Most active commenters
  • kulahan(10)
  • cyberax(5)
  • RandomLensman(5)
  • croes(4)
  • bluefirebrand(3)
  • yellowapple(3)
  • toomuchtodo(3)
  • StopDisinfo910(3)
  • _aavaa_(3)
  • ViewTrick1002(3)

←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 86 comments | | HN request time: 0.513s | source | bottom
1. tietjens ◴[] No.45225051[source]
Article claims Germany is beginning to shift. I wouldn’t count on that. Despite having to import all of their energy aside from renewables, there is a wide-spread suspicion of nuclear here. The CDU made a lot of noise about it while they were in the opposition, but turning those closed plants back on is highly unlikely. Very costly and I’m not certain the expertise can be hired.
replies(8): >>45225144 #>>45225191 #>>45225195 #>>45225379 #>>45225803 #>>45226461 #>>45230120 #>>45230528 #
2. ◴[] No.45225144[source]
3. gsibble ◴[] No.45225191[source]
That's a shame.
4. kulahan ◴[] No.45225195[source]
With AI on the horizon and each server farm using as much energy as a medium-sized city, I have no idea how they hope to meet demand otherwise, unless the plan is just some equivalent to "drill baby drill".
replies(9): >>45225225 #>>45225295 #>>45225392 #>>45225446 #>>45225578 #>>45225620 #>>45226064 #>>45226140 #>>45226490 #
5. RandomLensman ◴[] No.45225225[source]
It would take a long time to build new reactors, so not sure that would help.

Germany could also do more wind, solar, tidal, geothermal (fossil fuels aside).

replies(2): >>45225283 #>>45225794 #
6. bluefirebrand ◴[] No.45225283{3}[source]
It is going to take a long time and a lot of resources no matter what so maybe we should be building effective longterm solutions like nuclear instead of stopgap solar and batteries
replies(2): >>45225317 #>>45225350 #
7. toomuchtodo ◴[] No.45225295[source]
You limit data center power demand until the AI bubble pops.

Peak Bubble - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45218790 - September 2025

US Data center projects blocked or delayed amid local opposition - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44097350 - May 2025

replies(1): >>45225330 #
8. RandomLensman ◴[] No.45225317{4}[source]
Why would, e.g., solar and chemical or physical storage be a stopgap? Why spend 20 years of building a fission reactor these days (other than for research, medical, or defense purposes) which also make awful targets in a conflict? Maybe just wait till fusion reactors are there.
replies(2): >>45228527 #>>45228897 #
9. kulahan ◴[] No.45225330{3}[source]
Cool, your country fell way behind every other developed nation in this and you've missed out on a huge industry. In the end, your citizens will still use the products, they'll just probably end up having to pay more for the same functionality.
replies(4): >>45225345 #>>45225579 #>>45225625 #>>45226532 #
10. toomuchtodo ◴[] No.45225345{4}[source]
Other countries can shoulder the cost of the hand waving grift. If it turns out they succeed, lift their models and weights. Eat some potential IP liability for not incurring economic damage ("inefficient capital allocation") chasing magic. Be first, be smarter, or cheat ("you can just do things"). DeepSeek showed a bit of this (model training efficiency), as Apple does slow walking their gen AI. Why incur material economic risk to be first? There will be no moat.

https://hbr.org/2001/10/first-mover-disadvantage

replies(1): >>45256364 #
11. yellowapple ◴[] No.45225350{4}[source]
Not even “instead”. We need all of the above: nuclear for base loads, solar for peak loads, batteries for surplus capture.
replies(3): >>45225432 #>>45226466 #>>45233579 #
12. cyberax ◴[] No.45225379[source]
Germany will come around when their Green ship comes aground.

Probably within the next ~5 years. The coal phaseout will happen, but only by replacing it with natural gas. It will result in the last easily achievable reduction in CO2, but it will also increase the already sky-high energy prices in Germany.

