The whole malarkey shit they are trying to push like it’s a great image is so fucking dumb, it would be cute if my grandpa in hospice said it but it’s fucking incredibly out of touch when the president of the United states says it.
JFK doesn’t. He never appeared, at least not in any of the episodes before the latest reboot. One can only assume that JFK got assassinated in the Futurama timeline as well, so there wasn’t enough of his head to put in a jar.
Lincoln was shot in the back, not the head, so I guess that’s how he got there.
Just a reminder to our American cousins that in British English, trump means the noise an elephant makes but also to fart: “Sorry I trumped.” Donald the Trump is a noisy noxious unwanted thing on the world stage.
Sideshow Bob is actually an eloquent speaker, and is more the psychopathic kinda crazy, not the “Right now, Obama is spying on me through the microwave!”
Yeah, she has three faces just one is covered up - so if she’s in bed it’s a threesome, after you leave the room once you’re done putting her to bed it’s still a threesome.
Don’t let this election, or any election, allow us to forget the time back in nineteen ninety eight when the undertaker threw mankind off hell in a cell and plummeted sixteen feet through an announcers table.
Probably the only reason I did not get into Terraria as an experienced Minecraft player is that my brain really hates 2D worlds.
I realize I miss out on many wonderful games, but how the hell do you feel comfortable restricted to one plane? This constantly makes me as a character feel I’m out in the open from two sides, and God knows what’s there.
Maybe it’s some weird quirk, but my brain is strictly 3-dimensional.
okay but in 3d space you are open from more sides, in terraria at least you can see those 2 sides, in minecraft theres always behind, above, and to the sides
Yes, but my brain subconsciously interprets 2D worlds as ones in which there are front and back (away from screen and in front of it), and I just can’t look there and see what: s there.
Like if you’d build a house with floor, two walls on the opposite sides, and the ceiling, and would decide to completely ignore that your house is actually a tube and two sides are wide open to the outside world.
From my experience, Valheim is pretty close to Terraria in the general feeling of progression and exploration. While being a 3D game, albeit with a third-person camera
But I learned to play some third-person games, while others still hurt. For example, generally slower pace and auto-aim World of Wacraft is alright, but action-packed Warframe that also offers me to shoot in third person (why on goddamn Earth?) is killing me.
As per Valheim, I tried, but it felt odd to me. But thanks a lot for the recommendation!
Yeah, unfortunately, I can’t think of the same type of game in true first person 3D. Maybe, Satisfactory (for building vast structures and automating) or 7 Days to Die (for the survival aspect).
Unrelated, but have you by chance played the Talos Principle games? Those are my favourite first person puzzle games, on the level of Portal and Portal 2.
For building vast structures, to me it’s mostly Space Engineers, but that’s another concept too, not exactly “build a gigafactory” type game. Still, building something big and cool it does.
I’m also sad MMOs are rarely first-person. Like, there was Tera, but it died immediately as I first heard of it, which is super unfortunate because it certainly seemed to tick my boxes.
I didn’t play The Talos Principle, but heard about the game. Spent quite a while in both Portal games though - good times.
So, no, sorry, nuclear power isn’t relevant anymore. I know it’s tempting to cling to outdated technologies sometimes, I enjoy using a typewriter for example, but when it comes to solving climate change, I think we should use the best tools available, which nuclear is definitely not. It’s just too expensive and slow to provision.
DOE Announces $2.7 Billion From President Biden’s Investing in America Agenda to Boost Domestic Nuclear Fuel Supply Chain
Wow, some industry lobbyists got government funding, amazing. Global fossil fuel subsidies are at $7 trillion, so I guess those are really relevant to our future as well!
I don’t want developing countries to waste their money on nuclear power when they can get much more cost effective renewables.
Global fossil fuel subsidies are at $7 trillion, so I guess those are really relevant to our future as well!
No of course not. The subsidies at this point at a crime against humanity.
I don’t want developing countries to waste their money on nuclear power when they can get much more cost effective renewables.
If the renewables are cost effective and provide stable power then I too want them to be priority -near zero risks-, but more importantly industry and business will seek them on their own. I just hold that nuclear power should be part of the mix. Take the UAE for example it is investing in both nuclear and solar.
Every movement with a gun sounds like there’s a loose screw in it (it always clicks). Also it usually has a clip of 300+ bullets.
Every mouse or keyboard input into a computer, every loading bar, every screen popping up makes screaching sounds. Except when having a failing DVD drive or broken hard disk I’ve never heard any computer making these sounds.
A secret tracking or listening device has a blinking red light and beeps.
Every car, always with airconditioning, drives with open windows because of the window reflections. Even during rain, extreme heat or highly contagious zombies trying to bite you through the open window.
That one actually has some basis in reality though. My terminal still dings at me, it’s just that having it ding too much is annoying and out of fashion now. Does no one else remember PCs piezoelectric beeping, even before you upgraded to an actual soundcard?
the sound design of the real world is rather boring and often unappealing. Sound designers on movies are gods of those audiotary universes, they will paint it however they want
I was behind two cars on the freeway, one in lane 1 and one in lane 3. They both decided to merge into the center lane at the same time. I remember the sound distinctly because it was so different than I expected. It sounded like two large, empty cardboard boxes hitting each other. No screeching tires or glass breaking sound (both windshields and side windows broke, but remained intact). It was very unexciting.
yea precisely. Sound design is less about how it really sounds, but more about how you think it should sound + some flair to make it a show.
