Pretty sure this post is referring to the band HEALTH. Some of my favorites are STONEFIST, CHILDREN OF SORROW, and Major Crimes. They may or may not fit the definition of “metal”, but they are bangers.
I’ve got solar panels on my roof, and being Dutch windmills are in my blood. But I’m also not blind to the reality that both wind and solar will only get you so far. And there’s already a lot of opposition to wind farms - they ruin the view, endanger birds and there’s health concerns due to noise and shadow projection.
If we just build even one nuclear powerplant, we could basically just… not do wind. And we’d have pleeeenty of power for the coming energy transition, change to electric vehicles, etc.
But noooo… nuclear is scary. Especially to the people who only cite Fukushima and Chernobyl in regards to safety. That’s the same as banning air travel because of 9/11 and the Tenerife disaster. Nuclear power is safe, cheap and we owe it to the planet to use it wisely instead of more polluting alternatives.
Even the link itself mentions how it’s not really a good metric to use as it doesn’t factor in whole lot of externalities. I.e coal is cheaper, but when it creates air pollution that shortens your lifespan, is it worth the tradeoff? Nor does it factor in things like energy density: a nuclear power plant is far smaller than the amount of land needed to put up enough wind turbines to match its output.
Basically… LCOE looks like a neat gotcha, right up until you look past that first diagram.
Its expensive to build new bespoke massive, built on site reactors. I’m not arguing for more of them I’m saying lets run them for their full service lives as they were so expensive to produce. However if we are discussing new installations i’d love to start making a lot of small modular light water reactors in factory conditions. Economies of scale.
I agree. Smaller local modern salt reactors would be a better use of nuclear than investing in the conventional centralised nuclear plants. However they’re still in the experimental phase and not easily available. I too would love if “we” starting making a lot of them, but there’s no finished design or anyone offering to build them for mass deployment.
Right now, with the currently available options, renewable is the only cheap mass produced energy source that can beeasily deployed everywhere and in different scales.
Hopefully the container sized nuclear plants will eventually be as easy to setup.
Renewables also have a similar issue with storage. It exists mainly in experimental projects. It’s extremely local if it even makes financial sense to do it. In places where existing nuclear or hydro is available it will not be make much financial sense to store excess renewable energy with a loss.
Toxic baits, windows, roadtrafic, high voltage powerlines, the massive decline in insects, loss of habitats. All of them are much worse than the casualties by windmills.
building new nuclear plants is barely an option though because it costs tons of money and, more importantly, takes like 10 years to build. However I agree we shouldn’t decommission the existing ones if they still are in a good state
Well, here in the Netherlands we definitely need far more energy in the near future. We’re moving away from natural gas for heating and fossil fuels are going away in favor of electric vehicles. Add in things like heat pumps, more people getting airconditioning, data centers and other growing energy needs.
Basically, right now we have ‘just about’ enough electricity available, but soon it won’t be. We already import quite a bit of energy from other countries, which makes us inherently vulnerable.
Nuclear plants are expensive and take a long while to build. Which is why I hold politicians responsible for not pushing them through years ago. The best time to build a nuclear plant was ten years ago. The second best time is today.
One of the ways solar and wind can become more reliable is by expanding the grid.
I’m not sure where you’re from, but in the US we have three grids: the Eastern Interconnect, the Western Interconnect, and Texas. These grids aren’t connected despite their names, and there have been many attempts in the past to connect them to little avail.
The benefit of larger grids with distributed energy resources is that even if local environments are cloudy or calm, those conditions usually are locally concentrated. This means that if one DER is underproducing, another DER can make up for the loss if that DER’s locale is sunny and windy.
This gets better the wider a net you cast to collect energy (i.e. grid).
On your counterpoints to wind, “the view” is in the eye of the beholder - I’m young and I love the look of modern wind turbines; wind turbines reduce the overall amount of bird deaths from the energy industry as we transition away from fossil fuels; no significant evidence has been found to link wind turbine noise to health issues; and shadow flicker has not been correlated with any adverse health outcomes either, leading me to believe that this propaganda is being propagated by either NIMBYs or the fossil fuels industry or both.