After that? There's nothing. There are no credible plans that will result in further CO2 reductions. The noises about "hydrogen" or "power to gas" will quiet rapidly once it becomes clear that they are financially not feasible.

replies(3): >>45225978 #>>45226013 #>>45226577 #
13. oceanplexian ◴[] No.45225392[source]
It’s simple, Germany isn’t going to be participating in the next industrial revolution. It will be the US vs. China. You can already see it happening with their car industry as they struggle to keep up with new technology.
replies(4): >>45225820 #>>45226044 #>>45226170 #>>45226836 #
14. robotnikman ◴[] No.45225432{5}[source]
This right here. It's not one or the other, its a diverse combination of all of them that makes for the best results.
15. pstuart ◴[] No.45225446[source]
There's a new kind of "drill baby drill" which we should be embracing: geothermal energy. There's a lot of advancements in that space and it is a perfect base load generation source.
replies(2): >>45225693 #>>45225790 #
16. fuzzy2 ◴[] No.45225578[source]
If AI server farm operators conclude that nuclear is the way to go, they should be free to do so, yes. If they manage to fulfill all regulatory requirements. (Which means it'll be at least $2 per kWh, yay.)
17. oceanplexian ◴[] No.45225579{4}[source]
They can’t even use the products as a result of their obsession with government regulation. For example, Apple released a universal translator, literally right out of Star Trek, but the EU won’t be getting it either.
replies(1): >>45225815 #
18. V__ ◴[] No.45225620[source]
I willing to wager that the AI bubble will burst before you could even begin to build power plants for them.
replies(1): >>45225847 #
19. ben_w ◴[] No.45225625{4}[source]
Given how fast compute needs replacing, it's not much of a fall behind.

Citizens will indeed use them anyway, but there's already free models that are OK and which only need 8x current normal device RAM. Bubble bursts tomorrow? Currently-SOTA models on budget phones by the end of the decade.

20. kulahan ◴[] No.45225693{3}[source]
Geothermal is, imo, the only true competitor to nuclear. It's great at providing cheap, consistent, clean energy. Nuclear is really only needed for baseload generation, like when demand massively spikes.
replies(2): >>45226505 #>>45226688 #
21. edbaskerville ◴[] No.45225790{3}[source]
Yeah, advanced geothermal is very interesting. They're taking fracking techniques and using them to get to hot rocks, which opens up geothermal to a much, much wider set of locations. Interested parties say it could provide everything we need beyond wind/solar, and seems much simpler than building out nuclear plants.

Check out:

https://www.volts.wtf/p/catching-up-with-enhanced-geothermal

replies(1): >>45229685 #
22. raverbashing ◴[] No.45225794{3}[source]
I'm not sure how tidal and geothermal fare in Germany

It seems that some geothermal works have caused mini-earthquakes and soil shifts in Germany and the Netherlands

replies(2): >>45225918 #>>45228890 #
23. StopDisinfo910 ◴[] No.45225803[source]
Germany has stopped actively trying to sabotage France on nuclear energy at every occasion in the EU. That’s a start.

Give you hope that at some point, they might even move on the brain dead competition policies in the energy market and we might end up with a sensible energy policy.

replies(3): >>45225875 #>>45226310 #>>45226324 #
24. fsflover ◴[] No.45225815{5}[source]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45215548

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45217477

25. bluGill ◴[] No.45225820{3}[source]
Germany doesn't need to participate in the next. They need to participate in something though. They are too small to do everything alone. Even the US depends on a lot of other countries to make things work.
26. bluGill ◴[] No.45225847{3}[source]
I'm sure the bubble will burst. However we have already found a few uses for AI and those uses will continue after the burst (if they are economical)
27. darkamaul ◴[] No.45225875[source]
I’d guess Germany’s opposition to French nuclear power wasn’t just about the technology itself, but tied up with political and economic strategy. There must have been stronger political reasons behind it than simply « not liking nuclear ». I’d be curious to read something deeper on the subject and understand the reasoning behind those strategies since the Fukushima accident.
replies(1): >>45226006 #
28. RandomLensman ◴[] No.45225918{4}[source]
My baseline expectation is some opposition to any new energy infrastructure.
29. _aavaa_ ◴[] No.45225978[source]
The data does not back up this narrative: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?coun...

The share of electricity production that coal lost is primarily take up by wind and solar, not gas.

replies(2): >>45226144 #>>45230854 #
30. StopDisinfo910 ◴[] No.45226006{3}[source]
Nuclear is really unpopular with a significant part of the German electorate especially on the left. So, yes, it’s entirely political.

