loopback_device

Except that the www came out of Switzerland, the first electric vehicles out of Scotland and Germany, the earliest descriptions of neural networks - also Scotland, and countless other things, like Rockets and whatnot, also out of Europe. But, sure, congrats on that ARPANet thing.

> And where are the "EU" armed forces, and nuclear weapon supply chain

Well, in France and in England, although the other european countries have them as well, and/or are part of that supply chain - but it's not exactly advertised due to the general population's (imo understandable) disdain for nuclear weapons; and probably a collection of geopolitical reasons too.

> Traffic shifts seen in some networks/locations due to phased integration of new IP geolocation provider

There's an event marker with a possible reason for it - which does make one wonder how bad the accuracy of the geolocation data is/was

14, if you're with a parent / old enough sibling / legal guardian, and they consent to it.

Not sure "TLS added and removed here :)" as a Service is the right tool in the drawer for this.

On Windows you can Shift+Scroll to scroll horizontally, so getting the scrollbar into the viewport is not necessary (if it's obvious that the container scrolls that way).

> One of them has to do with weapons grade material which isn’t even the subject we’re talking about

Btw, the Sellafield complex has a civilian nuclear power plant – the fact that there was a military facility there in the 50s does not make that disappear?

> and this pretty much proves my original point about how incredibly uneducated people are.

Ouch.

If you need another example, read up on La Hague, where Germany also disposed of some of its waste.

Sellafield is what caused mainland Europe to stop importing Irish butter in the nineteen-somethings, among other things. Not buying Irish butter is a thing I still remember. And Gorleben - I've been there recently. It's been a candidate for long term storage in Germany, and is still a processing/holding facility today. You can also get a tour of the mine that was supposed to be used as storage. Not sure if you're aware, but Germany doesn't have nuclear weapons, so it's all commercial nuclear fuel and waste processing. (EDIT: This is relevant to Sellafield, as waste from there is or was also processed in Gorleben if I recall correctly)

The phosphate mine waste incident - while not from a power plant - is still a radioactive waste issue. (EDIT 2: I mentioned this because it was the most recent incident in my memory)

Hospitals don't usually cause a radioactive disaster if bombed into oblivion – and are also not valid military targets as per Geneva Conventions.

Radioactive isotopes used in medicine have significantly shorter half-lives than the isotopes found in fuel rods. I'm sure you can get something nasty done with them if you wanted to, and there are also enough incidents in that field, but it's not really comparable?

> It is just a set of changing goalposts isnt it?

Was just answering your question – it wasn't me who brought up the transport castors. Quite to the contrary, I initially wrote "[...] concerns with this stuff are not necessarily about the short term storage [...]".

> This makes little sense. First, who is taking about "background radiation"?

There's only few locations known where natural reactors formed, they were only a few centimeters in size, and were active a billion years ago. They've long gone through the main part of their decay cycle. The remainder would be considered elevated background radiation. The reason we know they were or are there is because the products of decay are still where they formed, in the rock. Not scattered around the globe. Probably not safe to cuddle with regardless. Mother nature does not give a fuck, which is why it doesn't matter.

Further, these natural reactors are not known to go critical and obliterate a city. And even if they did, that might have been millions to billions of years ago, I'm sure we weren't there to be worried about it.

Chernobyl and Fukushima are good examples not necessarily because of their reactor design, but for the understanding of risks, their mitigation, and ultimately their catastrophic failure. Also because they're the few examples that exist, thankfully we do not have more of them.

The countless hours of safe operation of nuclear power plants also does not magically offset the danger in their failures, which does not have to be – but can be – extremely catastrophic. The fact that there's an award for running a hideously dangerous machine for 3 years without it becoming more dangerous than ideal does not make it sound any better.

And yes, photovoltaic (solar) runs perfectly fine for even a decade nonstop (see almost every house in Europe with solar on their roof) – in the case of the International Space Station – for 23 years, and counting. Bonus: a panel failure does not mean you get to die.

> Wind? Solar? you cant seriously propose these sources can supply enough power can you?

Uhm, yes, believe it or not, that stuff does work. Obviously not at the moment on a country level, because we've been busy burning coal everywhere instead of investing in energy sources that make sense decades ago, but that's where we need to go.