Point is: solutions to climate change will come in a silver buckshot, not in a silver bullet. We need an all hands approach to this so we reverse damage as soon as possible and get to restoration as soon as possible.
Other I agree with you though. I would love to have a backbone of nuclear through the American Great Plains where population centers are low. Only issue there though is groundwater use, but I’d imagine future reactors could make use of geothermal-type solutions to cool instead of surface waters. Maybe there’s a radiation risk there. Idk, need to research more
It’s kinda the same though isn’t it? Opposition to nuclear power, opposition to wind, solar, geothermal, hydro. Seems like maybe what people want most of all is to stick their heads in the sand and just have everything stay the same forever. It was a multi-decade effort to get people off of leaded gas FFS.
Middle Managers and 2nd rate psych students. But, having surveyed my undergraduate classes in the past, about 50% of them believe in astrology so it’s no wonder the Myers-Briggs speaks to them.
I’ve only known a handful of psych students, but even as students they knew enough about the Myers-Briggs to recognize it as pseudo-science bullshit. Sad to hear that’s not universal.
Might vary from school to school. The bigger thing is upbringing, many first gen kids don’t have that going into college so it’s more a task to teach critical thinking to them. More privileged kids get that out the gate, especially if they’re coming from private schools that encourage critical thinking and not following orders / memorization.
I teach at a place with mostly first gens, so thats how it is.
My Psych degree hangs framed above my toilet. It really brings the room together. I only put partial weight into standardized testing, IQ or personality tests, and I hope other people realize the constraints and fallabilities of these metrics. I don’t detest that they exist. I just hope people don’t horoscope 'em.
Yeah… I’ve been rejected from jobs for not popping an “ENTJ” or whichever fucking Harry Potter house their overgrown facebook quiz was supposed to sort me into. People -with authority- absolutely horoscope em.
…with that anecdote in mind, I maaaaay be a tad biased.
I mean, some people like BuzzFeed quizzes, but it’s easy to tell that it’s for entertainment, knowing they’re not scientific. When it’s an documented personality test with a long history, it’s easy to assume it’s scientific. But social sciences weren’t all that scientific until the last few decades, anyway.
What it’s meant or actually useful for, vs how it’s used in contexts like employment are significantly mismatched.
It’s like understanding what a framing hammer is supposed to be used for and how to do so properly and safely, only to turn the news on and learn that the general population is somehow convinced that they’re for eye surgery; and thousands of ER visits later, from dumbasses who DIY’d that shit and popped their eyes, the general population has learned… not a damn thing… they’re still bashing their eyes apart with framing hammers.
interestingly, anedoctaly, I’m an absolute skeptic about almost everything, including astrology, religion and the such, but this test was so on spot from me I had a real hard time being convinced it was pseudoscience
Short story. My company brought in a different working-type consulting group. I decided to try my own experiment and answered the 150 survey completely randomly, didn’t read the questions. Then sat through a 4 hour workshop where most of my colleagues told me it made so much sense I was a [whatever my results were, I forget]." Found out they paid like $10k for the day session, never told anybody what I did.
This is the truth. Focus on yourself for now. Learn things, get good at stuff, advance your career, understand different perspectives, cook and eat healthy food that tastes good. Be somebody you really want to spend time with. A significant chunk of this is just you being confident and comfortable in who you are. Then people (including women) will be interested in spending time with you.
It helps to not be broke or ugly, but dressing well and washing yourself and smelling pleasant can get you pretty far.
It’s not bullshit, average is average for a reason. Most people are average or slightly below average and if they just take care of themselves they will look a ton better. Attractiveness is on a bell curve not a straight line.
It’s also possible you’re talking to someone in the long tail of that bell curve who is already taking care of themselves. You are making a lot of assumptions and your attempt to push responsibility onto him when he may in fact be in the lowest percent of that bell curve, and if he is, your well-intentioned controversial opinion is like throwing salt in his wounds.