I guess sabotaging France by preventing it for exploiting the advantage its great strategy in energy should have afforded it is just cherry on the cake.

31. GLdRH ◴[] No.45226013[source]
Yeah, but we're Germans. We don't stop when it's reasonable, not when we want to follow an idea.
32. standeven ◴[] No.45226044{3}[source]
If we’re looking at the car and energy industries, I think China has already won.
33. i5heu ◴[] No.45226064[source]
Not with a tech that needs 15 years to be build
replies(1): >>45226143 #
34. ThinkBeat ◴[] No.45226140[source]
A country is not forced to have AI farms running in it. Building giant powerplant for the AI tech (possible) bubble not seems wise.

The plant will take 5 - 10 years to build, who knows what demands AI will have at that point.

SO let some countries that want to spent enormous amounts of their energy on AI do so, adn the rest can connect to those.

replies(2): >>45226164 #>>45227583 #
35. ◴[] No.45226143{3}[source]
36. cyberax ◴[] No.45226144{3}[source]
The devil is in the details. The easy part is now done, and further significant increases in solar/wind in Germany are not going to happen.

Renewables now dominate generation during the optimal periods, but there's nothing on the horizon for other times.

Your graph also ignores energy used for heating and for industrial processes. Their electrification is now stalled by high energy prices.

replies(1): >>45226225 #
37. parhamn ◴[] No.45226164{3}[source]
> who knows what demands AI will have at that point

This is true for any investment pretty much.

replies(1): >>45230558 #
38. kulahan ◴[] No.45226170{3}[source]
Could you expand more on your car point? I thought BMW and Benz were doing great at the moment. I dunno much about Audi or VW, but Mini also seems to be doing well (which I thought was British, but one of their models has literally the same engine as my last bimmer, so I guess they were sold at some point?).
replies(2): >>45227626 #>>45230396 #
39. _aavaa_ ◴[] No.45226225{4}[source]
> not going to happen … nothing on the horizon for other times

Batteries and storage.

> heating and for industrial

That’s moving to goal posts. The discussion is about electricity.

replies(1): >>45226484 #
40. ViewTrick1002 ◴[] No.45226310[source]
France is sabotaging France on nuclear.

Flamanville 3 is a complete joke and the EPR2 program is in absolute shambles.

Currently they can’t even agree on how to fund the absolutely insanely bonkers subsidies.

Now targeting investment decision in 2026… And the French government just fell because they are underwater in debt and have a spending problem which they can’t agree on how to fix.

A massive handout to the dead end nuclear industry sounds like the perfect solution!

replies(1): >>45227170 #
41. pfdietz ◴[] No.45226324[source]
Germany doesn't need to sabotage France on nuclear energy; France has done a fine job of sabotaging themselves.
replies(1): >>45226392 #
42. viktorcode ◴[] No.45226392{3}[source]
The historical data shows that France didn't have upwards trend in nuclear generation since early 2000s.[1] I wouldn't bet on it to change regardless of political climate.

1: https://analysesetdonnees.rte-france.com/en/generation/nucle...

43. croes ◴[] No.45226461[source]
Still no storage for nuclear waste, long construction times and expensive as hell.

Die you hear about the Söder-Challenge?

The head of the bavarian CSU want to go back to nuclear energy and comedian Marc-Uwe Kling promised to praise him if he finds and operator who is willing to build a nuclear power plant in Germany without any government subsidies.

replies(2): >>45226931 #>>45227406 #
44. fundatus ◴[] No.45226466{5}[source]
Base load is a concept of the past, grids around the world are being redesigned to be flexible to reap zero-production-costs renewable energy. Nuclear (which is impossible to run economically as a flexible asset) simply does not fit into that new world anymore.
replies(2): >>45228892 #>>45241951 #
45. cyberax ◴[] No.45226484{5}[source]
> Batteries and storage.

Nearly useless for Germany. Some intraday storage will be helpful, but it will not strongly affect the wintertime fossil fuel consumption and the overall CO2 emissions.

> That’s moving to goal posts. The discussion is about electricity.

