Decarbonization needs to happen anyway and is pretty much automatic energy independence. If the current US administration provides an extra motivation that’s gerast news for the climate.
Yeah, but if you deindustrialize by the time you decarbonize, because your industry left or went bust from expensive energy and environmental regulations, you now have an even bigger problem.
" And decarbonisation means nuclearisation. Which Europe has been moving in the opposite direction on "
source?
And I mean, more than "Germany phase out nuclear stations."
My understanding is that wind turbine + PV + battery storage has a cycle where you buy once every twenty years, or more. So you buy once, and have twenty years to figure out the next buy cycle, geopolitical cycles and all.
On the fossil fuel side, you need to buy many times per year, every year. Each one of those buy events is an opportunity for an external party for stop your economy.
The renewable buy cycle is harder for an external party to interrupt.
edit: This is vastly over-simplified, but I hope my understanding reflects reality at least somewhat.
I also worry about the "stop the economy" problem. To me, it's analogous to the AI employment problem. If you cannibalize how a country makes money and generates tax revenue, what do you do instead? For example, Nigeria makes a lot of money from oil sales. Take away the oil industry and how do they make money? Nobody can pretend to be a Nigerian prince or a businessman trying to reclaim millions of dollars.
Now that I think of it, maybe the economic fallout from AI and the oil economic devastation will be widespread fraud, just so people can survive.
Yeah. I've been wondering to what extent this is keeping the global geopolitics stable. Rich countries are keeping many other countries stable-ish that would otherwise rapidly devolve into disaster (obviously the middle east being the huge example). Even going so far as keeping countries stable-ish at the request of those countries (Egypt and Jordan being examples) despite those countries not really being oil countries.
When that incentive disappears, as it will, what then? There is no way in hell the middle east can defend against Iranian aggression without other people doing it for them. And it's not just the middle east. The consequences of isolationism will lower enormously. Why won't rich countries just lock the border and dig in?
We're not even that far removed from finding out what will happen, it's only about 7 years away. I'd love some early warning though.
The reason we have Iran with an insane government and all the princes and total lack of democracy is BECAUSE of all the interference due to oil.
America and before it Britain and the colonial powers just walked in there and stole everything and so now the region is divided into countries that were soccuessfully captured (Qatar etc) and countries that threw us out (Iran).
If oil wasn’t as important it might be chaos for a while though because this dictatorships are propped up expressly so they can sell us cheap oil.
No. Iraq did not attack Iran due to oil. Iran did not counterattack Iraq because of oil. It was merely dictatorships wanting to conquer and seeing a chance to do so. Sorry.
Ideally one also manufactures them. But when you buy solar panels, one get's 30+ years of lifetime out of it. So once installed. It's tricky for China (or whoever makes time) to use them as leverage. If you cut off oil or gas there is only a few months of reserves.
Huh? What prevents you from installing them "all at once"?
The downside is obviously a long stretch of no sun, and for Europe winter being both low solar production and high energy demand due to heating which the soon-to-be-cheap grid scale batteries don’t really fix. The logistics of PV don’t seem difficult though - it seems by far the easiest of the power generation methods, even if the synchronization can get a bit tricky in a large grid.
Solar panel materials are extremely toxic (current tech), or are toxic unless properly processed (hopefully, but likely, future tech).
So they won't be made in the EU, since nobody wants to make concessions here. Solar panels have the same problem as oil and mining: they will destroy nature somewhere, otherwise it doesn't work.
Crystalline silicon solar panels have about 95% market share, and "By weight, the typical crystalline silicon solar panel is made of about 76% glass, 10% plastic polymer, 8% aluminum, 5% silicon, 1% copper, and less than 0.1% silver and other metals."
Everything that is manufactured is made out of atoms, and you can say that any manufacturing requires some nature destruction in the aggregate. But solar electricity requires far less mining and natural despoilation than fossil-fueled electricity.
Solar panels contain quite a bit of lead, and small amounts of cadmium. Lead can be taken out if you're willing to pay a bit more, in other words it never is. Cadmium is required. Other metals are sometimes present.
So solar panels are classified as hazardous waste.
