> That leads to reduction of use (as people just can't afford it)

I consider this a good thing. Wasting energy ain't good, especially when it isn't completely climate neutral

View your comment from the POV of the majority of the population, who aren't rich IT sector workers.

There's energy poverty in Germany. A lot of it. You don't even have to go to any “3rd world” areas of the world to see it.

Cheap energy is CRITICAL for the elimination of poverty and suffering. I know that single-mindedly obsessing about the single goal of climate change is currently popular, but please, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

> in fact you could argue that their denuclearization is the very reason Russia has so much leverage in the situation

If we had more nuclear power, this wouldn't change much, if anything

I think you replied to the wrong person.

> The German government tried to force people to use more renewable energies and electric cars by introducing the CO2 tax.

Since both are not adequate replacements, costs for heating, electricity and transportation exploded.

This is total nonsense. The subsidy for fuel prices were introduced due to rapidly rising costs for fuel shortly before the war started.

Those costs didn't rise because of the CO2 tax.

The fuel subsidy also doesn't reduce energy taxes, but explicitly fossil fuel taxes for cars only.

> Rust is also very difficult. It's as complex as C++, and throws it all at the programmer at once.

I thin Rust isnt nearly as complex

It definitely is. You've probably just had more time to discover the complexity of C++ (and read about it, since it's actually specified).

Of course Rust's complexity is much less dangerous because if you forget some obscure rules you get a compile error instead of UB (in safe Rust at least).

For me, the former is easier to understand.

"cookie" consent exists because of laws.

If it's gonna happen at all, there will be a law enforcing that, because it's not in the interest of website owners (which also leads to the dark patterns in the dialogues).

If there is law, people can sue, which usually is enough for companies to (usually) follow it

This isn't the case for do not track afaik

> Climate change is causing distress, anger and other negative emotions in children and young people worldwide, a survey of thousands of 16- to 25-year-olds has found.

> The results, released in a preprint on 14 September1, found that most respondents were concerned about climate change, with nearly 60% saying they felt ‘very worried’ or ‘extremely worried’. Many associated negative emotions with climate change — the most commonly chosen were ‘sad’, ‘afraid’, ‘anxious’, ‘angry’ and ‘powerless’ (see ‘Climate anxiety’). Overall, 45% of participants said their feelings about climate change impacted their daily lives.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02582-8

What do you think a researcher is in this context?

Needs a white lab coat.

Gotta be a PhD computer scientist in security at MIT else you're a poseur I guess? :)

In the infosec community, "researcher" is the noun of choice to describe anyone who has discovered a security vulnerability, no matter their motivation or experience.

So pay is a prerequisite and not skillset? Surely that would just be a "professional researcher", no?

And even so, does a freelance researcher "have a job", in the traditional sense?

Especially true since costs such as carbon emissions aren't internalized yet into the electricity cost.