>>Sometimes these images have been filmed during spring.
The helicopter shots are always live.¹ There is however some prerecorded drone footage, filmed earlier in the year, that gets shown alongside landmarks of particular interest.
Whether or not you get to see this prerecorded footage depends on which feed your broadcaster is picking up. Domestic audiences watching on France Télévisions get to see all of it, but international broadcasters are given a feed with fewer prerecorded “heritage shots” (as well as a feed with no prerecorded material at all).
¹ The director can cheat once in a while, opting to time-shift a particularly beautiful landmark shot by a couple of minutes, but only if it would otherwise go unseen due to race action taking precedence.
Seeing something before someone else can IS latency. That's why servers on the NYSE floor (or ANY SE floor) are really expensive. Because it gives you an advantage. It isn't humans reacting and buying in HFT, it is computers. The humans are constantly updating algorithms, but HFT means it is the computers doing the reactions (based on algos written).
They have servers in both locations. If you see that a stock starts falling in London you have a time window where you can still sell it at a higher price in say New York, until the price drops to the same level thus closing the opportunity for arbitrage.
How quickly can you "see" the price falling in London and get that message to NYC? Whoever "sees" it first wins, right? That's what they're talking about.
I don't think you understand what many HFT firms do. They arbitrage between exchanges. For example the option or futures price of a security in Chicago and price of the underlying in New York. Also arbitraging between equities listed on multiple exchanges.
Co-location isn't a solution to these problems, and low latency lines between exchanges in different parts of the country and world is a huge huge factor to successfully implementing many/most HFT strategies.
Not when using a modern burner that circulates the gasses until they are completely burned. If it is one thing we know in Scandinavia, it is burning wood efficiently.
Not by mobs of angry students, but protocol managing entities like Microsoft, Novell, IBM, and others sure could make your interpretation of the protocol invalid. Particularly if you had some competing software out in the wild...
This is about Australia, which is not like our average developed country with no primary ressources.
When you have one sector in your economy producing most of the export, you have a lot of trouble to have a high level of good job in another sector to export. Your currency exchange rate and cost of life is being driven by your main exportation.
Countries rich in oil or other primary resources are like that.
Only Americans need a tank on the road.
Weight is a big problem when you want to travel far.
In a perfect world, the electric car is not the solution, we should aim for electric scooter, moped, bicycle, ... for our daily travels.
I've lived in the US and understand the long driving distances makes it hard. That being said weather is a non issue, I bicycle everywhere all year around no matter the weather (live in Denmark). As long as the trips are below 10 km at least.
Weather is a problem with those, but much worse for me is personal injury risk. Assuming you'll have a fender-bender every couple hundred thousand km, on a bike/scooter/moped that means regularly broken bones, at a minimum. Not for me.
Too many Australians will laugh smugly at the America portrayed by Family Guy because they never look in the mirror.
Disclaimer: I have a seven-seater. I hate it, but I'm not the one that drives the kids and their friends around with startling regularity so I don't get a say, and only reap the rewards of its presence despite talking it down.
Would happily re-draw from the mortgage for a BEV to replace it once they're actually available in Oz at remotely practical prices.
I don't really think that nuance really enters into the debate though.
So surely that can work both ways. If we paint all immigrants as skill-less criminals, than we can also lump this guy in with them, to show the other side.
My intent was to show this as immigration as a success, rather than immigration as job stealing, so often portrayed in the media.
France has been doing it for the past 40 years.
France has nuclear power running through the night, so electricity is very cheap. We have a special overnight tariff. France is a big user of water heater and electric radiators.
Why do you feel the need to phrase your talking point in the form of a thinly veiled rhetorical question?
In any case: yes, obviously. Although Germany works both within the EU and the UN climate process to find collective solutions allowing other nations to also reduce emissions. China is actually becoming a positive example these days, installing vast amounts of renewable energy.
Phasing out coal in Germany obviously makes for a good argument in such talks. But even if it doesn’t, not burning coal and buying from China is still strictly better than burning coal and buying from China.
It’s sort of like smoking and getting regular exercise is better than just smoking.
Does it though? If Germany's policies hurt the economy, at a time when the cost of energy goes up, it may threaten the plans. The last thing a costly reform needs is less money to spend.
Ignoring possible second order effects is a dangerous course of action. The nuclear shutdown in Germany was so bad not just for emissions (which have gotten worse) but also, as the Marginal Revolution article above points out, geopolitically as well. One decision can have a multitude of flow on bad effects.
The important part to remember is that the goal is not clean energy. The goal is for humanity to continue to exist and, if possible, to prosper. That is why climate change is awful, as it threatens our species. Not the planet. The planet will be fine. It is our species that is at risk.
Decisions made for vague, second effect ignoring reasons are worrying, especially when there are known second order effect consequences.
From my point of view, this is only about the general electricity generation. I mean, a lot of people are still using lignite to warm their house in the winter and knowing the lifetime of personal homes in Europe, we cannot really expect that to end in the next 50 years (though not for newly build ones though).
For the primary source of general heating yes. As a secondary to heat the living room oven, I highly doubt that, too many relatives that I just bought lignite with last autumn. Could be more prominent in eastern Germany though.
There isn't much coal used - you will have a hard time finding a coal supply in many cities. Some regions in eastern Germany and in the Rhine/Ruhr region...
Since coal mines are being closed, the miners will not get any more coal (as part of their salary) and thus they are looking for alternatives:
Subsidies for modernizing homes exist for a long time in Germany: Tax credits, super cheap loans (0.75% p.a.), financial aid (not having to pay back up to 30kEUR)...
Among the supported measures is: modernizing heating systems.
