Oh man you missed the pinacle of Nokias phones. The possibilities of the N900 where endless back then. Emulators, IR Blaster, High Quality Camera (for back then), all the Linux software, free Wifi everywhere (Because everybody still used WEP and the N900 would crack the password in like 20 seconds) and so much more. The transreflective screen 800x480 worked incredibly well. Low power and still very good visibility, only in bright sunlight the colors were washed out. I always wondered why they never used this technology in modern devices.

Then the N9 which lacked some features, but was so handsome and user friendly. It had an OLED but also the Clear Black technology which prevented the screen from reflecting to much sunlight, making it readable in the sun even though it had much lower brightness than todays OLEDs.

Sadly all this was killed by Elop who came from Microsoft and tried to push Windows phone, slowly downgrading the amazing hardware till Nokias phone branch was dead.

Or the N900 which even had fluid animations and scrolling which this company still seems to struggle with

The source linked by Wikipedia ist not very sound in this case. It is a website with the sensationalist title “Hydroelectric power’s dirty secret revealed” and in its text the magazine mentions a “a study to be published” without title where it supposedly gets its information from.

You are correct, that in Brazil the biomass may contribute more, in this study from 2002 one of the highest emitting reservoirs is examined. Including everything up to the Ants colonies destroyed by the reservoir. However they note that Emissions decrease significantly after a few years as the biomass is decomposed. Also at the time of the article linked above the plant was still installing turbines, increasing its energy output. This obviously leads to wrong estimations when current carbon emissions to current power output is extrapolated over the lifetime. In 2002 a Cambridge article noted that emissions are on par with fossil fuels (which of course is still not great!) A study in 2016 noted that previous estimates of the emissions may have been quite a bit to high as they collected samples during seasons with high activity.

In summary: We don’t know for certain yet how high the emissions are, but 3.5 times fossil fuel emissions seems to be grossly overestimated.

Regarding nuclear to put it into numbers: Current estimates average at about 66g CO₂eq/kWh ranging up to 180. This site uses 5 as estimate!

Thank you for the hydro part, didn’t know that yet. It does not seem as bad as you said tough, This paper states up to 73g CO₂eq/kWh which is far below the 400-800 of a stone coal plant.