There is only degrees of independence in the global economy. No country can be completely self sufficient. Having an energy infrastructure that runs for a decade or two before it starts crumpling without trade is a lot better than having an energy infrastructure that is in dire straits after a few weeks or months of embargo.
Valid-sounding argument, but ultimately irrelevant in the medium term. In fact, converting civilian traffic to EVs makes it a lot easier to ration fuel for military uses in emergencies.
It's been an issue since WW2 that there's very little oil on the European continent. That's why Germany planned to seize Azerbaijan in the first place.
It turns out that if you aren't deluded by culture war superficialities, energy efficiency is an advantage on the battlefield. Presumably this Prius on treads is confusing to chickenhawks who conflate "Likes" on Facebook and Instagram with military supremacy.
Looking at the Russo-Ukrainian war, battery-powered drones seem to be more important than tanks right now. Russia, famously, had a lot of tanks; now, Oryx has a lot of their metal carcasses. Gone are the days of mass T-34 attacks that decided entire wars.
I will concede your point on heavier aircraft, though.
Everyone with any military training has been laughing at how bad Russia was using their tanks, thus allowing them to be destroyed. Losing some tanks in battle is a given, but it is generally believed that if Russia was using tanks according to the Soviet doctrine they knew well they would not have lost near as many - as proof of that Thesis, Ukraine has been using the Soviet doctrine and not lost nearly as many tanks. (Ukraine lacks enough artillery to apply the Soviet doctrine of war which is why they are using drones - they have now developed new styles of fighting that uses the drones they have, but tanks are still an important part of war)
Tanks are the heavy cavalry of the modern era, their main use is to break defensive lines.
Or rather, was. Neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians, operating diverse tanks on the bases of different doctrines, managed to do much breaking with them. The battlefield of today is just too different and much more hostile to anything that moves in the open and is big and slow enough to get hit.
Between zero fossil and full fossil there's a world of nuances, too often ignored. How much oil are those heavier aircraft using, as percentage of the whole country usage? The difference is the answer needed.
It is not just oil, but the necessity to keep up the entire separate infrastructure for its refining, processing, storage and distribution.
Imagine a world where the railroad, for some reason, is still stuck with steam engines and black coal. Everything else moved on, but they cannot, thus keeping the mines open etc. Very uncomfortable and far from optimal.
We still have coal mines open, what do you mean? For less and less uses, yes, but they still have their uses, and we are not (nor should be) judging them for that.
The last coal mine in my country just closed a few days ago, 244 years after mining started. I am a bit influenced by this, because I live in that region.
That is true, but I would say that transnational units of, say, 1 billion people and more, should at least strive to be as resilient to blackmail as possible.
The current situation is such that if China and the US decide to sanction any third party at the same time (be it India or the EU or Russia or Saudi or whoever), the targeted party will suffer like hell.
Sure, as of 2026, this sort of coordinated action between current Chinese and American leaders seems unlikely. But leaders change. Sometimes in the most unlikely way.
That’s majorly moving the goalposts. Other than Saudi Arabia, I can’t think of any country in the world today that has more energy independence that you would get if you ran on renewables + battery + nuclear. You’d have years and years of buffer, compared to the US strategic oil reserve which has maybe a few months of buffer.
The US is currently a net oil exporter, and has been for a few years.
Now of course that's not the whole picture, but if push came to shove, the US could achieve energy independence (at least technologically, if not poitically).
True, the US could supply all of its energy needs through great effort and by making its population pay much higher energy prices. In contrast, if a country were to build around e.g. solar, and then all countries that made the panels embargoed them, the price of electricity would merely stop falling.
Czechia is quite nuclear-friendly and yet we ran into a problem with nuclear fuel supply; you don't feed raw uranium into the reactor, you need specially designed fuel rods. Switching from Russian to American ones for our nuclear power plants took several years. We just finished doing so, and now there is a conflict between the US and the rest of the world as well. Lovely.
All solvable, all better than just running out of oil, but I wouldn't call the situation "independence", just "having a better buffer".
Decarbonization needs to happen anyway - that statement is issued as if its fact. A realist would would posit that energy independence, or energy security and its underlying national security implications should be arrived at by any means necessary, carbon or non-carbon based.
Carbon based energy contributes to what amounts to be a multi-trillion dollar disaster and may even contribute to the destruction of a nation using it.