People always just assume they can do this with this problem. If someone has mental health issues, they tell them to seek help. If someone has physical issues, they tell them to see a doctor. If they have relationship issues, “Oh, it’s all your fault, man. Work on yourself.” even in the absence of ANY evidence.
I know it’s uncomfortable to think about the people in that bottom 1% of the bell curve who are completely helpless and overwhelmed, but victim blaming isn’t a good way to deal with it.
I sympathize and also I disagree that there’s only one curve. Everyone is different about what they like. One person uggo will be someone else’s hotty.
Now, if you’re not conventionally attractive that is definitely harder because everyone’s opinions are skewed.
I also understand that you may feel like just giving up on finding a match. If that’s the case, that’s you’re right. When you really do give up, please stop posting about how it’s impossible to find someone. You’re being discouraging to others who are still trying. And the only other option is State mandated partners. Trust me no one wants that not even you.
All I’m saying is, when people post these kinds of things, they’re likely not looking for platitudes or advice. If they wanted that, the title of the post would’ve been “someone help me”. It’s okay to let people vent about a situation that sucks for them without telling them all of the things you think they should be doing differently.
Then I’m not sure I can tell the difference between venting and someone giving an opinion that they are willing to defend. I’m also not sure how anyone could tell the difference.
Are people really that different in what they like? At least the American movies are portraying the exact same kind of attractiveness, to the point that it gets super boring to watch.
Yes, if you want an example, look at fetishes. Also if you look through history, you’ll find that what people considered attractive varied massively.
But also to your point, the media that we all consume says that this is the kind of person that looks attractive. And so if you ask most people what is attractive, they will tell you the standard Hollywood type.
But I think most people, if they see someone that gives them that happy brain tingle, would go for it even if who they’re looking at isn’t conventionally attractive.
Don’t get me wrong, if you’re not conventionally attractive, it does make things harder, but not impossible.
If you need a modern example, I’m a fat computer nerd, and my wife found me on the internet.
Yeah I agree. There is a lot more to a real life meeting than how people look. That’s why it’s really important to meet people in real life and not on video.
You do understand that everything you said and the sentence "be comfortable with who you are" are a contradiction, right? Fulfilling all the other stuff you mentioned will take massive amounts of energy of you're not the type who does them naturally, trapping you in a cycle of "still not good enough". Vigorous self-improvement is quickly becoming the "high performer" equivalent to bulimia: a form of utter self-hatred expressed as pseudo-beneficial behavior that actually does way more harm than good.
Truth is: love is chance. You might be able to increase the odds somewhat, but in the end, none of us can really control if we.end up meeting someone we will be able to spend our lives with. Trying to constantly be different tha you'd be naturally (trying to be the career guy with hobbies sports and eating healthy, while deep down you are a lazy ass couch potato) will increase your chances of meeting someone, bit I'd argue it will not increase your chances of being happy with someone. Or being happy with yourself for that matter.
This is true. I went through a long period of this exact pattern in my early 20s and while some positives came out of it, it also made me never feel good enough and like I always had to change things to be better. Nothing was ever enough and it was depressing and exhausting.
I only realized how toxic the pattern had become when I started going to therapy. The therapist pointed out that all of my appreciation towards myself was conditional. I only felt good if condition x/y/z was met, and there were always new conditions to make me feel not good enough anymore. He encouraged me not to remove all conditional appreciation, but to try and find an equal degree of unconditional appreciation and love towards myself that wasn’t based on others. Not easy to do, but it made a real impression on me and it changed my outlook, even if I don’t always succeed.
I don’t disagree with the first sentence but do disagree with the comparison. A driver is in constant control of the vehicle and has to make decisions on a second by second basis that could result in death. By comparison, the chance of anyone in an exit row even being in a plane accident is vanishingly small. Even smaller still the liklihood that they’ll have to do anything (and be alive to do it)
Point being the event where you need to “drive” in the exit row (however rare) is a societal obligation, and should be taken remotely seriously (again acknowledging the changes are microscopic).
If you want to zonk out, at least do it in some other window seat so you don’t impede an evacuation, however rare.
I wouldn’t park by bike in front of a fire escape, as another example
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.