> Europe would be better served by doing, what France did in 1974.

This is 2026. Doing things in 1974 isn't an option because time's arrow points the wrong way.

If you want Europe to do things now that it should have done in 1974 you'd need to explain how it'll stall on all the consequences for years. France, which you held up as a model says it can build a nuclear generator in about 5-6 years, but none of these optimistic projections came true this century, more typically the plant takes 10-15 years and it can be more.

So, suppose they start today likely they'll say the generator goes online in 2032. How does that help with the crisis Trump caused this month ? Worse, come 2032 the date is likely to be 2040 instead.

Now, renewables go a lot faster. For solar it's genuinely possible to get paperwork done in January and be selling electricity made with those panels by summer. It's not easy, plenty of projects will be delayed out a 1-2 years, particularly if local government don't want the project, but with a following wind it can really be the same year. Wind is slower, but still you will almost certainly build it and switch it on in five years, the optimistic guess France never hits for its nuclear plants.

A quarter of a century ago, the first quarter of 2001, Britain used 39 TWh of coal electrical generation, 36 TWh of gas and 21 TWh of nuclear.

Today we're lot more energy efficient†, and the renewables made more than 25 TWh, but nuclear is now less than 10 TWh, we of course no longer burn coal, which leaves 30 TWh of gas still and we have a lot more imports (because we have a lot more interconnect, which is also a form of energy security)

† For example back then we mostly used incandescent light bulbs! And a lot of people still used CRT televisions back then!

No. Safety investigation agencies deliberately aren't regulators. The NTSB may decide that their recommendation is that every air passenger should be carrying a melon, and that results in a press release, a letter to the FAA saying that's what they recommend, that's all.

Deciding to change policies to effect the recommendation isn't their role. That's why you will so often see a safety investigatory body repeatedly recommend the same thing. The UK's RAIB (which is for Rail investigations) for example will often call out why a fatal accident they've investigated wouldn't have happened if the regulator had implemented some prior recommendation, either one they're slow walking or have rejected.

The investigators don't need to care about other factors. Are melons too expensive? Not their problem. Only unfriendly countries grow melons? Not their problem. They only need to care about recommending things that would prevent future harm which is their purpose.

This actually reminds me of the "God of the gaps" problem. A gradual retreat in the face of inconvenient facts.

Many years ago when I was a student the argument was that integrity isn't a big deal so plaintext telnet is just fine. If you're paranoid you use an "enhanced" telnet where the authentication step is protected but not everything else [Yes I'm an old man]

By the turn of the century everybody agreed telnet is stupid, use SSH but integrity still wasn't a big deal when it comes to ordinary web sites. Only your bank needs SSL fool.

And I suppose that 8-10 years ago that changed too and it's now recognised that plaintext HTTP really isn't good enough, you need HTTPS. But still I see that you say integrity isn't important when it comes to DNS records.

Integrity is the hardest thing to get ordinary users to care about. Given how freely even young kids lie we should probably take it more seriously but it remains hard to get ordinary people to care, however ultimately this does matter.

It's true that 64 bits was known not to be enough when DES shipped decades ago, but there is some difference between "We know that's a bad idea" and a demo showing why, and so I think I'm OK with the word "broken" in that context.

There's a reason POCs matter right? Why you feel comfortable (even though I don't agree) saying multi-threaded Go doesn't have a memory safety problem and yet you wouldn't feel comfortable making the same claim for C++.