Not to mention that such an investment is wasted capital. Change is accelerating and that energy infrastructure would need to be realistically dismantled in fairly short order.
Sure, but there are really great reasons to get rid of fossil fuels and energy independence is a nice bonus. Countries tend to have multiple goals at the same time. It's nice if multiple problems have the same solution.
Indigneous peoples of the Arctic have seen this disregard for them play out, over and over:
Particularly concerning was the focus on Greenland’s efforts to extract mineral
wealth or create defence positions, said Obed. “That’s the scariest part of the
rhetoric that has been circulating,” he said. “I did believe we were beyond this
central premise that if Indigenous peoples do not improve our land based on the
criteria of imperialist actors, that somehow we do not have self-determination.
The decisions that are made about our land and what we want for it are ours
alone.”
-- Natan Obed, President of Canada’s national Inuit organisation, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami
Norwegians are the closest thing to the “indigenous people” of Greenland. The only people older than them died out a thousand years ago. The Intuit people who live there now arrived hundreds of years after the Norsemen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland (“The Thule people are the ancestors of the current Greenlandic population. No genes from the Palaeo-Inuit Dorset culture have been found in the present population of Greenland.[61] The Thule culture migrated eastward from what is now known as Alaska around 1000 AD, reaching Greenland around 1300.”).
>Trade group WindEurope said more European countries were now moving towards offering revenue guarantees to offshore wind developers as standard, after Denmark and Germany held subsidy-free auctions, which failed to attract any bids.
In other words, new wind farms will need subsidies, an those will have to be payed for by the populace. This isn't necessarily something specific to wind power, nuclear needs subsidies as well.
I am led to believe that a large number of europeans hangs out around here(especially in morning hours when US is asleep) that wants to discuss european (geo)political issues and i wonder why this is not happening in other forums.
Ironically, HN gets political discussion because the moderation is good enough that it's not a complete waste of time. Most subreddits have been assigned one side or the other by their moderators, for example.
Yes, moderation here is better than elsewhere and the usual bad actors cannot do more than "drive-by downvotes", which are annoying, but nowhere near as disruptive.
The voting seems to work a lot better than the flagging mechanism, for what it’s worth. It’s rare that the top-rated comment is nonsense, or that a bottom-rated comment for more than a few minutes isn’t close to a waste of time.
It is hard to completely separate out technical from political content in some contexts. Power generation, military hardware, tech company regulation… these have sort of obvious technical and political aspects.
1.) r/europe discussed this news as well
2.) There is lack of European social media to discuss it there :P
3.) Actually this meeting mentioned in the article was big on German news. Every news outlet mentioned it, long articles etc. so it was discussed at least in Germany
hacker news is an coder / sysadmin / tech worker/ IT person's forum.
You are correct that such people exist in the EU and UK and indeed, other parts of the world too, and that they frequent this forum. At the appropriate local times of day.
And when they are here, they discuss a range of issues inside and outside of tech. Including geo-political issues.
The more motivated will also find more narrowly focused forums, but general forums remain popular. In general.
A lot of Trump supporters (and here I include everyone who does not vigorously oppose him in this group) have a very deep belief in America's exceptionalism. To them, it does not matter that the country is run by incompetent people, it does not matter that the rulers are deeply corrupt, immoral, lawless, or abusive. America's economy will run despite all this, America's qualify of life will not suffer because of this, America's position in the world will not suffer for it, because America is unique, exceptional and the centre of the world.
And in the short term they will seem to be right - after all "Liberation Day" tariffs were supposed to destroy the economy and everything is fine! It was just a bunch of boys crying wolf. But the reality is that it took decades to get to this level of integration and it's hard and slow to turn the ship of state around. But people outside the US are very motivated and getting increasingly motivated to turn things around and it'll be essentially a generation-long project to disengage from the US. At some point the US will try to squeeze someone and find out they simply don't have what they once had.
> At some point the US will try to squeeze someone and find out they simply don't have what they once had.
In the aftermath of the Carney speech in Davos and similar talk around the world, there seems to be a corresponding desire to bring China to the same realization. These are generational hopes, mind you, not knee-jerk, rapidly invoked changes being planned.