No. It's not moving goalposts. Switching from gas to electric heat pumps for heating is absolutely relevant here. It's now inhibited by the high _electricity_ prices ( https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-transition-cle... ). Ditto for the ICE to EV transition.

The German government is now directly planning to pay around $20B in direct subsidies ( https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-pushes-17-billi... ) to build _gas_ power plants to alleviate some of that. I expect the final bill will be around $50B just for the new natural gas generation.

Germany is also quietly reassuring investors that it's safe to build natural gas by extending the subsidies: https://www.energyconnects.com/news/renewables/2025/january/...

As usual, actions speak louder than words.

If you're willing, we can place long-term bets on that. I'd be delighted to lose, but I don't expect it.

replies(1): >>45228902 #
46. croes ◴[] No.45226490[source]
The wait until after the AI bubble and buy the cheap surplus of energy.

AI is useful but nit as useful as the AI companied claim it to be and the ROI isn’t as great neither.

47. croes ◴[] No.45226505{4}[source]
If demand spikes nuclear power plants aren’t fast enough
replies(1): >>45228908 #
48. croes ◴[] No.45226532{4}[source]
The already use it and are not impressed.

AI wears out quickly if you have special demands.

49. fundatus ◴[] No.45226577[source]
Coal phaseout is already 3+ years ahead of schedule in Germany without any government intervention because coal plants simply can't compete against renewables anymore.
replies(1): >>45227398 #
50. rootusrootus ◴[] No.45226688{4}[source]
> baseload generation, like when demand massively spikes

That is unlike any definition of baseload generation I have ever heard.

51. carlhjerpe ◴[] No.45226836{3}[source]
Sure, talk to your grid operators about that! :)
52. froh ◴[] No.45226931[source]
and a municipality willing to have the German finale nuclear waste storage in their backyard.

the Söder Challenge is Legend:-)

53. StopDisinfo910 ◴[] No.45227170{3}[source]
The EU is fining France because they don’t have enough clean energy in their mix despite France having the cleanest energy in Europe because nuclear used to not count. They are also forcing the French national energy company to resell their electricity at a loss to competitor moving money which should be used to invest into the pocket of private investors. And let’s not talk about the utter stupidity of the current discussion on the dams.

Then you realise that a significant part of France new debts was due to them shielding their population for the soaring prices of electricity despite France producing cheap energy, said prices being due to Germany brain dead strategy leading to a dependence on Russian gas and the obligation to go through the European market, and you start to see the double whammy.

Well, at least, the energy market is not as bad as the ECB rules.

replies(1): >>45227964 #
54. cyberax ◴[] No.45227398{3}[source]
Yeah. It's so great that Germany has to directly pay for gas power plants.
replies(1): >>45231196 #
55. pyrale ◴[] No.45227406[source]
> if he finds and operator who is willing to build a nuclear power plant in Germany without any government subsidies.

So basically, be the only energy source not subsidized? There are plenty of decent reasons to be against nuclear, and there's a discussion to be had on its price, but pointing out subsidies in the energy sector is like casting stones from your glass house.

56. kccqzy ◴[] No.45227583{3}[source]
This is shortsighted. China routinely experiences large overcapacity in their electricity grid just to deal with the unknown unknowns of outages and other new demands. Suppose that the AI bubble burst and AI energy use is negligible, the extra capacity could be used for something else: retire your traditional coal fired furnaces for steel making and replacing them with electric arc furnaces; produce more aluminum; build more EV chargers.
57. simonklitj ◴[] No.45227626{4}[source]
Heh, it was bought by BMW in ‘94.
58. ViewTrick1002 ◴[] No.45227964{4}[source]
You do know that a large portion of the energy crisis was caused by half the French nuclear fleet being online when it was for once truly absolutely needed?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...

I also note that you didn’t have anything to say about the EPR2 program and the absolutely insanely bonkers large subsidies needed to get it off the ground.

replies(1): >>45229652 #
59. bluefirebrand ◴[] No.45228527{5}[source]
Because the reactor will still run 20 years after that while the solar and storage will need to be replaced by then
replies(1): >>45229971 #
60. kulahan ◴[] No.45228890{4}[source]
I was under the impression tidal was mostly tapped out because any half-decent location has already been turned into a power plant.
61. kulahan ◴[] No.45228892{6}[source]
Damn, so we’re left with nothing, because nuclear is by far the most viable moving forward.
62. kulahan ◴[] No.45228897{5}[source]
Why would fusion reactors magically appear when the entire field of nuclear energy production is, in this scenario, essentially dead??
replies(1): >>45229963 #
63. _aavaa_ ◴[] No.45228902{6}[source]
> absolutely relevant

It is not. We’re discussing what coal is being replaced with for electricity generation. But let’s talk about it.

