Actually, the nuclear power industry did / does indeed run astroturfing campaigns
Which nuclear power industry? Given the sheer scale of a nuclear power plant project, most research and reactor projects are public projects, with only SMRs seeing any recent interest in the USA. So you think it’s the States that are conducting astroturfing campaigns? The same states that have been sabotaging nuclear power everywhere since Chernobyl? Is there any evidence of this?
For example the “pro-nuclear civil society” in Japan.
The only thing I have found about this is a study which I have to pay 43€ to read.
If you read up on nuclear power online you will find an abundance of websites and groups which offer very one-sided information
You can find that kind of content for about any other subject you can think of. That doesn’t make it proof of astroturfing.
and are tied to the nuclear power industry.
Same question, what is exactly the “nuclear power industry” you’re talking about?
Astroturfing campaigns promoting solar and wind power can be directly linked to the oil industry, as when Jay Anthony Precourt, head of oil and energy start-ups and a major investor in gas, swung a total of $80 million over three years at Stanford University to finance the Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency, which later published a glowing report on a 100% renewable future. (If you don’t see the link between fossil fuels and renewables, take a look at Germany: when there’s no wind, they burn coal and gas. Fossils are very compatible with renewables.)
Can you find the same with nuclear?
Nuclear fission power had huge investments and substitutions but turned out to not be economically feasible in most cases. There is a lot of money to be lost and made in this industry.
This is factually incorrect. What’s expensive is investing to build a cutting-edge industry, then dismantling it before it becomes profitable under the pressure of public opinion.
The French Court of Auditors has estimated the total cost of French nuclear power at around 130 billion euros between 1960 and 2010, including research, construction and maintenance. At its peak, a 1000MW unit of French nuclear power cost 1.5 billion euros, and the French nuclear industry produced two 900 to 1300MW reactors a year for two decades.
Everything came to an abrupt halt in the 90s, not because it wasn’t profitable, not because it didn’t work, but because the Russians made a mess of their power plant, which didn’t even have the same design as the others, killed a few hundred/thousand people, and traumatized hundreds of millions.
Between scientists there is also no consensus whether nuclear power (in its current application) is a good thing.
There is no definition of “a good thing”.
On the other hand, we know that nuclear powerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_electricity_generation#/media/File:Greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_energy_source.png, least resource/space-consuming and safest form of controllable energy.
The increase in nuclear power is an essential of the 4 scenarios of the IPCC reports, and the European Union, based on these reports and other studies, has recognized nuclear power as an energy with a positive impact on the environment. and they incorporated it into the green taxonomy.
It’s been a while since I read the comic but since neither are wearing horns or have grey skin, it’s either a bad troll cosplay or very likely a kid. I feel like I’d notice say mspaint or postman.
Ok so there are 8 kids possible. Do any of them wear red? I want to say Jane might sometimes? But no props make it obvious. The guy on the right might be wearing the dirk/Dave glasses but I remember those glasses being angular.
How did you come to the conclusion this is a cosplay? It has so few props to make it clear which character is which.
The colors are inverted, but there’s a good chance this is meant to be Her Imperilous Condescension. The thing to note is the magenta/black motif with the pisces symbol across the chest.
I guess … Imo it’s really hard to identify as a cosplay without looking more like the character than a single item of clothing. And it’s definitely not a classic HS cosplay where they used to do grey paint.
My unpopular opinion is that the pros aren’t actually that good if they have to gut a game to play it. I wanna see the do all the crazy shit they do but with items on and on annoying stages like the moving Pokémon one. Either get good or fuck off. I can’t think of another game where they do this stuff to this extent.
They do this in every game that has a competitive scene. It’s done as a means of eliminating random chance being the factor for a victory or defeat. Does that make it less fun? Depends on who you ask.
If you ask me, yes. But then I don’t play competitively.
They removed non-standard areas first from competitive queue and then from Standard as well. And then they stopped offering the rocketlabs Gamemode for non-standard Maps.
I play rocket League and i can tell you that they are all the exact same shape and size. They just have different colours and environments around them.
I get that you have no experience trying to play this game skillfully and don’t really care about the concept of fair competition but I can promise you, the competitive players would still dunk on you with every mechanic turned on. Because without the gimmicks you actually have to learn the base mechanics to win which Carrie’s to any game mode.
They know more about the game then you so they know how abusable the item system can be and how obstructive stage hazards can get. They’re looking to compete, not just dick around with friends so of course they’d look for the most equal ground to see who’s better.
I’m pretty sure the intent when upvotes and downvotes were created was to use them in regards to relevance. Is the topic about ducks and someone is going off about jeeps? Downvote. Is the community about posting DIY peanut butter but someone keeps posting Skippy™? Downvote.
It shouldn’t have anything to do with agreeing, effort, or anything like that. Just a way to keep the topic/community on track.
I’m kinda glad we downvote the things we disagree with. Whether on topic or not, shit opinions don’t deserve to be displayed with the same prominence as reasonable opinions.
And that’s how a community become an echo chamber. Also assuming any opinion you agree with is reasonable and those you disagree with is shitty is silly…
This is silly though, isn’t it? Most people think most things that they disagree with are low quality by nature of being something they disagree with.
Whatever was intended for them, IMO upvotes and downvotes work because everyone just uses them however they want, and the sum total of everyone doing that averages out to a somewhat passable quality sorting system. Trying to tell people how to use their upvotes and downvotes is just yelling into the wind.
Think before you downvote and take a moment to ensure you’re downvoting someone because they are not contributing to the community dialogue or discussion.
From reddiquette. You are not supposed to downvote people you disagree with so long as they are contributing to the discussion. I’m not sure if I ever saw this guide line followed in my ten years of Reddit though.
Intent is irrelevant. Humans don’t work that way and will continue to downvote what they don’t like/agree with and upvote what they do like/agree with. Creating a system that ignores how people work and asking them to please use it how you want will never work.
Everyone should just embrace how it’s actually used and move on.
lemmyshitpost
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.