Eximius @ Eximius @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

202

Joined

2 yr. ago

"Fascism got beat just fine" is a fun way of saying West front was exceptionally lucky, and the Eastern successfully smothered the fscists with meat

It's not whataboutism: https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-power-plants

You said yourself that concrete is not recycled, and it is upcycled only for aggregate, can use any rocks for that. Nobody is converting cement to cement clinker.

Keep idiots from breaking in to the mine that has "radioactive" signs is quite far fetched. You dont just accidentally stumble on an opened mineshaft and accidentally have keys to the lift to go down 100m.

I dont apply to a specific age group. From my personal understanding, as people grow up (and of course it depends heavily on education, culture), people will have strong memories from childhood and will reflect on them throughout life.

Hardships would likely cause people to not want their children to have hardships. Loss would likely cause vengeful directions to be righteous.

It's only if the losses or hardships (over their life) are resolved do they go away, otherwise, it is fuel for fire. Whether radicalized or not. In this case, I would like to know what you perceive as radicalized here. I would only attribute terroristic desires or genocidal intentions, or other inhumane (as defined by international law) goals as radicalization.

It is not radical at all to want vengeance, or to punish for pain inflicted. It's natural and even lawful if done within confines of agreed law, and many times required, otherwise anyone can do anything without objection or accountability.

Wait, so you think nuclear reactors spew out uranium?

While coal powerplants don't spew out radioactive coal ash??

Lets just say only one of these is true... and it is not the former.

They are not explodey, because they are by design not. The non RBMK (i.e. not cheap Russian, lied-about-safety-by-government) reactors are designed to literally cool off without any power or control, if all went to shit. You can try with all your expertise to make it explode, and short of rebuilding it you will fail. Even if you were to add explosives. At that point, just making your own nuclear bomb is cheaper and faster.

I think it is quite optimistic to think they will even recycle 5% of a solar powerplant. The silicon is not useful, hard to dismantle from metal. Additives make it unusable without special centrifuge processes. Take the easy metals, scrap the rest, use easy, cheap raw materials for controlled process. Most of the NPP can be recycled if you cared, apart from the irradiated reactor, which is a very tiny part of it. It's all wires, steel and other useful electric constructions. Nobody cares to recycle concrete.

I wont talk about storing waste, because I dont know why it is marketed as prohibitively expensive. Apart from it just being lead lined barrels in say an empty mineshaft (which there are an exceptional volume of everywhere). Literally enough space for forever, no need to put anything in the air.

1. Not poisonous.
2. Not explodey. Chernobyl destroyed all common sense and support for nuclear power, even though it was mostly terrible terrible management and horrible corrupt (Soviet) government that caused it. Nuclear reactors can't explode like Chernobyl unless someone purposely flips all the switches to red, does manual overrides aand it was specifically built to ignore all logical safety concerns.

The number of kille people by coal is orders of magnitude higher over the same period (lets say 60 years) per GW generated.

Any other arguments?

I guess we could use "Muskiness" as a special term because anything else is an insult to idiots, fools, mafiosos, and mentally disabled.

I think you misunderstand how people grow up and introspect. There is a lot in childhood that will give an initial push and motivation, and it is not a desire to live up to their parents or other adults, and their desires. As people grow up they desire individuality, and their own life.

Role models can be a part, but these are usually exceptional people in some way. But at this point, wrt the topic, you should consider why these role models exist, and what they stand for. Not immediately jump to the conclusion of smth smth propaganda. If you want that discussion you should very specifically define the term of propaganda.

Lol. I just love it how so many people complain that Nuclear doesnt make financial sense, and then the most financially motivated companies just actually figure out that using a nuclear reactor completely privately is best.

Fuck sake, world.

It would probably be fine if everyone agreed to play by the rules, but they dont, and the US is terrible at enforcing them (or specifically, chooses not too, and doesnt impose new laws to stop loopholing)

But the administrative bullshit, and the other potential problems are exactly why other countries went for universal healthcare 🤷‍♂️

You must have limited retrospective abilities, because sure as hell, the ideas from your childhood guided your life.

You feel wrong, most likely, from what I read.

Horrible link but has knowledge: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/zr3hsi/whats_the_deal_with_the_hate_on_bill_gates/j13k2iy/

Security starts at the developer, you have to be deluded to think otherwise.

NDA, bulletproof'ed laptops, kernel-level-oversight, VPNs are just mitigations.

The gen z language identity is stronk

It's a (large) language model. It's good at language tasks. Helps to have hundreds of Gigs of written "knowledge" in ram. Differing success rates on how that knowledge is connected.

It's autocorrect so turbocharged, it can write math, and a full essay without constantly clicking the buttons on top of the iphone keyboard.

You want to keep a pizza together? Ah yes my amazing concepts of sticking stuff together tells me you should add 1/2 spoons of glue (preferably something strong like gorilla glue).

How to find enjoyment with rock? Ah, you can try making it as a pet, and having a pet rock. Having a pet brings many enjoyments such as walking it.

What the fuck? How can this "race" even be close? How brain-dead emotional are the voters? There are two candidates, you choose the person who's ideals and directions you believe in? How is the election process surprisingly similar to an ADHD kindegarten with a nominated side whose campaign is metaphorical shit slinging??

The goal posts were not moved at any point. It was a discussion of the situation, as it is.

Please look at the paper you refer to: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60175-4/abstract It was only retracted because of "In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record." It was retracted due to fraud. I don't think it's in any way wise to blame the possibility of fraud on the peer review process. Just as fraud can happen in any field because some people decide to pathologically lie.

However, besides the fraudulent ethics, the paper is fine, and as always previously reiterated multiple times. All it says are a bunch of maybes. It makes no extraordinary claims, it holds no conclusive proof, just a lot of "this maybe hints to something". The paper is publishable.

The actual scandal was caused by the Wakefield lying profusely in media.

These are two different things: what Wakefield said in media, and what Wakefield said in the paper. You should separate them.

In just the same way you can get away from taxes by lying vehemently... he lost his job and reputation in less than three years.

Since the paper itself was okay, but the data was falsified, obviously it was hard to prove the data was false until other studies not only showed it, but also his reputation was discredited and (presumably) investigations finished.

Incorrect data can happen even to a good paper in good faith due to instrument error.

The paper in question, again, was lots of "maybes" and no direct conclusions. The earth shattering conclusions were reached in press conferences where the guy lied vehemently, and the journalists ate it up like coke.

I was agreeing to you and laughing at how downvoted he was.

A sentence made out of fluff. What technology? AMD took x86 and gave it wings, better efficiency, neither is only negligible iterative improvements. Intel failed to use lower nm nodes as a first fail.

"[The paper] admitted that the research did not "prove" an association between the MMR vaccine and autism."

"He was reportedly asked to leave the Royal Free Hospital [around 2001] after refusing a request [presumably around 1999] to validate his 1998 Lancet paper with a controlled study."

You could say it took to long to retract the paper, which was essentially full of data-fudged "maybes". But it supposedly was "science" until it was uncovered as just fraud.

Apart from the data fudging, and intense bullshit and hype-train pushing by the now deregistered "professional" [fraudster].

Sorry, this just shows the resillience of publishing, and the scientific community to fraud and [alleged] corruption.

No lmao.