clusterfish

I don't buy that as a factor. Given that the OEMs overprice the parts that they have to compete with aftermarket suppliers for, why would they NOT overprice the parts for which they have no such competition?

Note that being unable to profitably replicate the part does not necessarily mean that the part is naturally expensive, or that the OEM already sells it at a reasonable price. The part could just as well be hard to reverse engineer and QA for a third party, or the effort to do that might not be worth it given unknown level of demand, etc. OEM can actually have a natural price advantage over third parties in such complex parts.

That's not what this is about. Negative electricity prices are rare, and do not account for the massive difference in utilization between renewables and nuclear. By the way nuclear power output can be ramped up and down by a lot, and in a matter of minutes in case of unplanned problems, even if it can't (really shouldn't) go to dead zero.

The person I responded to claimed that nuclear plants run at close to 100% because they bid low because the marginal cost of their electricity production is low, but the same is true for renewables like wind and solar. Yet these renewables run at much lower utilization rates - because of weather and daylight cycle, not "because they can", except in rare cases of negative prices as you mentioned.

Coal and gas sure, but renewables are obviously dependent on weather. Nobody runs their solar panels less than maximally possible "because they can". When there is significant oversupply of energy from solar, it gets sold for pennies on the dollar to neighbouring regions, and when the sun doesn't shine, you're sol.

You don't get it. In the US you can watch something else, despite the oversized influence of media conglomerates.

I mean then we can't really use that video to judge or corroborate the morality / atrocities of the sides. And even for economics and politics, there is no analysis of balance or tradeoffs, just an exposition of what Russia wants. The video is still good information for those unaware, but only in the realpolitik sense, not as a source of moral or value judgements about the situation.

That is a decent factual YouTube video but it is laser focused on the title - what does Russia get out of invading Ukraine. There is no discussion at all of atrocities or moral controversies... Does the advertised curiosity stream series go into more details on that?

I'm with you on all points. Nazis are bad, of course. Invasions are bad. The reason I cared to comment is because Ukrainian Nazis are used as justification for the invasion in Russia.

But nazis exist in many countries, and are given legitimacy in many countries. In Ukraine they're paramilitary, in Russia they're a mercenary force, in Germany they sit in parliament (AFD), in US they have obvious affiliation with the political party that is in power half the time (and have strong legal protections for both their speech and guns).

All of that can be used as excuses to forcefully "denazify" a country, like Russia is doing now, but none of that are actually good reasons to invade those countries or deny any of those countries the right for independence, not even close.

You won't find 100% correctness even in peace time. That doesn't mean you can throw your hands in the air and assume that information from both sides of the conflict is on average equally (un)trustworthy.

There's tons of evidence to show the horrors of what Russia is doing in Ukraine, and stuff like the ghost of Kyiv is just a morale boost for Ukrainians and is utterly irrelevant.

So yes, you should of course be sceptical, but no amount of honest and fair scepticism will paint Russia's invasion in a significantly better light.

There's Azov batallion, but Russia has its own Wagner group. None of that is an excuse to invade another country and shell civilians of course.

Yeah right. You keep trying to hairsplit one sentence because you're butthurt that nobody cared about the conflict you cared about, but now people dare to care a "lesser" conflict that you don't care about. And oh here's a story about Namecheap, let's blame them for that too.

Because they don't want to deal with people who are paying for the bombs falling on them, even if it's not those people's fault. They're a private company so they get to make such decisions. You can always go to some faceless IPO-d megacorp that doesn't care about anything except profits.

Don't bullshit me, you were talking about Namecheap's response, not other countries' sanctions.

The sanctioning countries are third parties to this conflict. You can talk about their double standards all you want, I won't disagree.

But Namecheap is not a third party to this conflict. They have full right to care more about what is happening to themselves and their families than what happens to people in other unrelated countries and their families.

Their reasoning in the email is a factual truth: war crimes in Ukraine specifically. They're allowed to care about themselves. You don't have to care about them yourself, being a third party that has the luxury of double standards in this conflict. But don't project your current position in this conflict onto them, and don't hide your envy or indifference behind demagoguery about their email's wording.

I hope your own country / city / office / home never gets shelled, so that you never have to learn the difference between caring for your home and a "double standard". Nothing easier than armchair demagoguery, until a grad shell lands in your daughter's bedroom.

You should email their support. I don't think they actually want to terminate your particular account, I think they only want to target people and companies who are actually in Russia (so they looked for Russian addresses and payment methods on file).

Their communication on this issue was terrible in many ways, but honestly I can't blame a company who's literally being shelled today for missing the mark once.