> high electricity prices

Let’s ask the obvious question: are high prices caused by wind/solar? No, they’re caused by the extremely volatile prices of fossil fuels: “high fossil fuel prices were the main reason for upward pressure on global electricity prices, accounting for 90% of the rise in the average costs of electricity generation worldwide (natural gas alone for more than 50%).” [0]

So building out more gas plants won’t eliviate prices when the gas is responsible for them in the first place.

> heat pump sales

From your own link: the lengthy and public political debate about the legal framework and subsidies for heating buildings has caused people to lose confidence”

None of that has to do with electricity.

[0]: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-global-energy-crisis-pu...

replies(1): >>45229265 #
64. kulahan ◴[] No.45228908{5}[source]
They are when the power spikes for the day, in a typically predictable fashion. I’m not sure of anything more available that isn’t really dirty.
65. cyberax ◴[] No.45229265{7}[source]
> It is not. We’re discussing what coal is being replaced with for electricity generation. But let’s talk about it.

Let's. DW has a nice overview article: https://www.dw.com/en/how-germany-seeks-to-cut-electricity-c...

A third of the total cost is grid charges, and another third is taxes. Both go towards subsidizing the renewables.

BTW, the US average for all consumers is 14 cents: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

> So building out more gas plants won’t eliviate prices when the gas is responsible for them in the first place.

So Germany is _deepening_ its dependency on natural gas prices by building more plants because it's... more volatile?

Just imagine if there was some other reliable form of energy that doesn't require fossil fuels.

> None of that has to do with electricity.

It has everything to do with electricity. The government understands that the grid can't handle additional load from heating, so the subsidies are not pursued vigorously.

Again, let me repeat, actions speak louder than words. Like this one: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-coalition-agrees... Or just from today: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/eu-countries-dela...

66. realusername ◴[] No.45229652{5}[source]
It was a nuclear + a renewable crisis. When the nuclear production dropped to 65% in France because of the offline plants, the wind production was hovering at 9% (bad luck) and the solar production at 5% (because it was winter).

That event was actually the final nail in the coffin for the all renewable policies of France, seeing that when the nuclear plants had a problem, the renewables failed even harder than the nuclear plants made it hard to make a case for all renewable policies

replies(1): >>45230568 #
67. pstuart ◴[] No.45229685{4}[source]
And leveraging fusion research to rethink how drilling is done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8sjdOjNxIE
68. RandomLensman ◴[] No.45229963{6}[source]
Not sure why pursuing fusion needs building fission reactors for energy production.
replies(1): >>45236211 #
69. RandomLensman ◴[] No.45229971{6}[source]
Reactors need ongoing maintenance, repairs, replacement.
70. m101 ◴[] No.45230120[source]
German people mostly just listen to what their leaders tell them. If their leaders change their mind then the German people will step in line and believe they changed their mind out of their own free will too.
71. tietjens ◴[] No.45230396{4}[source]
The German car companies are struggling intensely against Chinese competition, everywhere outside of the US, and especially in China. The Chinese electric cars sell for 3 times less than the German ones in EU. The Chinese also invested heavily in e tech. The Germans? Not so much.
replies(1): >>45236193 #
72. LinXitoW ◴[] No.45230528[source]
Let's not pretend that the companies running those plants are being hindered by the government. They themselves have said turning them back on is a stupid idea.
73. LinXitoW ◴[] No.45230558{4}[source]
Well, not really. Investing in heating homes or powering light bulbs is, outside of extremely extreme situations, always a good investment, because people will always want to do that.

AI is also just super young, has apparently zero mote, requires insane amounts of hardware that basically becomes useless after a couple of years, and has promised, over and over, the AI revolution is just around the corner multiple times without ever delivering.

