Live data from Hacker News

Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

reuters.com

421–430 of 436 posts

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#421
post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since Europe has not enough natural resources to be self reliant, and the US only has enough oil gas due to fracking, there is no alternative other than dealing with oppressive, human rights ignoring regimes. Iran is under sanctions, the UAE and Saudi are by no means better the Putin at his worst days (we in the West just don't give a damn about the war in Sudan and Yemen). And yes, closer relationships to Russia are…

What? Russia better than Saudi Arabia? The Saudis are neither stupid enough to attack something like Ukraine nor do they have the backbone to even think about it. They're not as caught up in cold wars or bemoaning their version of what Gorbachev did. Human rights aside wouldn't most petrol customers prefer SA over Russia? Granted, Europe and Germany esp. didn't but then again trade was supposed to mute the stupidity…

> The Saudis are neither stupid enough to attack something like Ukraine nor do they have the backbone to even think about it

Instead they pester Yemen.

> Human rights aside wouldn't most petrol customers prefer SA over Russia?

Yeah, “aside”. “Invasions aside, Russia blah blah blah”. Such an easy word to deploy.

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was probably Russia, Germany would be to pissed if Biden did that

i agree. the us cares so much about what germany thinks

I doubt the USA cares very much about just Germany (and I live in Berlin), but whoever did this pissed off basically all the EU, and I think the USA does care about not pissing off the EU collectivity.

(For scale, I doubt any nation other than the USA itself cares about pissing off the state of Florida, while almost every nation cares about not pissing off the USA collectivity).

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#423
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not just US but includes UK and Canada and the NATO organization. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07...

nato is usa

Two other permanent members of the UN Security Council with their own independent nuclear arsenals will be very surprised to learn that.

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most scientific estimates are in the range of half a million to a million, with the one outlier being the study conducted by the Iraqi Health Ministry itself. One possible explanation for that is that people might have been afraid to speak to representatives of the ministry, given that it was controlled by a Shiite politician who had connections to militias.

> Most scientific estimates are in the range of half a million to a million, with the one outlier being the study conducted by the Iraqi Health Ministry itself. I'm not sure what studies were not scientific and which were, but I don't get that at all from the wiki section on total Iraqi causalities.[1] Ignoring lower US military estimates accused of undercounting, about half of estimates are below 200K and about half…

The scientific studies are the ones based on survey methods, which were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The Iraqiyun estimate was not published and didn't explain its methodology. The Iraq Body Count isn't a scientific survey - it keeps track of deaths that are reported in the media. It's highly unlikely that every (or even most) deaths that occur in a war in a country like Iraq (recall how dangerous Iraq was at the height of the war) will be recorded in the media.

That leaves the ILCS, the two Lancet studies, the PLOS study, and the Iraqi Health Ministry's estimate.

The ILCS was carried out only a year into the war, before the height of the violence (which was 2006). It was not focused on determining deaths - the question about deaths was only one of many questions asked. Nevertheless, this study found a far higher death toll than IBC.

The Iraqi Health Ministry was run by one of the parties to the civil war, so it's questionable whether people would have felt are liberty to speak freely to the Ministry's workers, especially about something as sensitive (and potentially incriminating) as deaths in the family.

The first Lancet study was also carried out relatively early in the war, but found a much higher death toll than IBC. The 2nd Lancet study was carried out in 2006, after violence had exploded, and found a number of several hundred thousand, but with large error bars. The later PLOS study was much larger and had smaller error bars, and found a number around half a million.

> the most covered war by journalists in history. The surreal feeling at the time was that it was all televised. It seems unlikely most if any were infiltrated by US covert intelligence white washers, but I can't fathom any overarching reason for such wide variance.

I don't know how Iraq compares to other wars in terms of coverage, but most of the country was not well covered. Western journalists were heavily concentrated in the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, or embedded in US military units. During the height of the violence, it was extremely dangerous to wander around Iraq as a foreigner. Every study (even the one by the Iraqi Health Ministry) found death tolls far in excess of what IBC documented from media reports.

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#425
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You accuse other of irrationality, yet you prop up a straw-man that's been debunked over and over again. Nobody argues that renewables deliver peak power all of the time. The goal is to have enough capacity and intermediary storage to be able to deliver constant peak power with both combined. The current economic situation would be much better had we spend all our money on renewables and storage instead of nuclear an…

"The goal is to have enough capacity and intermediary storage to be able to deliver constant peak power with both combined." But this is an irrational goal because there is no way to do that intermediary storage on the scale that is required, and as I just pointed out, wind and solar are frequently yielding nearly zero power even when summed together. In your other comments you're talking about pressurized air cavern…

All of the tech I mentioned is either operating in pilot studies or full scale systems. Both combined as in renewables + storage, not wind + solar.

You got way too much set phrases and trite political cliches going on for any meaningful discussion.

