“We’re doing to inject you with what we’re calling a ‘genius enhancement serum’; it will fortify your already throbbing genius cells and keep you sharp as a tack, ensuring your every response is virtually perfect for your defence in this trial.”
I didn’t even think of that as a possibility, but damn that seems more and more likely the more I think about it. The only way to prevent him from repeatedly shooting himself in the foot is to literally drug him into unconsciousness. I completely believe that, I’ve heard him talk before. Hot damn.
Interestingly it would quite likely have the opposite effect. Adderall is fairly focused on the executive functioning areas of the brain. If you are dependent on it, and it’s suddenly taken away, then you’ll recoil. The Executive functions help regulate decision making and focus control. Under activity in the executive functioning leads to impulsive behaviour similar to the base symptoms of ADHD.
Take away his drugs, and he will become even more impulsive. He would likely oscillate between sleepy and rage ranting, even more than normal.
Every science article, every single one. They always make things sound like breakthroughs and I have to come in the comments to find out it’s bullshit or exaggerations. Why?
It’s an issue with media outlets sensationalizing everything. The authors of the study even say that it’s premature to call this a cure in humans. It is a nice step forward though.
I think its to emphasize the importance of what seems small and boring out of context. Even though it may border on being misleading, I certainly would rather read extrapolations by informed journalists than be left not knowing which conclusions are important to me after reading a scientific publication.
Maybe view this stuff as a gradual accumulation not as a world changing event. As others ITT pointed out there was fuck all medical science could do about this disease in the era of Reagan Christians laughing about it. Now you can get it and live almost a normal life, provided you live in a wealthy country. The virus is dying not with a bang but with a whimper.
“While these preliminary findings are very encouraging, it is premature to declare that there is a functional HIV cure on the horizon,” the researchers say.
I get more frustrated with articles like this than true clickbait. Here’s a genuine breakthrough in science, in an important health area: we should be excited, happy, inspired. Instead we’re annoyed by a misleading clickbait headline
Where I work in the US midwest, we are lucky if we get coverage when we take time off (let alone call-in sick) and are understaffed in all departments teacher-level and below payscale-wise (para, custodial, transportation, etc.). But I’m sure it’s different depending on the location, but that’s my experience.
Omg I wish that were true! We can’t get decent (or any) subs like 95% of the time. It used to be that you could sub with a bachelor’s degree and a substitute certificate or any teaching license. Now, we’re so desperate that it’s basically any adult who can pass a background check. Most of the time, teachers just ended up skipping their prep time to cover the missing teacher’s class.
Yeah, but Canadians don’t want to work as a teacher in the US. Like, it would be a bad idea for y’all because you would lose so much. We treat our teachers far worse. You’d get crappier pay, be treated like dirt by a large chunk of the populace, run the ever-increasing chance of getting shot on the job, and have to start paying health insurance premiums out of you light paycheck.
First off, remember it’s fast food, standards are abysmal.
But it’s an actual piece of chicken, that’s actually prepared correctly.
If you got it in a sit down restaurant or even pub, you wouldn’t comment on it.
But compare it to any other chicken sandwich you could get from a drive thru in the last 20 years and the hype makes sense.
No matter where you are, if you see a chicfila you know you’ll get a decent chicken sandwich that isn’t ridiculously expensive.
A burger place isn’t going to do chicken as well as a dedicated chicken place, and KFC is a joke, so the only real competition for that niche is Popeyes on a national level.
Fast food also varies so much across the US. I talked up Chick-fil-A so much after having it in Texas, and then when I brought my girlfriend to one in Florida it was garbage.
But the past few years have seen most of the fast food fried chicken places go hard on chicken sandwiches. And even mcdonald’s has stepped up their game to being actually pretty decent.
Mostly chikfila just coasts on their recognition from 20 years ago and the zealots who refuse to try anything else.
Popeye’s is better. I’ve had Chick-fil-A once (bought for me) and it was exactly what it looked like: a chicken sandwich. It was a bit bland and watery.