Trump supporters believe that the status quo was intolerable, and interpret Trump's bad qualities as further evidence that he has what it takes to smash that status quo. He's the bully on your side. In an intolerable situation, the nastier and more volatile that bully is, the better. It took me a long time to understand this.
Different Trump supports will have different parts of the status quo that they personally despise. The abstraction is universally true, however.
Trump was change. It was so long ago now that we forget just how different he was from the candidates like Bush. But people have demanded change for decades now. Trump was smart enough to give them his version of change.
Decarbonization needs to happen anyway and is pretty much automatic energy independence. If the current US administration provides an extra motivation that’s gerast news for the climate.
Yeah, but if you deindustrialize by the time you decarbonize, because your industry left or went bust from expensive energy and environmental regulations, you now have an even bigger problem.
And decarbonisation means nuclearisation. Which Europe has been moving in the opposite direction on, and instead got drunk on Russian gas.
That’s one way to do it, but not the only one.
We might be able to bring back some nuclear reactors, but building new one's: that's not on a feasible timeline.
[dead]
" And decarbonisation means nuclearisation. Which Europe has been moving in the opposite direction on " source? And I mean, more than "Germany phase out nuclear stations."
How is renewable in any way independent if we don’t mine the necessary things nor manufacture the things.
My understanding is that wind turbine + PV + battery storage has a cycle where you buy once every twenty years, or more. So you buy once, and have twenty years to figure out the next buy cycle, geopolitical cycles and all.
On the fossil fuel side, you need to buy many times per year, every year. Each one of those buy events is an opportunity for an external party for stop your economy.
The renewable buy cycle is harder for an external party to interrupt.
edit: This is vastly over-simplified, but I hope my understanding reflects reality at least somewhat.
I also worry about the "stop the economy" problem. To me, it's analogous to the AI employment problem. If you cannibalize how a country makes money and generates tax revenue, what do you do instead? For example, Nigeria makes a lot of money from oil sales. Take away the oil industry and how do they make money? Nobody can pretend to be a Nigerian prince or a businessman trying to reclaim millions of dollars.
Now that I think of it, maybe the economic fallout from AI and the oil economic devastation will be widespread fraud, just so people can survive.
Yeah. I've been wondering to what extent this is keeping the global geopolitics stable. Rich countries are keeping many other countries stable-ish that would otherwise rapidly devolve into disaster (obviously the middle east being the huge example). Even going so far as keeping countries stable-ish at the request of those countries (Egypt and Jordan being examples) despite those countries not really being oil countries.
When that incentive disappears, as it will, what then? There is no way in hell the middle east can defend against Iranian aggression without other people doing it for them. And it's not just the middle east. The consequences of isolationism will lower enormously. Why won't rich countries just lock the border and dig in?
We're not even that far removed from finding out what will happen, it's only about 7 years away. I'd love some early warning though.
I think you have it a bit backwards.
The reason we have Iran with an insane government and all the princes and total lack of democracy is BECAUSE of all the interference due to oil.
America and before it Britain and the colonial powers just walked in there and stole everything and so now the region is divided into countries that were soccuessfully captured (Qatar etc) and countries that threw us out (Iran).
If oil wasn’t as important it might be chaos for a while though because this dictatorships are propped up expressly so they can sell us cheap oil.
No. Iraq did not attack Iran due to oil. Iran did not counterattack Iraq because of oil. It was merely dictatorships wanting to conquer and seeing a chance to do so. Sorry.
Ideally one also manufactures them. But when you buy solar panels, one get's 30+ years of lifetime out of it. So once installed. It's tricky for China (or whoever makes time) to use them as leverage. If you cut off oil or gas there is only a few months of reserves.
You can't install them at once, as result at any point in time you'll still need to buy to cover increased demand or replace old units
Huh? What prevents you from installing them "all at once"? The downside is obviously a long stretch of no sun, and for Europe winter being both low solar production and high energy demand due to heating which the soon-to-be-cheap grid scale batteries don’t really fix. The logistics of PV don’t seem difficult though - it seems by far the easiest of the power generation methods, even if the synchronization can get a bit tricky in a large grid.
