Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)MA
Posts
0
Comments
178
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Nuclear plants consist mainly of a shitton of concrete (and only the best sort is good enough). The production of that concrete causes a terrible amount of carbon emissions upfront.

    Actually, if you compare them to solar or wind at equivalent service, it's not that straightforward:

    Renewables installed capacity is nowhere close to their actual production, nuclear can produce its nominal capacity in a very steady way.

    Wind turbines also need a lot of concrete, and much more metal for equivalent output. Solar panels need a lot of metals.

    Renewables need a backup source to manage their intermittency. It's most often batteries and fossil plants these days. I don't think I need to comment on fossil plants, but batteries production also has a very significant carbon emission budget, and is most often not included in comparisons. Besides, you need to charge the batteries, that's even more capacity required to get on par with the nuclear plant.

    With all of these in consideration, IPCC includes nuclear power along with solar and wind as a way to reduce energy emissions.

  • Scientists have not been hyperbolic. If anything, so far, they've been very cautious abut their statements.

    I still remember reading headlines about "likelihood of global warming" then "probably caused by human activities" because 90% level of confidence is not enough, you need more data until you can reach 95% or 98% confidence before boldly writng "most probably".

    But in their "probably" they predicted we would see more floods, droughts, violent storms, all of these happening one after the other causing devastation.

    And Ô surprise: we see floods, droughts and storms following each other and causing devastation. Yet our leaders will claim "no one could have predicted all of that would happen at once!".

    Now they start telling us our civilization could collapse ("could" must be what? 75% confidence level???)

    We're going to spend 20-25 years claiming they exagerate, another 20-25 years saying "well, they maybe right, but we can't change things too fast because that would be unreasonable and the people would not accept it".

    By the time, we will start reading articles stating no matter what we do now, we can only push out the end a bit, but we're doomed. And the first reactions will be "those damned scientists always exagerate and use hyperboles".

  • We also had decades to prevent climate change from happening and look how well we tackle it now.

    I'm confident we'll have a plan to prevent that collapse that's due within 100 years, but to keep it reasonable, its execution will be spread over 100 years, and we think about starting in 80 years providing everything goes well in the meantime.

    Chill, you can see it's all taken care of!

  • "Collapse" meaning what, exactly? Do you mean run out of storage from the volume of content, or that processing all the messages is too taxing?

    Years back, I setup a Synapse's server on my personal server (Yunohost). At some point, I joined the "big" Matrix room. Bad idea: RAM and CPU usage went through the roof. I had to kill the server but even that took forever as the system was struggling with the load.

    But don't just take my words for it:

    https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/7339

    Last comment is from less than one year ago. I was told things should be better with newer servers (Dendrite, Conduit, etc.), but I've not tried these yet. They're still in development.

    How does it scale differently than Matrix?

    The Matrix protocol is a replication system: your server will have to process all events in the room one or more users attend(s) to. There is a benefit to this: you can't shut down a room by shutting down any server: all the other ones are just as "primary" as the original. Drawback: your humble personal server is now on the hook.

    XMPP rooms are more conventional: a room is located on one server. That's an "old" model, but it scales.

    https://www.ejabberd.im/benchmark/index.html

    That's for the host. For other attendees, it's much lower.

    I don't think I atteld any public room out there with 3k users, so I can't report my first hand experience, this is the best I found. But I never had to check for load issue on a small server (running Metronome and many more services).

    Out of curiosity, why do you say this?

    I don't use the Fediverse the way I engage with individual people. If I want a closer relation with someone, I don't want to be bound to yet-another-messenging system, let alone on multiple accounts

    And another reason is I may not want to be bothered by people I don't know, regardless how much I could appreciate reading and/or exchanging with them in the Fediverse.

    Ignoring or declining requests from strangers can leave a lot to interpretation and then frustration. Remove the button and no one is tempted to press it the be disappointed with the outcome. Less drama.

    And that's only considering well intended people.

    But these are my humble 2cents.

  • By the time countries that could have built nuclear power plants would complete them, they will have collectively burnt enough coal and gas to doom humankind.

    So: indeed, the world leaders didn't try seriously.

  • I think it's worse than that. We humans are inherently selfish and self-preserving.

    People who live far away from any coal mines do not feel threatened by coal, because it will not impact them directly (besides fu**ing up the planet, of course, but that's another issue humans have with big pictures and long term effect correlation to present small scale actions).

    But most people can't tell where a nuclear plant can be built, so it could be close enough to expose them to a risk of disaster?

    Therefore: "Nuclear is more dangerous than coal (for my personal case)"

  • French here. If you learn in Belgium or Switzerland, they have "septante" and "nonante" for 70 and 90.

    It's for sure more intuitive, but you have to admit that saying "four-twenty-twelve" (non-french speakers: that's literal translation for 92) is sooooo cool!

  • What I don't like with Matrix is the load it puts on the server. It basically copies 100% of a room content to any server having one or more users registered in the room.

    So if you're on a small server, and one user decides to join a 10k+ large room, your server may collapse under the load as it tries to stay in sync with the room's activity. This is deterrent to self-hosting or family/club/small party servers.

    XMPP, on the other hand, has proven to be highly scalable, has E2EE, federation and some bridging services.

    The only thing XMPP does NOT have is a single reference multiplatform client with all basic features for 2023 (1:1 chat, chat rooms, voice/video 1:1, and voice/video conference) than anyone can use without wondering if the features-set is the same as the persons you're talking to.

    And while we're there: I'm not even sure I want a messaging account linked to any of my Fediverse accounts...

  • 10 years from now, you might be in a situation where the grid is unstable and capacity is insufficient in front of demand. You will also be facing potential renewal of existing solar panels, wind farms, batteries storage, etc.