Let me guess, someone bought it for you, let it sit in a bag for an hour, and then gave it to you…and you judge the entire franchise off this one experience
That’s a fucking weird guess. No. It was a client on site and Chick-fil-A was about 5 minutes gotten the road. It would be weird for my client to have ordered mine an hour before the fifteen people I was training.
My question is…why the fuck are you so defensive of a mediocre fast food chain?
Because it’s good chicken, and I think it’s hilarious that the groupthink has extended to where people are pretending it’s not, because that’s better politics.
Sorry but no, I’ve had a good amount of chicken sandwiches and it is decidedly mediocre and honestly no better than Wendy’s. You seem to think it’s not group think on the part of people raving about a mediocre chicken sandwich. That is a bit silly, don’t you think?
I recall asking why they thought it was so good and most of them said it was the sauces that you can get. I think one or two people mentioned the service. The sauces were okay but nothing special. I can’t comment on the service but that is not something I generally care about for fast food outside of making sure my order is right.
Taco Bell isn’t that cheap anymore. I ate there not long ago for the first time in years and it was over 10$ for the basic taco combo, not even Supreme. And they sucked. They were almost completely devoid of fillings. They are on my eternal shit list now.
The peach milkshake slaps but the food sucks. Popeyes is better for God’s sake.
Of course I stopped going entirely after they said they stopped donating to LGBTQA+ groups and then got fucking caught doing it yet again so yeah fuck Hate Chicken
It is pretty much the pinnacle of “white people fried chicken”. American KFC (because Asian KFC is godlike) comes close but so many people never grew up beyond eating chicken tenders and bones scare them.
So you have inadequately seasoned chicken tenders soaked in pickle juice and people lose their minds.
And the strong focus on Christian Values, err, “Good service” means that nobody will ever be faced with the horror that is the realization that their satisfaction is not the only reason that someone is working in fast food.
Not here. Here that’s the “normal” side, eating the homophobia jesus chicken is the minority.
Of course, all of the lgbt people I know eat also there, so I don’t feel the need to be performative about it, my friends won’t deride me for going they’ll ask for de-ride there.
That’s the plan. Demographics shows that age groups start seriously shrinking at 60-70. Half of the people who make it to 60 die by 70. And it halves again by 80.
Retirement past 60 was always more about the rich seeing them as less useful than it was about “golden years”. And not being able to access your Roth IRA until after the age group starts seriously shrinking is just fucking crap. Pumping money into the stock market that many people will never see again.
You can pull money out of your Roth IRA at literally any point. You already paid the taxes on it.
You cannot pull more out than you put in though. If you have and properly use a Roth IRA throughout your whole life, you can live for many many years without ever breaching that cap if you wanted to retire a little earlier. You’re just reducing your potential total.
Yeah sure. The whole concept stemmed off pretty much what I did here.
I mean its kind of wild to think back and realize that basically reddit was user supported and funded, and now its just a pure exploitation machine, but there it is.
I thought the actual ‘awards’ and guilding shit was pretty cringe.
I’ve always been pro nuclear. But what I’ve come to understand is that nuclear accidents are traumatizing. Anybody alive in Europe at the time was psychologically damaged by Chernobyl. Don’t forget also that the elder Xers and older worldwide lived under the specter of nuclear annihilation.
So you’ve got rational arguments vs. visceral fear. Rationality isn’t up to it. At the end of the day, the pronuclear side is arguing to trust the authorities. Being skeptical of that is the most rational thing in the world. IDK how to fix this, I’m just trying to describe the challenge pronuclear is up against.
That’s putting it mildly. Most people alive at the time were as certain as they could be that a nuclear apocalypse was right around the corner. Kids were told as much in school. Right now it’s floated as a possibility, but most people don’t take it seriously or aren’t aware of it much at all.
Nor will they. Nuclear bombs have been coopted by the ever churning content machine that is western media into “this is an explosion, but it’s really fucking big”.
Shit, look at what’s happened to Godzilla. We have Godzilla Minus One vs Monsterverse Godzilla. I don’t think I need to break down how trivial Monsterverse Godzilla is by comparison. “Very big, very cool, big explodey lizard wow” is about all Godzilla amounts to in the West, and it is a walking metaphor for a nuclear bomb.