Solar, wind and storage are here today, they are cheaper than coal, nuclear and gas, even WITHOUT externalised costs of climate change, and long term storage.

The people that are dangerous are the ones that want to make energy politics a political game, and those that want to make as much personal profit from it as possible.

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was an 18 year old US Army infantryman getting ready to deploy to Iraq in 2007. I made the decision back then to not go, because ultimately something just felt completely wrong about it during training. So you went AWOL? I’m a little confused on how an 11B E-2 can “decide“ he’s not deploying.

> So you went AWOL? I’m a little confused on how an 11B E-2 can “decide“ he’s not deploying. E-3 actually. I was an Eagle Scout, Civil Air Patrol cadet, three years of high school JROTC - the full nine yards. Completely brainwashed. But yes, I ultimately went AWOL. A week before our deployment, I hitchhiked out to the desert and lived in a tent for a month. Turned myself in right before the 30 day desertion mark, too…

I’m honestly surprised you were able to secure an honorable discharge, especially at that time. I was an 11A later in the wars and the guy in my platoon who went AWOL to avoid deploying was sent to RCF before being allowed to exit the Army.

Anyway, good luck to you.

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most scientific estimates are in the range of half a million to a million, with the one outlier being the study conducted by the Iraqi Health Ministry itself. I'm not sure what studies were not scientific and which were, but I don't get that at all from the wiki section on total Iraqi causalities.[1] Ignoring lower US military estimates accused of undercounting, about half of estimates are below 200K and about half…

The scientific studies are the ones based on survey methods, which were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The Iraqiyun estimate was not published and didn't explain its methodology. The Iraq Body Count isn't a scientific survey - it keeps track of deaths that are reported in the media. It's highly unlikely that every (or even most) deaths that occur in a war in a country like Iraq (recall how dangerous…

Maddening. Rant is about all I can do with this. A small goon mob of GoP operatives dressed in blazers intimidating Florida election officials in Nov. of 2000 stops the vote recount leading to a genuine stolen Presidential election, which leads to exceptional political shenanigans to leverage pain and anguish with false intelligence and lies to justify a war killing hundreds of thousands for the sole purposes of remaining in power in order to keep the richest or the rich the richest of the rich. The Republican Party should be banned, and if everyone would just vote in their personal economic interests and stop being distracted by irrelevant issues, we'd never see anything like this or Trump again. Nearly everyone, excepting the uber rich, the multi-hundred millionaires and billionaires, would be economically better off with a long-sustained liberal government, and the uber rich certainly wouldn't be slumming it. Anyone voting Republican without an income of at least $350K/yr is sinking their own tiny boat and taking everyone down with them, except, of course, the uber rich. They should put a cap on wealth of $150M and appropriate all wealth gains above that for even distribution. Who has a problem with this? How many are going to bitch about only being able to have $150M? Seriously, billionaires and half-billionaires really, legitimately and provably, are the source of all problems, which fundamentally are economic problems, that inevitably make their way down to everyone else. End rant... and fallacious but, I think, still somewhat compelling argument.

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#428
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, if you experience blackouts that often your infrastructure is probably prepared for it. Most of Europe basically never has blackouts, so why spend money on backup batteries when they will be deprecated before they'll even be used once?

Canada/US learnt that lesson back in 2003 with the Northeast Blackout. Generators on cell towers where not fueled and some data centre’s caught fire when the cooling went down but the systems didn’t. Lessons where learned. Cell infra is strategic and should not be allowed to go down, everything uses it and people will die if it goes down.

I'm in a Seattle suburb and we had a two-day blackout a few years back. Cell reception worked fine for 12 hours but then went to 1 bar. Presumably the closest cell site ran out of gas on the backup generator and my phone switched to a site outside the blackout zone.

What is wild was that this was entirely localized! A single substation affecting maybe 20,000 people. How many cell sites were affected, a dozen? And still T-Mobile couldn't manage refueling. In a country-wide crisis we would be totally boned.

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Torpedoing wind projects and investing more in gas pipelines and generators is exactly what the green movement was about.

Well Greenpeace is selling gas so it seems to be yes.

What an utterly intellectually bankrupt way of framing the sale of an 85% renewable energy mix.

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well Greenpeace is selling gas so it seems to be yes.

What an utterly intellectually bankrupt way of framing the sale of an 85% renewable energy mix.

> Since 2011 Green Planet Energy has been selling the proWindgas product which was initially 100% imported fossil gas, and the company promised a gradual increase in the proportion of hydrogen generated from excess renewable energy.[5] As of 2020 the share of hydrogen mostly oscillated below 1%.[6] > Sales of 99% fossil gas presented as “eco-gas” have been criticized as contradictory[7][8] as well as "greenwashing" of Russian gas.

cf: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy

What an utterly bankrupt way of framing the sale of 99% gas as a renewable energy mix.

Closer to the politician than the cat.

Post reply on HN