marvellous 1980 memoir, The Fall of the Fortresses, while researching the lives of USAAF crews flying out of England during WW2.

I'm still very sceptical. This guy is not even the primary source actually:

Bohn said the shells had been sent to the armorers to be defused but had then been rushed away by an intelligence officer.

Bohn had tracked down the officer and had hounded him until eventually he had told Bohn the full story – before swearing him to secrecy.

Now, sabotage like this undoubtedly happened, although the scale is impossible to verify. However I think this specific story has just way too flimsy a chain of evidence to put any faith in. Good story though.

Seriously though. Weasel words. If journalists adopted even 20% of Wikipedia's manual of style, news would improve by orders of magnitude.

I think holding more helium in a smaller space is the opposite of what you want. The lifting force is equal to the weight of the air being displaced, so you want as little stuff as possible in as big a volume as possible.

Maybe if you went the other way round and compressed the atmosphere?

What you're talking about is essentially an EMP. They don't generally emit continuously. Instead you just set off a single strong pulse which induces such high currents in receiving antennas that they melt or otherwise damage connected circuitry.

At these levels of power, any amount of conductive material tends to start acting as an antenna. If you set up a continuous transmitter you're going to have trouble not damaging your own delivery and power mechanisms.

The most common way to generate one is to set off a nuclear bomb that has been finetuned to release most of its energy as electromagnetic radiation.

Very little is known about the Hunnic culture, so it is not really possible to establish this with any certainty. That being said, it's pretty typical for pastorial nomads like this to collectively own and care for their herd. Although it's also worth noting that communal property does not usually extend between different tribes, even when these tribes were united to some extent, such as under Attila.

In general it's difficult to fairly place ancient tribal societies into the modern day political spectrum. The structure and scale of societies has changed radically.

I did not come away from this article with a very positive opinion on Clarkson. He strikes me as the type of guy who is incapable of recognising a problem that he himself is not personally facing. Climate change wasn't real until he tried his hand at farming. Driving electric vehicles won't solve the climate problem, science will (did science not develop the battery technology needed to move away from gasoline cars?). Farmers are struggling and will be forced to sell to millionaires and capitalists (is he himself not the capitalist that bought a hobby farm from a struggling farmer?).

I don't think he's seeing his own hypocrisy here. Farmers have been facing these problems for years and no one paid attention. He calls up his buddy in Westminster, immediately gets a full cabinet meeting, and as if by magic the government starts moving in his favour (taking away power from local government, I might add).

This isn't a black and white issue and there is merit to Clarkson's point that local government can get captured and corrupted by personal conflicts and interests. But I don't agree with the image he appears to project as a defender of the common man and poor farmer. He's a millionaire who has never given a single shit about farmers until he personally owned a farm.

A system I work with gives all keys a string value of "Not_set" when the key is intended to be unset. The team decided to put this in because of a connection with a different, legacy system, whose developers (somehow) could not distinguish between a key being missing or being present but with a null value. So now every team that integrates with this system has to deal with these unset values.

Of course, it's up to individual developers to never forget to set a key to "Not_Set". Also, they forgot to standardise capitalisation and such so there are all sorts of variations "NOT_SET", "Not_set", "NotSet", etc. floating around the API responses. Also null is still a possible value you need to handle as well, though what it means is context dependent (usually it means someone fucked up).

I think it's more so that the kind of people contributing to these projects are on balance not that interested in doing the marketing work.

A price is usually set to cover the initial costs and to make a reasonable profit not to squeeze how much money you can from people.

There are exceptions, but usually that is absolutely not true. Making as much money as you can is 100% the goal for the vast majority of goods produced, physical or digital.

You can also view it as a strategy to extract more money from richer people, without sacrificing all the poorer customers.

Can you elaborate where your confusion lies? It's a digital good, there is no marginal cost. So they can pretty much price a game however they want. So pricing is mostly about maximising revenue, i.e. get as many sales as you can at the highest possible price.

A sale is a relatively straightforward strategy where you first sell the game at a high price to all the people who are fine with paying a lot, then you lower the price to sell more copies to the people who weren't willing to pay the higher price. The result is more total profit. There is a time limit too to create a sense of urgency ("I better buy now so I don't miss the opportunity").