superboum

First bias is "perception", which is influenced by how media want to communicate and who own them - in France, mostly right wing billionaires. There is no actual correlation with actual, real, statistics.

Second, by who answer the survey - often people concerned about insecurity, which is a topic from the right.

Finally, there is no control on how many times you can vote, and some people demonstrated that with very few knowledge, you can completely change the results by sending thousands of vote [1].

The fact that Nantes is deemed highly insecure in France is also the consequence of this city being socialist and the place where police killed a guy named Steve during a party. So these attacks on Nantes being dangerous can also be interpreted as a backlash[2].

Please Hacker News, you're better than this, don't fall in this trap...

It seems the first "grid scale batteries" were derived from EV batteries, and are planned for 1 or 2 decades[1].

Basically, we are discussing battery ageing here, which is a complex problem[2].

According to the different studies on the topic I found, mentioning specifically "large-scale" installation like the ones discussed here, the answer is definitely and deceptively the same: between 10 and 20 years[3][5]. More precisely.

From [3]:

> To address the global effort to decrease carbon emissions, many consumers, corporations, and energy providers are adopting the use of electric vehicles and stationary energy storage systems paired with renewable electricity generation. These systems often utilize large-format lithium-ion batteries [...]. Real-world battery lifetime is evaluated by simulating residential energy storage and commercial frequency containment reserve systems in several U.S. climate regions. Predicted lifetime across cell types varies from 7 years to 20+ years, though all cells are predicted to have at least 10 year life in certain conditions.

From [5]:

> In the 2020 report, calendar life for both LFP and NMC Li-ion systems was stated as 10 years. The 2022 report takes additional information from long-term laboratory work (Saft, 2021) and product data into account (Baxter, 2021b) to establish new calendar lives of 16 years for LFP and 13 years for NMC. The calendar life is unchanged for 2030.

I also claim that battery are not renewable. One might argue that, if we can recycle batteries like we recycle regular glass, it could be considered as renewable. However, today there are 2 industrialized processes that are not satisfying (pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical processing) which "require high energy, and/or complex wet-chemistry steps"[4]. Some explored processes called "direct recycling"[4], which also has severe drawbacks but at least is more promising.

Which makes me think: we are, at least, making huge bets on the future here, as we risk 1) having huge amount of aged batteries in 1 or 2 decades, 2) no more mineral resources to extract.

Don't get me wrong: the article is very interesting. I really learnt something: I discovered "system inertia", I was not aware of stability issues linked to inverters, and did not know about grid-forming & grid-following inverters, and the research about finding the minimal amount of grid-forming to keep a power-grid stable in case of an issue in a given power plant. All of these topics are very interesting.

But making a connection between inverters and ecology through the "net zero" terms seems either off topic, misleading or irrelevant. First because this "net zero" term is heavily criticized as it means carbon are still emitted but companies are paying for carbon credits (that are not compensating at all the carbon emitted for many reasons [1]). Here building solar panels, wind turbines & batteries emits CO2, and their lifespan is relatively short (at most 10 years for batteries, ~25 years for wind turbines & solar panels, compared to hundreds of years for a dam[7]). Second because climate change is not the only concern about ecology, there are concerning questions about mineral resource extraction, like lithium[2] that is heavily used in batteries, but more generally, we are already extracting the whole Mendeleev periodic table[3]: we don't have alternative mineral resources for batteries or other technologies, the only solution is to extract, produce & consume less. Third, if your only goal is to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent (eqCO2), you should advertise nuclear power plant as the solution. Depending on studies, they produce the same amount or less eqCO2 compared to a wind turbine without batteries[4]. Of course, often eqCO2 is not the only important subject here (being renewable/sustainable is also important, and uranium is a limited resource). And finally, the fact we use renewable energy more and more did not lead to a worlwide energy transition, but an addition. Having a transition will require way more than technologies[5], something that is also not discussed here.

Speaking about solutions to pack a higher percentage of Intermittent renewable energy sources (IRES)[6] in a power-grid through the help of batteries and inverters would have been more accurate in my opinion. Maybe "Why we were not able to achieve 100% renewable energy before?" if you want to be catchy, and it's not perfect, as you are still hiding that you rely on lot of batteries, that are far from being renewable.

As a conclusion, I would say it would be great to be careful when engineers (here IEEE) discuss specific technologies (here power-grid inverters) to not draw conclusion too quickly (having a positive environmental impact), as it's far from being obvious. I know they want to be read, I know that the title must be catchy to attract readers, but it's not an excuse as illustrated above.

  A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person named and ensures credit to the person for the idea.
  Please note that this tag should not be added without the reporter's permission, especially if the idea was not posted in a public forum. 
  That said, if we diligently credit our idea reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the future.

My idea when I installed Haiku was to make my own version of the "old computer challenge"[1], with an emphasis on using GUI apps.

Similarly to @probono (a FOSS dev), I also found Haiku "shockingly good"[2] at being a lightweight, responsive, easy-to-use desktop OS.

After some patching, I was even able to compile Tectonic[3], a modern LaTeX engine written in Rust, and Quaternion a Matrix client supporting E2EE[4]. All that running on a single core Athlon 64 and 1.5GB of RAM.

I posted some screenshots in a Mastodon threads if you are curious[5] (but my posts are in french sorry :/). And of course this comment is posted from Haiku!

I think an interesting comparison, for both Linen and Matrix, would be to compare these 2 approaches: Linen natively indexed conversation and this Matrix "static" client. I would be especially interested by what additional features Linen provides in term of indexing compared to this static client.

I also work on a Rust IMAP server that is far from being as feature complete as yours. I also chose your `mail-parser` library to parse RFC822/5822, but we observed that in many cases, we did not have enough information to build some BODY/BODYSTRUCTURE responses. We also discovered that line count and many details are not very obvious on IMAP, did you run some tests to compare your IMAP server outputs to existing servers? Or, more generally, what is your approach to ensure compatibility / integration with the existing email ecosystem?

In any case, congratulation for your project, we will follow it closely! I experimented how big these protocols became with all their extensions, this is an impressive work!