European truck manufacturers like MAN and Scania have already had electric semi-trucks on the market for years. And they are selling, the Danish transport giant DSV alone has 400 driving around Europe.
AFAIK only pension contributions mentioned in a collective bargaining agreement is mandatory. If you get offered a regular contract offering a salary plus 10% pension you can accept the job, write an email to HR stating that you opt out and get the extra 10% as take home pay. You can the make voluntary pension contributions to whatever pension fund you have a private agreement with. And all the private pension companies are very happy to make such an agreement, though the terms will be worse than an employer plan from the same company. Or you could do a completely self-administered one, e.g. through Nordnet.
The NATO 2% goal is quite a bit older than the Russian invasion of Crimea, dating back to at least the NATO summit in Riga in 2006. In any case ramping up our production of artillery shells and other munitions needed by Ukraine would definitely be beneficial to us in the rest of Europe. Both in order to end the war faster and get going rebuilding Ukraine, but also to stimulate the somewhat struggling EU economy.
By increasing the return for other investors I'm increasing the cost of capital for the oil exploration companies. So: Yes, not buying shares in existing oil companies will (ever so marginally) decrease oil exploration.
Index funds are largely synonymous with passive, long term, buy-and-hold investors. That kind of investors are best served by slower changes to the index, especially since index funds are intended to piggy back on the price discovery that happens in public trading. An IPO price, which is the result of a private negotiation, is exactly what you don't want to buy stocks at if you're a passive, long term investor.
How is that the smart move? It's exactly what OP stated as undesirable for index fund investors. The price discovery of the public markets hasn't taken place yet.
What if you try to go with the second option but the vendor barely puts any effort into getting the fix out to user and then it's a year later and the vulnerability is still under embargo? Maybe you decide that the next time you find a vulnerability you want to light a fire under the vendor by giving them a fixed deadline to get the fix out to users. A month seems like a reasonable deadline for that sort of thing.
Grandparent's report uses a nuclear LCOE of 110 USD/MWh which is pretty close to the Korean nuclear plant in Abu Dhabi. The (AFAIK) only plant they've built outside Korea.
The French nuclear plants have an average capacity factor of ~70%, the Swedish plants around 80%. It seems most prudent to assume a nuclear plant in Denmark would be at a similar level.
And if you want to use the plant in a dispatchable pattern, you'll be turning it off a lot when the sun is out and the wind is blowing, further decreasing capacity factor and increasing the LCOE.
No you really can't. Being able to factor 15 but not 21 with Shor's algorithm is normal. I know it sounds absurd, but it really is that way. Because factoring 21 is about 100x times harder than factoring 15.
My point was that the comparison with nuclear explosions is wonky, since we (in the world of that analogy) already have seen a tiny nuclear explosion 15 years ago. And we kept being told that explosions 100 times larger are just around the corner, but explosions 25% larger are way too hard to expect.
I get that there's a lot of R&D going on to make larger quantum computers a thing and that there's been very definite progress, but factoring 21 is just too hard to expect for now. But that also pushes the date where pre-quantum cryptography is broken further into the future. If we still struggle to factor one of the smaller 5 bit numbers, factoring the 128 bit numbers necessary to break elliptic curve cryptography seems quite far away.
reply