Matija Nalis

#FreeSoftware and #OpenStreetMap enthusiast. Also, #cycling! Interested in #Space / #science, and love to read a good #scifi too.

Searchable (tootfinder enabled).

website: https://mnalis.com/
cycling: https://biciklijade.com/
openstreetmap: https://www.osm.org/user/Matija%20Nalis
GitLab: https://gitlab.com/mnalis

Public Key

npub12ml93xjtcmn460a8z23ekg3w50rlu80hm4ky4qaemkwkqvg0wekq3zkm9w

NIP-05 Address

mnalis_at_mastodon.online@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs9dljcnf9ude6a87n39gumygh283l7rhma6mz2swuam8tqxy8hvmqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0ds52tr4d

Publishing to

relay.primal.net

nos.lol

relay.damus.io

Author Public Key

npub12ml93xjtcmn460a8z23ekg3w50rlu80hm4ky4qaemkwkqvg0wekq3zkm9w

Show more details

Last Notes

2025-11-25 13:01:52 UTC

- reply

if that was the case (only 32% growth), graph would've started at 100%, not at 0%, no?
@npub1jq9…k0em @npub1vc3…axsh

2025-07-02 14:18:51 UTC

- reply

Re: IPCC, well neither nuclear nor renewables are that "miracle".
IOW, there is no future ANYMORE where humanity avoids catastrophic effects, if we continue with old bad habits and "just change energy sources".
At this point in time, humanity is definitely doomed unless we change the way we behave DRASTICALLY (i.e. forbid personal cars and airplanes for at least 70% of the population, reduce consumerism drastically etc.)
5/5
@npub12j2…pncg [@art_histories](https://mastodon.social/@art_histories ) @npub1440…vh54 @npub1j8v…ld5q

2025-07-02 14:11:39 UTC

- reply

And here is some sociology 101: If you have a choice between:
- something majority is onboard with (i.e. solar) and
- something which there is strong opposition from many (i.e. nuclear)
then it makes sense to prefer the former, even if it was LESS
economical -- as you'd get greater buy-in!
And when the same one is BOTH more popular/less controversial, AND more economical, there should be a clear winner.
4/
@npub12j2…pncg [@art_histories](https://mastodon.social/@art_histories ) @npub1440…vh54 @npub1j8v…ld5q

2025-07-02 14:01:37 UTC

- reply

And focusing on solar/wind for new installations is not "ignoring the nuclear ally", it is REALLOCATING all our resources to the BEST and MOST ECONOMIC solution.
Instead of locking away some of those resources in less efficient and more costly nuclear (and I'm not even counting the problematic need for long maintenance contracts for 1000+ years which someone will need to continue paying for, even after the plant is long shutdown) 3/
@npub12j2…pncg [@art_histories](https://mastodon.social/@art_histories ) @npub1440…vh54 @npub1j8v…ld5q

2025-07-02 13:51:15 UTC

- reply

i.e. for the same €, you'll get MUCH less W with nuclear than with solar.
I agree that fossil use has grown and that it is horrible. But I disagree with your analysis of the root cause: you seem to imply that if "we just did continue building nuclear that fossil fuel consumption wouldn't rise". I argue it would've happened all the same.
As for folks being anti-existing-nuclear: yeah, democracy sucks when you're in minority 2/
@npub12j2…pncg [@art_histories](https://mastodon.social/@art_histories ) @npub1440…vh54 @npub1j8v…ld5q

2025-07-02 13:45:05 UTC

- reply

Your argument seems to be that we have a ton of already built unused nuclear capacity which just sits idle because people dislike using it.
If we're talking only about that, I'd be completely with you - let's continue using existing nuclear until their projected useful life ends.
However, if we're talking about building NEW capacities, even on purely economic basis, nuclear is not a good choice anymore in 2025 (while it was in 1970s) 1/

