Yeah, nothing back there except tons of highly radioactive waste that nobody knows what to do with for the next million years, nothing back there but the risk of contaminating a whole region with radioactive shit like it happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima, nothing back there except for overly expensive energy that’s only cheap because governments subsidized the shit out of it because they thought it was the new big thing you need to have, and now they still do just because. Don’t get me worng, it’s probably still a tiny bit better than burning fossils. But it’s still bullshit.
Dig a deep hole into the bedrock, put the waste in dry casks, put the casks in the hole, backfill with clay.
This has been known for decades!
I live in a suburb north of Stockholm in Sweden, here in Scandinavia we have a very stable bedrock, I would absolutely welcome a disposal site for nuclear waste in my suburb, and I am talking about a site that would accept waste from all over the world (for a fee obviously).
It would be simple, create jobs, and allow us to keep using nuclear power to allow for quicker removal of fossil power plants.
As for Chernobyl, TMI and Fukashima, Chernobyl was a bad design which was run by people who lacked access to information about past nuclear accidents, leading to bad management, TMI had a fail deadly indicator system, where a broken light bulb caused incorrect information to be acted on, and Fukashima was built in a bad location.
I recommend you to watch this 2006 BBC Horizon documentary, it is called Nuclear Nightmares and talks about our fear of radiation, and weather or not it is warranted:
A large coal power plant needs at least 10000 tons of coal every day according to Wikipedia.
A nuclear plant needs about 25 tons per year.
That is a huge, massive difference in logistics, pollution and use of resources, that is not even getting into the coal ash that is produced by cosl plants, according to the EPA, nearly 130 million tons of coal ash was generated in the US by coal power plants. None was generated by nuclear power plants.
Please watch the documentary, it is a few years old, but the premise still holds.
Another point is that there are places outside Chernobyl and Fukashima that have higher background radiation that either exclusion zone, and that is places where people live normally, I seem to recall that being mentioned in the documentary I linked.
A friend of mine just sent me a Facebook link that says that decomposed candidate #2 was caught taking bribes from corporations … and that they’re a communist.
The conspiracy theorists all say Joe is supposed to step down and Gavin Newsom somehow is added to the ticket which then will win. These conspiracy theorists also say that candidates are selected in advanced by the powers that be and it’s all pagentry to deceive the gullible masses. These people would also say Joe’s bad debate performance was part of the pagentry. Just remember this post later.
Not right now. But in the future if companies keep getting away with everything they may introduce some kind of bio-identification: eye scan, face id or fingerprint. And lock your account only to that. Preventing from every form of sharing.
I mean, it’s still against it. But I can’t see how they’d enforce it, unless valve starts demanding IDs. I’m afraid for a post-gaben era where Valve might just do that…
I dunno if it’s “family sharing” or some other thing, but I can play games from my sister’s library through some means that I set up a couple of years ago.
I was referring more to the “Years of Service” badge you can find on your Steam profile, whose count begins when your account was created. It shows on the page when you look at the badge itself. Mine shows it was created on August 4, 2006.
Naw I didn’t mean that, but hell yeah let’s be here anyway. To me, technically the joke is that none of us probably bother to put in our real birth month and date when Steam asks us to verify our age before viewing the next game suggestion in our discovery queue or wherever; just spin that wheel for the year lol. But the wording you pointed out is the only tipoff that it’s what I’m talking about, over-explaining would have made it boring, and if I go too subtle, then nobody gets it. I was genuinely thanking ye for the noticing the deliberate wording and I hope you got a chuckle :D
Nah, because while it would be very easy to implement something like that, it would require specifically doing it. Programmers have 3 reasons for writing code
It’s cool. It’s necessary. I was told to do it in exchange for money
(And the secret fourth reason, it just kinda happened. I was building this related thing and I realized it’d be stupid easy to toss it in…I was in a fugue state and I have no idea what I wrote, but it’s some of my best code ever)
Devs don’t generally care about this kind of thing, and most of the time neither do the business folk. This kind of unnecessary crackdown only comes up when consultants like McKinney, who I’ve recently learned are the reason everything sucks
Allowing libraries to accrue over generations is something business folk keenly care about because it impacts profits over time.
It’s literally why they have rules against transferring ownership.
You can tell yourself it’s for other reasons, but you’d just be lying to yourself about Valve being more benevolent than they actually are. They actually are in it to make money. Being told to do it in exchange for money is pretty much why this will happen.
Valve, at the end of the day, is still a company even if they’re marginally more consumer friendly than most. (Let’s not ignore that a lot of their “consumer friendly” decisions, like being able to return games, were literally because of laws saying they had to. They didn’t do it out of the “goodness of their hearts,” they did it because in some places they were being legally required to do so.)
But will they care if the account continues buying games? Is it easier to let it slide, or force someone to make a new account, there by pissing them off?
but by that point, whoever the inheritors of the account were have probably been paying money and adding new games to it for decades. why would valve destroy their relationship with that customer just because they might still technically have access to some hundred year old games that either don’t even run on modern systems, or might even be public domain by that point?
I cannot imagine they’re going to keep family sharing as is - currently a couple of buddies and I shared a family account and now we all have access to over 700 games. I only had to coordinate with one of them, we all basically chained off each other. The abuse must be massive.
Come on dude…are you kidding? You and I could do a family share without any risk to each other and share our entire libraries tonight. That is not the sameas handing off to your buddies. I love the family sharing program, I am currently using it. I am not against piracy. Let’s get all that out of the way.