Solar panel materials are extremely toxic (current tech), or are toxic unless properly processed (hopefully, but likely, future tech).
So they won't be made in the EU, since nobody wants to make concessions here. Solar panels have the same problem as oil and mining: they will destroy nature somewhere, otherwise it doesn't work.
Which materials do you mean?
https://blog.ucs.org/charlie-hoffs/how-are-solar-panels-made...
Crystalline silicon solar panels have about 95% market share, and "By weight, the typical crystalline silicon solar panel is made of about 76% glass, 10% plastic polymer, 8% aluminum, 5% silicon, 1% copper, and less than 0.1% silver and other metals."
Everything that is manufactured is made out of atoms, and you can say that any manufacturing requires some nature destruction in the aggregate. But solar electricity requires far less mining and natural despoilation than fossil-fueled electricity.
Solar panels contain quite a bit of lead, and small amounts of cadmium. Lead can be taken out if you're willing to pay a bit more, in other words it never is. Cadmium is required. Other metals are sometimes present.
So solar panels are classified as hazardous waste.
They don't have the same problem. They have approximately one tenth of the problem until reprocessing reduces that even further.
There is only degrees of independence in the global economy. No country can be completely self sufficient. Having an energy infrastructure that runs for a decade or two before it starts crumpling without trade is a lot better than having an energy infrastructure that is in dire straits after a few weeks or months of embargo.
Try moving a tank on batteries
Valid-sounding argument, but ultimately irrelevant in the medium term. In fact, converting civilian traffic to EVs makes it a lot easier to ration fuel for military uses in emergencies.
It's been an issue since WW2 that there's very little oil on the European continent. That's why Germany planned to seize Azerbaijan in the first place.
Just run the tank on E-fuel.
This M1E3 Abrams tank prototype is a hybrid: https://insideevs.com/news/784805/abrams-m1e3-hybrid-tank-vi...
It turns out that if you aren't deluded by culture war superficialities, energy efficiency is an advantage on the battlefield. Presumably this Prius on treads is confusing to chickenhawks who conflate "Likes" on Facebook and Instagram with military supremacy.
Looking at the Russo-Ukrainian war, battery-powered drones seem to be more important than tanks right now. Russia, famously, had a lot of tanks; now, Oryx has a lot of their metal carcasses. Gone are the days of mass T-34 attacks that decided entire wars.
I will concede your point on heavier aircraft, though.
> Looking at the Russo-Ukrainian war, battery-powered drones seem to be more important than tanks right now.
I kinda wonder if that's temporary, until defensive countermeasures catch up (like something like a CIWS for a tank, but smaller and with a shotgun).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
Nothing is ever permanent in war... only the suffering.
Everyone with any military training has been laughing at how bad Russia was using their tanks, thus allowing them to be destroyed. Losing some tanks in battle is a given, but it is generally believed that if Russia was using tanks according to the Soviet doctrine they knew well they would not have lost near as many - as proof of that Thesis, Ukraine has been using the Soviet doctrine and not lost nearly as many tanks. (Ukraine lacks enough artillery to apply the Soviet doctrine of war which is why they are using drones - they have now developed new styles of fighting that uses the drones they have, but tanks are still an important part of war)
They have a decent amount of artillery now, and Germany are in the middle of ramping up production to make up for the lack of US supply: https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-details/Germanys-Rheinme...
Tanks are the heavy cavalry of the modern era, their main use is to break defensive lines.
Or rather, was. Neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians, operating diverse tanks on the bases of different doctrines, managed to do much breaking with them. The battlefield of today is just too different and much more hostile to anything that moves in the open and is big and slow enough to get hit.
Between zero fossil and full fossil there's a world of nuances, too often ignored. How much oil are those heavier aircraft using, as percentage of the whole country usage? The difference is the answer needed.
It is not just oil, but the necessity to keep up the entire separate infrastructure for its refining, processing, storage and distribution.
Imagine a world where the railroad, for some reason, is still stuck with steam engines and black coal. Everything else moved on, but they cannot, thus keeping the mines open etc. Very uncomfortable and far from optimal.
We still have coal mines open, what do you mean? For less and less uses, yes, but they still have their uses, and we are not (nor should be) judging them for that.
