In general, any government already has your information, and it's naive to think that they don't; if you pay taxes, have ever had a passport, etc. they already have all identifying information that they could need. For services, or for the government knowing what you do (which services you visit), then a zero-knowledge proof would work in this case.
Do you have any sources that support your claims that the risks and "remediation" are solved problems? Regardless of the content of the video I'm very curious if you have legitimate sources for how something like mesothelioma is a "solved problem", because I surely don't know any.
I've had clients in asbestos remediation (data science / management side), dealt with two personal real estate properties (one rural and one urban) that had asbestos issues, and grand parents on both sides of the family tree with black lung.
Mesothelioma is not "solved", but akin to pneumoconiosis and pulmonary fibrosis its risk profiles are well-known.
The risk profile is "exposed to asbestos" which - as the video correctly pointed out - was _never banned_ despite the well-known risks. It's a common misconception that asbestos was banned (because it seems like it should be) but it never was thanks to industry interests.
While I agree that the unreliable grid dominates I don't see how that says it's been factored in. The cost is hidden, pushed off onto the existing powerplants which run less of the time and thus cost more per kwh actually produced. This "works" until you don't have enough gas when it's calm and things go badly.
Most places simply do not have a high enough percentage of renewables to hit this yet. Last I knew Hawaii had hit a different wall--while in theory a transformer works equally well in both directions real world engineering of high power transformers doesn't work that way. The substations can't push power up, thus solar connections were prohibited if they could cause the situation to occur. (You can't have panels if too many of your neighbors do.)
Externalities such as destroying your manufacturing base and eroding living standards and middle-class wealth by having 4x higher electricity costs than a country like China which emits 2x more CO2 per capita?
Rest assured that the UK would have damaged manufacturing and living standards regardless of renewables. It is just too complicated and expensive to build things. That not only damages the things you mentioned but renewables, gas and nuclear deployment.
But yeah bet against the Chinese solar and battery industries. And bet in favour of cheap plentiful gas in northern Europe.
> Rest assured that the UK would have damaged manufacturing and living standards regardless of renewables. It is just too complicated and expensive to build things. That not only damages the things you mentioned but renewables, gas and nuclear deployment.
High energy prices unquestionably make most primary and manufacturing production less competitive, and they reduce living standards. What are you even trying to say?
> But yeah bet against the Chinese solar and battery industries. And bet in favour of cheap plentiful gas in northern Europe.
> I was trying to say that high energy costs are just one issue.
The one issue we were discussing.
> And even then renewables are not the root cause of high energy costs.
There is rarely one single root cause of anything. Renewables have certainly caused higher costs and worse service in some cases. I don't know the specifics of the UK, but you could argue the point with the above poster who said gas was cheaper.
I do know the specifics of the UK and that is what was being discussed here. But yeah dismissing anything that doesn't align with an easily argued point seems foolish to me.
> Let’s say you got a severance of 200,000€ at the beginning of the year.
I guess if you're at a company for a super long time you'd potentially get a huge severance, but realistically who would actually get this amount?
I get the theoretical possibility of this (and if we're being honest, if you're getting such a high severance the likelihood of moving to a job that pays "just" 50k per year is low), and maybe the author did get a 200k€ severance recently which is why they made this post, but it feels like more explaining a potential problem with the tax system that might also simply be solved by talking to a tax advisor?
It looks okay to me. The links are a bit too low contrast yes, but I think the normal text is black. The bigger issue is likely the font weight, it must be at like 200/300.
reply