2025-07-01 17:54:07 UTC

- reply

Sure, one can build nuclear waste postprocessing facilities and reduce storage requirements significantly. But how much do those cost to build and maintain and decomission? Adding those costs to financial calculation makes nuclear even less appealing. So suddenly nuclear won't be "merely" 150%-300% more expensive than solar, but even MORE expensive. I just don't see a calculation where nuclear makes financial sense in mid-2020s anymore. 🤔
[@art_histories](https://mastodon.social/@art_histories ) @npub15ws…0e5k @npub1440…vh54 @npub1j8v…ld5q

2025-06-30 19:48:15 UTC

- reply

In any case, building ANY new energy sources (be it solar or nuclear) without DISMANTLING existing dirty sources (e.g. coal) at the same time will only lead to planet being destroyed sooner. So better think how can we use cars less (e.g. moving closer to your job, or changing workplace so one can walk/cycle to it) , where can we use train instead of airplane etc. But those require 180 degree turn in the way how most people think... 3/3

2025-06-30 19:44:38 UTC

- reply

Problem with nuclear are however even worse. Not to repeat myself about it being too expensive compared to solar, there is an issue about unpriced extrenalities (e.g. that 1000+ years of deponium maintenance and service, handling unproper storage / leaks etc), and a fact that nuclear does not play well as fill-in energy source (its main advantage to solar) due to much reduced efficiencies in that regime. 2/

2025-06-30 19:40:42 UTC

- reply

Hey, I'm fully with you that Trump policies are downright crazy! Can't you USA people depose him or something? As for renewables/nuclear, note that economics of nuclear vs. solar have COMPLETELY changed since 1970s. While nuclear costs remained in same ballpark, Solar costs has fallen from $100/W to less then $0.31/W in 2023. That changed my perspective in the last 50 years. source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices. 1/

2025-06-29 15:12:08 UTC

- reply

Yeah, my biggest problem with nuclear is human nature and capitalism. Is it possible to store nuclear waste safely? Sure. Is it likely to be unsafely dumped in the ocean or somewhere, as that generates more profits? Unfortunately, pretty likely.
As for the renewables, they are increasing YOY. Even in (lagging) USA, in 2023, 55% of all new energy sources were solar. It raised to 66% in 2024. Did you install your own? https://www.statista.com/topics/11670/us-residential-solar-photovoltaics/#topicOverview
[@art_histories](https://mastodon.social/@art_histories ) @npub1440…vh54 @npub12j2…pncg @npub1j8v…ld5q

2025-06-29 00:52:50 UTC

- reply

But to get back to the original topic - the main question should not be "which is the least bad energy source should we build more of" but "how we can reduce energy demand so we don't NEED to build more energy sources, and can in fact start decommisioning the worst ones", and one of the answers is "less AI". The fact that less "AI for the masses" would also benefit the mental health of the humanity and reduce cringe is just a nice add-on.

2025-06-29 00:45:10 UTC

- reply

According to your link, even in 2023 the renewables produced more energy then nuclear. Even if one disregards safety risks, solar and wind and much quicker to deploy, significiantly faster and cheaper to decommission, and are producing energy that is 2-5 times cheaper than nuclear. Nobody is voting "more fossil fuels", but "nuclear is only alternative" is false dichtomy. If you want numbers (and you should!): https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianneplummer/2025/02/11/nuclear-vs-renewables-which-energy-source-wins-the-zero-carbon-race/

2025-03-26 07:57:57 UTC

- reply

While I am fully with you that moving away from big corporations lock-in is a great idea; there are very real and big costs (not only in making the transition, but in maintenance, as well as pulling all the devs to new platform). So, that is likely why there is lack of enthusiasm to do migration while "everything still works".
Also, if "offers to help" are like https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/osmf-should-host-a-forgejo-gitlab-instance/112200/21 then you know it is going to require MUCH more effort (like at least 100x more) to pull it off successfully...