The last coal mine in my country just closed a few days ago, 244 years after mining started. I am a bit influenced by this, because I live in that region.
"is pretty much automatic energy independence"
Not if most of the necessary resources are mined elsewhere and most of the actual devices (such as solar panels) are manufactured elsewhere too.
The best you can say is that in such situation, no one can cause you a problem overnight, but on a longer time horizon, they absolutely can.
Isn't that always the case though? No country is ever completely independent.
That is true, but I would say that transnational units of, say, 1 billion people and more, should at least strive to be as resilient to blackmail as possible.
The current situation is such that if China and the US decide to sanction any third party at the same time (be it India or the EU or Russia or Saudi or whoever), the targeted party will suffer like hell.
Sure, as of 2026, this sort of coordinated action between current Chinese and American leaders seems unlikely. But leaders change. Sometimes in the most unlikely way.
That’s majorly moving the goalposts. Other than Saudi Arabia, I can’t think of any country in the world today that has more energy independence that you would get if you ran on renewables + battery + nuclear. You’d have years and years of buffer, compared to the US strategic oil reserve which has maybe a few months of buffer.
The US is currently a net oil exporter, and has been for a few years.
Now of course that's not the whole picture, but if push came to shove, the US could achieve energy independence (at least technologically, if not poitically).
True, the US could supply all of its energy needs through great effort and by making its population pay much higher energy prices. In contrast, if a country were to build around e.g. solar, and then all countries that made the panels embargoed them, the price of electricity would merely stop falling.
Why would it necessarily be more expensive?
The oil can be sold today profitably at today’s market rate.
If there stopped being from the outside competition for the oil, wouldn’t that roughly balance out stopping the supply of oil from the outside?
> If there stopped being from the outside competition for the oil, wouldn’t that roughly balance out stopping the supply of oil from the outside?
In the short run, yes. In the long run you’d fuck up the economies of scale and profit incentives.
Czechia is quite nuclear-friendly and yet we ran into a problem with nuclear fuel supply; you don't feed raw uranium into the reactor, you need specially designed fuel rods. Switching from Russian to American ones for our nuclear power plants took several years. We just finished doing so, and now there is a conflict between the US and the rest of the world as well. Lovely.
All solvable, all better than just running out of oil, but I wouldn't call the situation "independence", just "having a better buffer".
Didn't framatome started producing vver fuel elements?
That reasoning from your parent was like the child logic of "we don't need to kill animals for food, we can just buy chicken at the supermarket".
Decarbonization needs to happen anyway - that statement is issued as if its fact. A realist would would posit that energy independence, or energy security and its underlying national security implications should be arrived at by any means necessary, carbon or non-carbon based.
Carbon based energy contributes to what amounts to be a multi-trillion dollar disaster and may even contribute to the destruction of a nation using it.
Not to mention that such an investment is wasted capital. Change is accelerating and that energy infrastructure would need to be realistically dismantled in fairly short order.
Europe has little hydrocarbon reserves, so decarbonization is required for energy independence.
North sea can be explored. Black sea is already explored through Neptune deep
Yes, apart from small fracking possibilities, and the North Sea, which is shared between two non-EU European countries, UK and Norway.
(as posted elsewhere, this was a critical problem for Nazi Germany!)
Sure, but there are really great reasons to get rid of fossil fuels and energy independence is a nice bonus. Countries tend to have multiple goals at the same time. It's nice if multiple problems have the same solution.
Indigneous peoples of the Arctic have seen this disregard for them play out, over and over:
-- Natan Obed, President of Canada’s national Inuit organisation, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatamihttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/02/indigenous-vie...
Norwegians are the closest thing to the “indigenous people” of Greenland. The only people older than them died out a thousand years ago. The Intuit people who live there now arrived hundreds of years after the Norsemen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland (“The Thule people are the ancestors of the current Greenlandic population. No genes from the Palaeo-Inuit Dorset culture have been found in the present population of Greenland.[61] The Thule culture migrated eastward from what is now known as Alaska around 1000 AD, reaching Greenland around 1300.”).
>Trade group WindEurope said more European countries were now moving towards offering revenue guarantees to offshore wind developers as standard, after Denmark and Germany held subsidy-free auctions, which failed to attract any bids.
