but because the Germans as a people are idiots
Which is easily explained when pensioneers (and soon to be pensioneers) have the absolute majority and give a fuck about anything but their pensions and everything staying as it was.
(For reference the 50/50 split of voters by age is quickly approaching 60...)
But encrypting already encrypted HTTPS data is largely irrelevant (for that simplified analogy) unless you don't trust the encryption in the first place. So the relevant part is hiding the HTTPS headers (your addresses from above) from your the network providing your connection (and the receiving end) by encrypting them.
Unless of course you want to point out that a VPN also encrypts HTTP... which most people have probably not used for years, in fact depending on browser HTTP will get refused by default nowadays.
Nope, this is simply framing because the coal lobby pays millions to sell you the lie of how there is no way around coal and you should give up on reducing it.
In reality the majority of G20 countries are decreasing coal emissions steadily and with a goal to completely phase it out in years. But there are countries included in those 20 that increase coal instead (for example China is up 30% since 2015, India up 29%). And countries like South Korea and Australia while not increasing coal (but also being slower in reductions...) are just rediculous far ahead in emissions per capita (> 3t) thus having a much higher impact on the overall statistics.
Non-Internet analogy:
You communicate via snail mail with someone. Both ends know the address of each other. So does the postal service delivering your mail. Everyone opening your letter can read (and with some work even manipulate) the content. That's HTTP.
Now you do the same, but write in code. Now the addresses are still known to every involved party but the content is secured from being read and thus from being manipulated, too. That's HTTPS.
And now you pay someone to pick up your mail, send it from their own address and also get the answers there that are then delivered back to you. The content is exactly as secure as before. But now you also hide your address from the postal service (that information has the guy you pay extra now though...) and from the one you are communicating with. That's a VPN.
So using a VPN doesn't actually make your communication more secure. It just hides who you are communicating with from your ISP (or the public network you are using). Question here is: do you have reasons to not trust someone with that information and do you trust a VPN provider more for some reason? And it hides your address from the guy you are communicating with (that's the actual benefit of a VPN for some, as this can circumvent network blocks or geo-blocking).
Long story short: Do you want to hide who you are communicating with from the network you are using to access the internet? Then get a VPN. The actual data you send (and receive) is sufficiently secured by HTTPS already.
This here is the actual problem of nuclear power. And it's happening in a lot of countries.
People either promise new nuclear because it gets them votes without any actual intend to go through with their plans. Or they really plan to build them but then -for cost reasons- the plans aren't even on the right scale to cover the needed base load in 2 decades+, given the projected increase in electricity demand via electrification of industries and transport for decarbonization.
And then people talking about this bullshit level of driving future energy plans against a wall are called idiologically damaged idiots fearing nuclear. Nope, the actual "fear" is people trading in basic math and reality for populist rhetoric...
Just be happy that Sweden has an above average amount of potential for hydro power (so there is at least an alternative without sufficient nuclear base load) and not that many anti-renewable morons (another trend nowadays with the pro-nuclear crowd still, for some rediculous reason or another).
Oh, believe me: There are so many messy BIOS and UEFI implementations out there that you can definitely deactivate it in the BIOS for some. Which just introduces even more mess where hibernation triggered on the OS level then fails.
They actually don't. They try and it works for some time. And then the next Windows update intentionally fries their dual-boot. Then they go back to Windows.
Or they understood enough about the details and how to minimize the risk (basically running Linux with an linux boot manager that then chain-loads Windows boot files from another disk, so Windows is mostly oblivious about the other OS... and even then Windows likes to screw with the efi record) that they are mainly running linux. And later they tend to ditch Windows completely of just keep a virtual machine if they really need it for some proprietory stuff.
At least those scenarios above cover 95% of all people "dual-booting" I know...
In comparison, dual- or triple-booting Linux is indeed a bit less problematic. But the same thing applies: You mainly run one. And given that Linux distributions are all nearly the same, with just a few differences in pre-configuration and defaults, there's not much point to it.
If that's your take why is exactly nobody doing it? Oh, yeah. Because nobody has a clue how to actually pay the massive (and mostly paid in advance) costs.
Yet a lot of countries are proudly planning to build nuclear soon™ instead of those silly renewables, when what they actually would need to do is building much more nuclear than they are planning right now while also building massive amounts of renewables.
You are not actually wrong. Building more nuclear right now is an option. Building-up storage and infrastructure instead is the other viable one. Building massive amounts of renewables is needed in both cases.
The moment you show me countries starting nuclear in proper amounts right now, while also building and planning the needed increase in renewables alongside I will cheer for them. (For reference: energy demand increasing by a factor of at least 2,5 with ~35% production capacity needed for a solid base load means your minimal goal for nuclear capacities right now should be ~100% of todays demand...)