74. LinXitoW ◴[] No.45230568{6}[source]
How so? Why is that a nail in the renewable coffin, but not the nuclear one? Nuclear is constantly sold as a miracle base load cure, but it can't even manage that.

Why isn't that instead a call for more storage, in general?

replies(1): >>45230818 #
75. realusername ◴[] No.45230818{7}[source]
Because while the failure of the nuclear plants could be solved by sending more workers, the renewable failure couldn't (and it was even more severe).

Nobody could say "you had to build more renewables" at the time because they produced even less than the nuclear plants.

> Why isn't that instead a call for more storage, in general?

There's nothing which is appropriate for a winter load yet.

As a result of this incident, France pushed for more nuclear investments and dropped the mandatory renewables share.

replies(1): >>45231489 #
76. pzo ◴[] No.45230854{3}[source]
electricity is only one power source - you not gonna use it for e.g. heating because its expensive. When you look at graph with energy consumption by source german situation is bad and solar provides less than 6% and wind less than 11% [1]. Now go compare with france where nuclear provides 37% of energy.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...

77. fundatus ◴[] No.45231196{4}[source]
I mean, yeah. Much cleaner than coal and much more flexible than nuclear.
78. ViewTrick1002 ◴[] No.45231489{8}[source]
> As a result of this incident, France pushed for more nuclear investments and dropped the mandatory renewables share.

Which has not materialized. This is where the thread started:

> The EPR2 program is in absolute shambles.

> Currently the French can’t even agree on how to fund the absolutely insanely bonkers subsidies.

> Now targeting investment decision in 2026… And the French government just fell because they are underwater in debt and have a spending problem which they can’t agree on how to fix.

> A massive handout to the dead end nuclear industry sounds like the perfect solution!

replies(1): >>45231830 #
79. realusername ◴[] No.45231830{9}[source]
I mean, if the renewable policies didn't fail that hard, the French state wouldn't have to revive the nuclear program in 2022

Sure now it will take some time to be effective but that's what happen when you give the keys to politicians and not engineers.

80. bluefirebrand ◴[] No.45233579{5}[source]
You need solar and batteries for peak loads, not just solar

In many places in the world, peak load does not occur during daylight hours, especially during winter

And yes, further north the days are longer but the solar capture efficiency is also much lower

replies(1): >>45241979 #
81. kulahan ◴[] No.45236193{5}[source]
Ah yeah, now that you mention it I’ve heard BYD is doing well in most markets (plus others, I assume). Even ignoring current tariffs, I’m not sure an overtly Chinese car would catch on in the US, but I’m pretty sure I’ve been wrong before.
replies(1): >>45241863 #
82. kulahan ◴[] No.45236211{7}[source]
Because nuclear engineers, plant operators, radioactive mining facilities, and other types of workers that will be needed across both, need to be employed from today until fusion reactors are made.
83. tietjens ◴[] No.45241863{6}[source]
I believe that if allowed in, they would be competitive and that is why they are not allowed. And because of security claims.
84. yellowapple ◴[] No.45241951{6}[source]
It'd be way easier to build a few nuclear plants than it would be to build an equivalent constant energy source from solar+wind and batteries. The nuclear plants would also consume far less land area.
85. yellowapple ◴[] No.45241979{6}[source]
True. I'm biased by living in a place where the peak load does happen during daylight hours (because that's when you need to run the A/C) and where heating usually happens via gas. Electric heating would indeed shift that dynamic (though municipal water heating would shift it the other way).
86. toomuchtodo ◴[] No.45256364{5}[source]
> Wall Street Journal columnist Christopher Mims shared another chart, saying: “The 'magnificent 7' spent more than $100 billion on data centers and the like in the past three months alone.” Man, are they optimistic. Mims linked to an article by Paul Kedrosky, who offers another perspective [1] on the AI bubble, as a percentage of GDP. Kedrosky, in turn, quoted Chinese President Xi Jinping, who warned of overinvesting in AI-focused datacenters. When Xi Jinping and Wall Street traders are on the same page, you know it’s bad. [2]

[1] https://paulkedrosky.com/honey-ai-capex-ate-the-economy/

[2] https://open.substack.com/pub/thealgorithmicbridge/p/im-an-a...