    If you lack capacity, any attempt at industry relocation locally will be a pipe-dream.

    And at that time, you'll say either "it's too late to rely on nuclear now" or "fortunately we're about to get these new power plants running". You're not building any nuclear power plan for immediate needs, you're building for the next decades.

    Meanwhile, one country will be ready to take on "clean production" and be very attractive to industrial projects because it already planned all of that years ago and companies will be able to claim "green manufacturing". That country is... China!

  • Sorry to ruin this dream, but not a single developed country (and most likely not a single non-developed either) has a remote chance of being carbon neutral in 10years.

    Reason number one is "carbon-neutral" is yet another greenwashing marketing idea involving emissions compensations that are just not there.

    We've seen now that planting trees will probably not do any good: we already see trees growing failure rate increasing due to excessive heating. They grow slower already, making all compensation calculations wrong, and they'll burn in wildfires in summer, releasing all the carbon they captured.

    The second reason is the insanely high dependency we have to cheap oil. You need to convert haul truck, small trucks, buses, etc. to electric all while you turn the grid to 0 emission.

    You need to convert cargo ships to electric otherwise your net neutrality will need to conveniently ignore all importations and exportations.

    You need to convert all farm machines to 0 emissions and abandon quite a lot of the chemistry considered for granted today, which means yields will drop.

    You need to convert blast furnaces to alternative energies. Today, there is almost nothing done there other than "we'll get hydrogen" that everybody know cannot be produced in the volume they need, let alone at an acceptable price.

    And no energy source whatsoever is carbon neutral!

    Solar panels need quite some metal and semicon-based manufacturing techniques. Wind farm need concrete for their anchoring, and use advanced materials to build. They both have a limited lifespan, after which you need to recycle (By the way: noticed that when "recycling" is advertised, no one mentions if it's rectcling for the same usage and not recycled to lower grade material we can't use back to produce the same device? That's because we just can't get them back with the same purity level...) and make some replacement, that will again have a share of emissions.

    Short of producing absolutely everything in the chains of supplies locally, you will import emissions from another country

    Any human activity is basically emitting or causing greenhouses emissions.

    And while you think all of that can be managed, we already have all signals to red on the natural resources: we can't extract lithium fast enough, and we may not want to given how dirty the mines are. We may run out of some metals we rely on.

    And most of these issues are eluded in the great plans, because it's too complicated or we simply have no solution and no one wants to say it up and loud.

    Now, the good/bad news: all of this will end because we're also running out of cheap oil.

    It's a good news because that will put a break in humans activities and so greenhouse gas emissions.

    But it's bad because not a single country is preparing for the aftermath, and that means... they will collapse!

  • All bills targeting your freedom are labelled "child porn" or "terrorism".

    After terrorists attack in France, state of emergency was declared, special powers to restrainesuspicious powers at home. We MUST protect people frometerrorists, right? If you're against that, which side are you on? Very first usage of the power: restrain non-violent eco-activists to their home so that they don't disturb the COP.

    That pattern repeats over and over. They're counting on you being sensitive to "child porn", I bet you the initial list will include "eco-terrorists" sites (label used on anyone attending a climate protest they tried to prevent), political activists sites (you try to be anonymous on Internet? That's SO suspicious!).

    I'm sorry for what happened to you, but ri seriously doubt this bill is really intended to prevent that.

  • I wouldn't set expectations too high though: for the retirement bill, there were many protests, millions of people in the streets, all surveys showing a very strong reject by the people, and the reaction was basically: "I got elected, I do whatever the f**k I want!".

    Short of a revolution, nothing can change their mind. I'd rather push other parties to include this in their program for the next elections: repel this absurdity.

  • Besides panicking a few regional managers, this can only be a bad news for Meta if other countries, or even better, the EU follows them.

    100kUSD/day for a 5.4M inhabitants country, that scales to 8.3M$/day for the total 450M inhabitants EU has (yes: I know that's not how it works, I'm doing a very gross approximation here).

    That's would be 3B$/year. Now we're talking!

  • Could we define a trade-off system? Classic broadcasting can take way too long to send out a large catalog. Streaming is, as you say, a heavy resources consuming system.

    So how about a combo of a box or a software that can follow a broadcast N times faster than human, and broadcast N movies/series episodes a day? The application let you pick what you'd like to get on your box/app, and then it's like classic video recording, but on steroids.

    It would be like live-streaming, but at 2, 3, 10 times the normal speed. No human needs to follow that.

    Of course, you still have the issue of glitches, communication interruption, but we've dealt with those for years, and there are certainly ways to indeed stream the missing parts, or use rediffusion.

    You read it first here. I'm off to file for a patent and make billions (or not...)

  • That's going to happen. Houses will become affordable (in price). Thanks to the interest rates hikes that happened so fast their effect can hardly be seen yet, pretty soon, a lot of owners in debt won't be able to sustain their mortgage anymore. "For sales" signs are going to pop-up faster than mushroom and the prices will collapse.

    No one will be able to afford them still, because of the mortgage cost, but at that point, Liberals can claim they successfully reined in the housing cost, and now they're off to tackle the mortgage cost. As the economy will be cratered, Bank of Canada will dump the interest rates back to floor level: another job well done!

  • Exactly! And if you don't like the idea of having a state-owned telco, we could leave the infrastructure only to the state-owned company, and open access to all incumbents, same rate for everyone. While we're there, we should just have the same with broadband: a state owned company deploys fiber. All ISP access it at the same rate.

    No more complaining they need to make hundreds of % of margin otherwise they can't invest, and even then they can't invest if the government doesn't heavily subsidize the network.