In other words, new wind farms will need subsidies, an those will have to be payed for by the populace. This isn't necessarily something specific to wind power, nuclear needs subsidies as well.
> an those will have to be payed for by the populace
As always, "subsidize the losses, privatize the profits".
Everything will need them due to power cannibalization.
I am led to believe that a large number of europeans hangs out around here(especially in morning hours when US is asleep) that wants to discuss european (geo)political issues and i wonder why this is not happening in other forums.
Ironically, HN gets political discussion because the moderation is good enough that it's not a complete waste of time. Most subreddits have been assigned one side or the other by their moderators, for example.
Yes, moderation here is better than elsewhere and the usual bad actors cannot do more than "drive-by downvotes", which are annoying, but nowhere near as disruptive.
> "drive-by downvotes"
A meta-moderation system (allowing moderators up/down votes to be randomly audited) would help stop this happening.
Those who remember the old Slashdot meta-moderation system will know how this works.... it did a decent enough job.
The voting seems to work a lot better than the flagging mechanism, for what it’s worth. It’s rare that the top-rated comment is nonsense, or that a bottom-rated comment for more than a few minutes isn’t close to a waste of time.
It is hard to completely separate out technical from political content in some contexts. Power generation, military hardware, tech company regulation… these have sort of obvious technical and political aspects.
I’m one of them. But what fora are you thinking of?
I also discuss on a local newspaper forum as well, which is pretty popular, but the crowd here tends to be more insightful :)
I don't know, Europe related things get a lot of US comments here. All the classics about lacking freedoms, tech sector, ease of founding, etc.
1.) r/europe discussed this news as well 2.) There is lack of European social media to discuss it there :P 3.) Actually this meeting mentioned in the article was big on German news. Every news outlet mentioned it, long articles etc. so it was discussed at least in Germany
hacker news is an coder / sysadmin / tech worker/ IT person's forum.
You are correct that such people exist in the EU and UK and indeed, other parts of the world too, and that they frequent this forum. At the appropriate local times of day.
And when they are here, they discuss a range of issues inside and outside of tech. Including geo-political issues.
The more motivated will also find more narrowly focused forums, but general forums remain popular. In general.
Is that a bad thing? I’d rather not HN become an echo chamber even if I don’t agree with all the posts
https://archive.is/YmHnn
So EU is going to onshore most ren manufacturing and EDF will fix their disastrous project management? Right?
“Tensions”, meaning “threat of invasion from a nuclear superpower”.
About as big as tensions get.
A lot of Trump supporters (and here I include everyone who does not vigorously oppose him in this group) have a very deep belief in America's exceptionalism. To them, it does not matter that the country is run by incompetent people, it does not matter that the rulers are deeply corrupt, immoral, lawless, or abusive. America's economy will run despite all this, America's qualify of life will not suffer because of this, America's position in the world will not suffer for it, because America is unique, exceptional and the centre of the world.
And in the short term they will seem to be right - after all "Liberation Day" tariffs were supposed to destroy the economy and everything is fine! It was just a bunch of boys crying wolf. But the reality is that it took decades to get to this level of integration and it's hard and slow to turn the ship of state around. But people outside the US are very motivated and getting increasingly motivated to turn things around and it'll be essentially a generation-long project to disengage from the US. At some point the US will try to squeeze someone and find out they simply don't have what they once had.
> At some point the US will try to squeeze someone and find out they simply don't have what they once had.
In the aftermath of the Carney speech in Davos and similar talk around the world, there seems to be a corresponding desire to bring China to the same realization. These are generational hopes, mind you, not knee-jerk, rapidly invoked changes being planned.
Trump is like the guy who breaks his own tv because he can’t beat a video game.
Trump supporters believe that the status quo was intolerable, and interpret Trump's bad qualities as further evidence that he has what it takes to smash that status quo. He's the bully on your side. In an intolerable situation, the nastier and more volatile that bully is, the better. It took me a long time to understand this.
Different Trump supports will have different parts of the status quo that they personally despise. The abstraction is universally true, however.
Trump was change. It was so long ago now that we forget just how different he was from the candidates like Bush. But people have demanded change for decades now. Trump was smart enough to give them his version of change.