Fun fact! sometimes in movies when there’s a big fire sound designers will put animal roars into the fire sounds to add an extra layer of fear you don’t even realise your body is going to react to
I’ve never seen anybody do Krusty so dirty. He’s just a depressed celebrity with substance abuse problems. Necessarily a bit shady, probably not a great role model, but there is a human being somewhere under that makeup!
Krusty wears respectable white clown makeup, not that petty orange bronzer. Krusty also grifts with real clown humor with his products that makes people laugh and not the kind of Sick-makes-you barf grifting of cheap bibles and intangible NFTs. Krusty is way younger and nowhere near as crazy.
I’m pro nuke energy but to pretend there are no downsides is what got us into the climate mess we are in in the first place.
Cost, being a major drawback, space being another. And of course while they almost never fail, they do occasionally, and will again. And those failures are utterly catastrophic, and it’d hard to convince a community to welcome a nuclear plant, and if the community doesn’t want it then it can’t or shouldn’t be forced onto them.
They also represent tactical strike sites in time of combat engagement. Big red X for a missile.
There are also significant environmental concerns, as we really have no good way to dispose of nuclear waste in a safe or efficient manner at this time.
It’s likely that nuclear based energy is the future, but you need to discuss the bad with the good here or we are just going to end up at square one again. There are long term ramifications.
Worth noting that all modern failures have been GE models or ancient Westinghouse models. Modern nuclear reactors built by Westinghouse are virtually immune from meltdown, and Westinghouse is the lead player in new builds. Nuclear safety has come miles since the like of Fukushima, and especially 3 Mile Island. I’d feel perfectly safe living near a new Westinghouse nuclear plant.
There are no unsinkable ships. No matter how safe the Titanic is, keep enough of them on the sea and one will eventually sink the way least people expected. If life on Earth depends on a Titanic never sinking…we’re fucked eventually.
Life on Earth depends on no more than a couple on nuclear plants blowing up catastrophically.
I agree with everything you say. It really is spot on. What I don’t understand is how, with your awareness, do you still consider yourself pro-nuclear. Honest question, I really am curious.
This is a shocker for many on social media but you can accept that something you want is not perfect but still want it, or see good in a bad person, but still not want them on the throne.
Just because I can be realistic about it’s pros and cons instead of blindly parroting that I have been told to parrot doesn’t mean I can’t be pro nuclear.
Other power sources have more problems. And I say just launch the waste into space and eventually the reactors will just be out of the stratosphere and it won’t matter if it explodes.
But you got to walk before you can run.
I just dislike when people pretend there are no downside to nuke, EV, wind, etc, because if they make one little comment on a con suddenly they’re some anti enviro Trump sucker and get dogpiled
There’s a difference in something being not perfect and being fundamentally flawed. My confusion is because you perfectly verbalized why I think it’s flawed.
I could understand being in favor of using nuclear temporarily until renewables are more reliable. I don’t agree but I understand the thought process. It’s a calculated risk, an acceptable gamble. But being aware of all the issues with nuclear and still be in favor of it long term, in my opinion, doesn’t make sense.
Mind you, I’m not trying to attack you, I’m genuinely intrigued and curious.
I dunno what that guy was thinking, but it seems obvious to me that nuclear fusion is the long term solution for energy generation.
Nuclear fission not so much, but it’s definitely debatable which has more fundamental flaws between fission and wind/hydro/solar. All renewable energy sources ultimately depend on natural processes which are not reliable or permanent. And they also tend to disrupt the environment to some extent.
Nuclear fission has no such limitations, but instead trades long term risk for short term stability. Basically renewable sources are and always will be somewhat unreliable, and Nuclear fission is the least bad reliable energy source to pair with the renewables. So in the medium term, fission makes a lot more sense than fossil fuels, and in the long term we should be looking to fusion.
This immediately discards like, everything you’ve said up until now, though. It matters if it explodes on the way up challenger style and irradiates half of the continent with a massive dirty bomb of nuclear waste. It’s way more cost effective, efficient, and safer to just put it somewhere behind a big concrete block and then pay some guy to watch it 24/7, and make sure the big concrete block doesn’t crack open or suffer from water infiltration or whatever.
I mean to be fair you do make it pretty easy to discredit your entire argument, when you’re just gonna say that anyone calling you out on this very obviously stupid idea is a bot. Like that’s the same thing again.
Maybe I’m a victim of Poe’s law, but I’ve seen “launch nuclear waste into space” get way more repute than it deserves as an idea from people who have no clue about the actual issues with, even just normal aspects to do with energy generation. It’s a shorthand signal that lets me know that someone’s had all their thinking on it done for them by shitty pop science and shitty science journalism. It’s like if someone believes in antivax, or something. I’m probably not going to really think they’re a credible source, after that. This is also bad if the shit they’re saying is itself lacking in external sources which I can rely on outside of them.
I’m also flexing my brain right now because none of the shit you said at all really backs up the idea the nuclear energy is the future. Like, if you think it’s inevitable that more plants collapse and it’s inevitable that nuclear power plants get destroyed by missiles in times of war (also a great idea, on par with disposing of it in space, let me irradiate the exact area I’m trying to capture for miles and miles around), then you wouldn’t want nuclear power. If you believe in that and then you also believe in the overblown problem of nuclear waste, then there’s not really a point, there’s no point at which the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
The reason people aren’t going to accept nuclear if they believe it has cons is because like half of those cons are, albeit overblown, catastrophic for life on the planet, and the other half are failures to conceptualize based on economic boogeymen, just the same as with solar power. Political will problems, rather than problems with physical reality or core technologies. But still, problems that conflict with the existence of the idea itself.
You’re not going to convince people to go in on nuclear power, your stated idea, if you only point out it’s flaws, and then also post ridiculous shit.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.