2025-03-23 18:52:52 UTC

- reply

Well, it has worked in the past by domains costing money (i.e. being commercial). When one has to pay real money to get a domain, that is big discouragement for mass-scale fakes, as you have to pay huge amounts of money for a low chance of making your scams work (so cybersquatters target only few). If however domains were free and unlimited, even a tiny chance is just fine, as they'd offset it by registering trillions of free domains ASAP...
@npub1we3…dgv4 @npub19tu…g2xv @npub19rj…sy2r @npub19zc…jfcm

2025-03-22 12:59:31 UTC

- reply

Only way an non-commercial alternative could work (that I can see!), is by placing caps on people (and thus requiring collecting authorative data on people).
Otherwise, you'd get lots of bad actors preemptively registering everything from aaaaaaaaa.com to zzzzzzzzzz.com (starting with dictionary and company names), and cybersquatting them (thus making them commercial again).
How would you propose it to work to avoid such issue?
@npub1we3…dgv4 @npub19tu…g2xv @npub19rj…sy2r @npub19zc…jfcm

2025-01-30 19:32:19 UTC

- reply

Looking at this style of writing here, I have to ask, was this written by same Daniel that Louis Rossmann talks about here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4To-F6W1NT0 ? It would explain a lot of venom if it is...

2024-12-12 13:21:39 UTC

So is the @npub1t2q…n4vh or @npub1fkd…85ac correct #OrganicMaps instance? Neither have validated URL in Mastodon (nor do they mention one another in the description)?

2024-08-11 18:25:03 UTC

- reply

Be the change you want to see in the world. Everyone can become #OpenStreetMap editor. Add a few POIs, and tell your friends about it, and in no time your area will be much better than GoogleMaps too!

2024-08-11 14:02:04 UTC

- reply

If I understand you correctly you claim that Positon.xyz have "repeatedly talked about locking people into it and avoiding having alternatives to it"? Could you provide URLs to several of those messages? I've tried DDG-ing SkewedZeppelin (that you mention later in the thread) and Positon, but apparently I'm not that good at searching...

2024-06-22 18:06:31 UTC

- reply

Sorry, but you seem to be incorrect. F-droid .apk will have same package signature as GitHub .apk for #reproduciblebuilds, because it will copy original author signature and it will verify (because the hash is the same, as the build is reproducible). See https://f-droid.org/en/docs/Reproducible_Builds/ for details. So yes, you can upgrade app via either .apk, as they will verify in Android (as opposed with builds which are not reproducible where different apk will fail)

2024-06-22 14:50:34 UTC

- reply

I don't know if #Obtanium has such built-in capabilities to verify #reproduciblebuilds from multiple sources (e.g. GitHub + F-droid) automatically *before* installing like #Fdroid does (https://f-droid.org/en/docs/Reproducible_Builds/). Unless it does (preferably automatically, without having users manually twiddling settings), then F-droid approach is more secure than either #Obtanium or manually downloading from GitHub

2024-06-22 14:17:37 UTC

- reply

In case of #reproduciblebuilds (note: I haven't checked if it is the case with #termux), you're equally well covered regardless if you install from either f-droid or GitHub, provided your workflow ALWAYS includes downloading the package from *both* and verifying if the signature is the same. If you don't do the check, then reproducible builds don't really bring anything to the table and it falls back to whether you trust more f-droid or Microsoft (GitHub)

2024-06-21 18:40:33 UTC

- reply

if you trust #fdroid, then you get the guarantee that .apk binary corresponds to the source. In case of #reproduciblebuilds, you get even more assurances about that (both original author and fdroid would have to collude to foil it). Of course, as you note, original source could still be insecure or even maliciously tempered with (e.g. #xzbackdoor), or fdroid could end up being untrustworthy, but that is the fact for everything (incl. the source hosting)
@npub1zpm…8cwd [@AccurstDemon](https://mas.to/@AccurstDemon )