But as basically no country seems to be able to manage that investment the only option is storage and infrastructure. Is it costing the same in the end? Maybe? Probably? We don't know actually as decade long predictions for evolving technologies are not that precise (just look at the cost development of solar in the last decade for example). We know however that this is a constant investment over the same time renewables are build up to provide 100% coverage (PS: the actual numbers would be 115% to 125% btw... based on (regional) diversification of renewables and calculating losses through long-term storage).
Again: I'm not against building nuclear (and renewables!) right now, if that's your plan. I am however very much about the bullshit that is going on right now, where it's more important to show how smart you are by building some nuclear capacity (with the math not adding up at all) while laughing about others building renewables and spouting bullshit how it's just a scam to burn fossil fues forever.
Contrary to the popular narrative between building up renewables and storage and building just some nuclear capacities and some token renewables -if at all- it's not the former countries that are running on ideology with no actual real world plan.
As already said above: I totally support France' plan for 14 new reactors build until 2050, with a lot of renewable build-up at the same time. Because that's a workable plan. But that they already have problems publically justifying the bare minimum requirement of 14 reactors and the renewable up-build is a symptom of a larger problem. And basically every other country planning new nuclear power right now isn't even close to this scale and just living in a fairy tale world... or just providing an token effort while hoping for other bigger countries to solve the issue for them in the end.
Yes, what you are missing is reality.
You can either build renewables to replace fossil fuels in the next years (and if the build-up doesn't work as fast as you want to then it will takes a a few years more to reach zero), getting less and less every day. Or you can build new nuclear reactors and just keep burning coal full steam for 5 years, 10, 15, probably 20. And then you reactors are finally online, but electricity demand has increased by +100% (and further increasing...) so you burn more coal for another 5, 10, 15, or 20 years...
The exact same thing happens btw right now in basically every single European country that promotes nuclear. Because nobody is building enough capacities to actually cover the minimal required base load in 2-3 decades (electricity demand until 2050 will raise by a factor of 2,5 at least - because most countries today only cover 20-25% of their primary energy demand with electricity but will need to raise that to close to 100% to decarbonize other sectors; so we are talking about about a factor of 4-5, minus savings because electricity can be more efficient). They just build some and pretend to do something construtive, while in reality this is for show and they have basically given up on finding a solution that isn't let's hope the bigger countries in Europe save us.
For reference: France -so the country with optimal conditions given their laws and regulations favoring nuclear power and having a domestic production of nuclear reactors- announced 6 new reactors with an option for up to 8 additional ones and that they would also build up some renewables as a short-term solution to bridge the time until those reactors are ready. That's a lie. They need the full set of 14 just for covering their base load for their projected electricity demand in 2050 and that's just ~35% of ther production with the remaining 65% being massive amounts of renewables (see RTE -France' grid provider- study in 2021). Is this doable? Sure. It will be hard work and cost a lot of money but might be viable... But already today the country with good pre-conditions and in-house production of nuclear reactors and with a population highly supportive of nuclear can't tell it's own people the truth about the actually needed investments into nuclear (and renewables!), because it's just that expensive. (Another fun fact: The only reason why their models of nuclear power vs. full renewables are economically viable is because they also planned to integrate huge amounts of hydrogen production for industry, time-independent export (all other countries will have lower production and higher demand at the same time by then) and as storage. So the exact same thing the usual nuclear cult here categorically declares as unviable when it's about renewables.)
We aren't reacting at all because the people in power don't care.
And with that I don't even mean politicians -although the narrative is popular- but in many cases the voters who just want to live the few decades they have left as always without any changes.
This. So what if Ukraine destroyed the pipeline. Russia invaded their country. Its war.
How about this as a draft of how to react?
But they didn't attack the Russian side. They have commited an act of war against an ally. Oh, and of course they kept importing and transfering Russian gas none-the-less... through lines they get paid for. Not really surprising given the fact that they had also pushed lies and propaganda about Germany for half a year at that point (We could see German weapons delivered to Ukraine in videos back in March or see Russians document German mines in April while Ukrainian officials still openly lied that not a single piece promised -including from before the war- was ever delivered... in June. We also will not simply forget the lying propagadist pushing desinformation in Germany for 7 years while pretending to be an actual ambassador), but very telling.
Proof that they detonated the pipelines that weren't even in use, so purely for symbolical reasons, and were also willing to attack the infrastructure of a country supporting them to do so would very well fit the picture and should have the obvious consequences:
Supporting them right now makes sense from humanitarian and geo-political perspectives. Once that acute problem is handled... let's treat them exactly like the "Russia light" corrupt shit hole that is lying, pushing propaganda and carrying out false-flag operation against an ally even, probably while believing this to be actual foreign politics.
Yes, they have a choice. Ignoring India's issues including that they in fact increase trade with Russia massively is not what stops them from going on like this.