UEFI won't boot from MBR drives unless it's in BIOS compatibility mode. What format the drive is in isn't determined by a firmware setting, though it can affect the boot process. I don't think you actually understand what you are talking about here. The easiest way to install OSes both Windows and Linux is by wiping the drive, which would have solved this issue. Dual boot on single drive configurations normally have issues and will always be more complicated. It's better to use two drives where possible in most cases. I suggest you read up on BIOS vs UEFI and how partition tables work if you want to do a complex setup like that.
Mint is known for having older kernels and therefore not supporting the latest hardware. They have a different edition for newer computers called Linux Mint Edge edition. Something Arch derived like CachyOS or another distro using recent kernels will always have the best support for bleeding edge hardware. The CachyOS installer is also pretty friendly, though maybe not as much as Mint.
This isn't true. Try Linux Mint or Ubuntu, their installers are much better. Those installers used by Fedora, RedHat, and even SUSE can be a bit weird.
They specifically say unbloated Windows as well which while it's not as difficult as they make out is still somewhat annoying.
I've recently had a Windows installer fail to see my NVMe drives until I changed some random UEFI setting because it was missing a driver. Linux could see it just fine, as could Hirens boot.
It was an improvement but still not great. Ideally they would have kept the Windows 7 interface with maybe some upgrades like virtual desktops, then continued with all the under the hood improvements.
I know manufacturing panels and batteries have a significant environmental cost. Being a net negative though I am not sure about. Could you link some sources?
Yes it can. Pretending it's that dangerous in doses normally consumed by humans in say coffee would be silly though and that's exactly what you are doing. Like you could make a dirty bomb from spent fuel rods, but that's irresponsible. You could build outdated and unsafe reactors, but again that's irresponsible. You could also burn people to death using the power of the sun and some mirrors. Do you get my point?
You do know what a city is, right? The regulations on nuclear are also around population density if I remember. So it is literally a requirement that says you can't build reactors in high population density areas.
While I think most of this is true, I do doubt your claim that Chernobyl didn't cause birth defects. Even if it didn't cause defects in humans because they were evacuated, it still caused birth defects in animals that stayed behind. I mean the thing killed a forest. It's easier to cause mutations than outright kill something - this is especially true in the newly conceived.
There was never any real risk of ruining an entire continent. Stop watching TV shows like Chernobyl for accurate information. Perhaps some people thought that at the time, but we now know that kind of thing is impossible. It could have been a worse accident for sure if there was another steam explosion and it would have effected a wider area, but not even close to a continent lol.
This is the way. Nuclear is actually one of the safer energy sources, and one of the more reliable. It's also more expensive than most renewables. As always it comes down to local conditions and situations that favor one power source over another - like countries with lots of geothermal that can be exploited or solar probably won't go nuclear.
Yet it still has much lower deaths per energy generated than fossil fuels, and even less than some renewables. A single hydro accident can kill more people than even the worst nuclear disasters. It's not fair to pretend that all the other sources are perfectly safe.
A hydro damn breaking has killed more people than Chernobyl before, and probably will again. Renewables are not perfect either unfortunately. Though some are slightly safer than nuclear.
People don't put reactors next to cities for a reason. Meaning this scenario wouldn't happen. Nuclear is also one of the safest energy sources overall in terms of deaths caused. It's safer than some renewables even, and that's not factoring in advances in the technology that have happened over the decades making it safer. This kind of misinformation is dangerous. It's also not a good reason not to do nuclear. The reason why renewables are used more (and probably have a somewhat larger role to play in general) is because they a cheaper and quicker to manufacture. Nuclear energy's primary problem isn't safety but rather cost. It's biggest strength is reliability and availability. You can build a nuclear plant basically anywhere where there is water.
Renewables folks are also always looking for things that don't exist. Like magical energy storage and transmission solutions that don't cost the earth or have huge losses. Or wave power which still hasn't materialized after decades of research.
Moving electricity around is a hard problem. Even just moving energy from one end of Britain to the other looses us 10 or 20%, and we are a small nation. If you need to start moving energy in from somewhere actually sunny like Spain you are going to have a big problem.
Crypto isn't looking for a problem, fiat has plenty of problems, it's just not an optimal solution. Probably the real answer is not using money at all.
UEFI won't boot from MBR drives unless it's in BIOS compatibility mode. What format the drive is in isn't determined by a firmware setting, though it can affect the boot process. I don't think you actually understand what you are talking about here. The easiest way to install OSes both Windows and Linux is by wiping the drive, which would have solved this issue. Dual boot on single drive configurations normally have issues and will always be more complicated. It's better to use two drives where possible in most cases. I suggest you read up on BIOS vs UEFI and how partition tables work if you want to do a complex setup like that.
Mint is known for having older kernels and therefore not supporting the latest hardware. They have a different edition for newer computers called Linux Mint Edge edition. Something Arch derived like CachyOS or another distro using recent kernels will always have the best support for bleeding edge hardware. The CachyOS installer is also pretty friendly, though maybe not as much as Mint.