Surely you see the potential issue here if this is supposed to be a family sharing program?
I was under the impression that if someone is playing a game from your library you can’t access it unless you boot them out (or you put steam in offline mode, meaning no updates or multiplayer for the duration). Is that no longer true?
Yeah but that’s only a problem if both of you want to play the same game at the exact same time. It’s like sharing a physical copy of a game with your friend but it instantly transports to their computer/console.
I replied the same thing to another comment, but I had thought it locked down the whole library rather than just the one game being played. I could have sworn I ran into that issue but it’s been a long time since I tried it do I suppose I misremembered.
I started elden ring from a family share recently, friend hasn’t gotten the dlc so I’m just getting to experience the main game for free before deciding if I actually want to spend 80 on the game and dlc
I think he means ethical in the way he explained it after he said that- ethical in that he respects the oath of office and doesn’t use it to enrich himself.
I am sure that Cuban is politically savvy enough that there is no such thing as a truly ethical president (except maybe Jimmy Carter).
Until there is literally a smoking gun, I have no serious reason to believe that Carter is anything less than a man who has done his best to be good. He was also a human being, and I’m sure people can dig up a bad interaction if they look hard enough. Still, it doesn’t invalidate his lifetime of attempts at making a positive impact on the world.
The bottom line is he could drool and only say the word potato and the fact is still that we are voting for a platform and a supreme court, not a public speaker.
Except Trump is also an old fool. It’s not better to say with clear speaking that he wasn’t responsible for all the things he screwed up, that he didn’t BADLY botch covid response, that he didn’t hand out money, that he didn’t support the vaccine he also took credit for making, that Jan 6 didn’t happen, that Charlottesville didn’t happen, that he didn’t call the neo nazis who killed a person ‘fine people’ that he didn’t stoke violence very intentionally. That he didn’t tell Proud Boys ‘‘stand down and stand by’’ that he isn’t calling for a dictatorship if he ever gets elected.
Yes. Biden has a speech impediment, and clearly struggles with that particularly now that he’s getting quite old. But what he said wasn’t insane claims that reality is in fact not reality.
Well for one, in the press conference when he announced the CDC’s recommendation to wear cloth masks, he emphasized that it was a voluntary measure and then added he wasn’t going to do it. People look to their leaders for guidance. How many people refused to wear a mask despite the CDC’s recommendation because the president felt the need to throw in his own opinion with his experts’ recommendations.
I am not a spokesperson for all disabled people, nor are we a monolith, but yes, it is the correct term, and enough disabled people care that there have been several campaigns and there are probably thousands of articles and other pieces of media discussing why it’s important people #SayTheWord. Look that hashtag up to find this content, here are a couple of examples:
Thanks for the links. I will read them. I’ll admit that my first reaction is to assume that speaking directly is rude, but I’m ready to do some unlearning.
I think why you think “disabled” is rude is the thing to focus on (and the answer very briefly is because you, we all, were socialised to think that way).
I’ll just drop this link in too, I think intersectionality is vital, and understanding how systems of oppression stand alone and interact with each other is vital to unlearning them, and I think this is a good starting point that goes in to several: www.yorku.ca/edu/…/systems-of-oppression/
This resource is dropping woke bombs left and right (I’m into it). Extremely rich text.
… societal interpretations of and responses to specific differences from the normed body are what signify a dis/ability.
Not to glom onto this one pat definition, but it’s one of the many paragraphs that jumped out at me.
I still haven’t got to any part that is specifically challenging using “polite” language when speaking to disabled people about their disabilities. But with your question about why I might consider the term disabled a slur, and these links, I think I’m getting there…
EDIT: uhhhh nvm, the paragraph literally after the one I quoted goes into it, very specifically.
Some advocate for People-first language (a person living with disability), while many disability activists advocate for identity-first language (a disabled person).
I’m glad you’re finding the info helpful and insightful.
I think with regards to use of language, this is another good read (E: also the understanding-disability link I attached earlier will will probably help with the “why” behind thinking “disabled” is a slur). It might be coming at this from a slightly different angle, but I think the point still stands - “politeness”, “offence”, “political correctness” these are terms most often used by the privileged to police the speech of and control marginalised people (aka “respectability politics”), rather than the other way around, but I might be digressing a little at this point lol…
I mean it’s getting more academic for sure, but I think I get you - that’s one of them there intersections you were talking about (neoliberalism x ableism, maybe (to name just 2 anyway)).
EDIT thank you, that was fire. A cogent and succinct breakdown of offense vis a vis harm.
I don’t feel like I learned anything, because what I learned seems obvious (now), but if I think about my previous statements in this thread about rudeness they feel like they were made by someone else, so I guess this reading is doing something!
That’s the fucking point - there is nothing disrespectful about the word disabled, while there definitely is a lot of disrespect in using bullshit euphemisms like the one you used. The fact that you’re arguing back rather than listen and try to do better proves that you don’t care about respecting disabled people at all, but only about making yourself comfortable.
Feel free to read the links I shared with the person bellow if you actually want to start showing respect to disabled people. Either way, I’m done here.
Okay brother let’s fix it up. Basically I had heard that those words are more respectful so I used them I didn’t had any intention to show me in good light. I totally respect but I replied to tell what was my point. As English is not my first language probably u concluded something I didn’t intended. Still apology for all misbehaviour I did.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.