Why would anyone be afraid of something so trivialized? We’ve been fucking powerscaled into not caring about nuclear bombs.
As far as something to be afraid of on a day to day basis, yes. This is speaking of both the real world and fiction. Fiction is obvious as to why, Goku can fucking blow up galaxies or some shit. Superman becomes God at some point or whatever.
In the real world, when is the threat of a singular nuke ever the case? Seriously, when? It’s always total thermonuclear annihilation. You never hear about a singular nuke. Most people fear being shot or stabbed more than total nuclear annihilation. The idea is too abstract.
Nuclear weapons weren’t “coopted.” It’s extremely unlikely because any country that uses would similarly be glassed. Sure, it’s not zero, but probably not too far off.
FWIW, I'm an Xer against nuclear power, but not for the reason you outlined: it's because it's an overall bad approach to energy generation.
It produces extremely long-lasting waste, on timescales humans are not equipped to deal with.
It has a potential byproduct of enabling more nuclear weapons.
The risks associated with disaster are orders of magnitude greater than any other power generation system we use, perhaps other than dams.
It requires seriously damaging mining efforts to obtain the necessary fuel.
It is more expensive.
We have the tech to do everything with renewables and storage now.
It's not my trauma, it's my logic that leads me to be generally against nuclear. (Don't have to be very against it, no one wants to build these now anyway.)
Nuclear is unexpectedly safer and less polluting than renewables. That’s including stuff like Chernobyl. Also less expensive overall. The plant itself is expensive yes but for the energy output/cost per watt it’s by far cheaper last I checked.
I never argued for coal power. I don't know if you're an oil/gas lobby shill or what, but I said absolutely nothing about coal, oil, or gas, none of which are good options vs. renewables.
You tell me why people advocate for a more dangerous, more expensive option.
I figure it's in the best interests of non-renewables to slow adoption of renewables any way they can - advocating for big expensive projects that typically go way over budget as the answer to the fossil fuels issue feels like a way for them to push back their reckoning.
A decade ago I thought nuclear was a good option, I've seen the data in the intervening time and renewables have scaled too quickly for nuclear to have any chance of keeping up. (At least, not without more research, as I think another commenter suggested should be our primary focus of any dollars allocated to nuclear.)
But I'm getting all the down votes, not counter arguments, so you tell me what's going on.
I won’t aim to change your mind but I’ll add that one of the reasons they’re so expensive is, at least in the US, there is simply a struggle to build mega engineering projects. From project management to the blue collar skills required (nuclear isn’t the only large scale engineering project with cost overruns). Things were more favorable in the 80s when plants were built somewhat regularly and the country had collective experience completing these projects.
Renewables are similar too on both the installation and design side. More experience in manufacturing, developing, and installing helps to lower costs.
Yes, then deregulation really began, gutting our unions and thereby our trades. It robbed us of valuable experience for the benefit of a handful of wealthy people. It wasn't a fair trade and we need to reverse it asap if we want to have a.futire as a society.
What kinda oil shill would be promoting fuckn nuclear
Nuclear is incredibly expensive, uneconomic and for all countries starting only now would delay phasing out fossil fuels by decades of planning and construction. When they could start reducing fossil fuels and emmissions right now by building renewables and adding storage successively over years.
So the actual answer is: all of them. They know fossil fuels don't have a future, so they have long changed to delay tactics.
Nuclear is very expensive to build it’s the cheapest to maintain. Even accounting for horrible disasters like Chernobyl it’s safer and less polluting. But yes, renewables are great! Most of our power where I live is from a dam. My grandpa had his house heated primarily via solar energy. They generated enough power through solar that they were able to sell it off to the energy dudes. When solar was bad they’d get power from the nearby wind turbines or the dam. All this stuff is great, it’s way better than coal but a single nuclear plant would out perform all of that energy generation and ultimately, cost less.
Yeah nuclear waste is super overblown we can very easily store it away which isn’t exactly great but we fuckn bury our garbage so I’m cool with putting nuclear waste in some sort of vault
Oh a serious note sure, most nuclear waste is actually PPE which is only mildly radioactive. Uranium glass will give you more radiation exposure than a bin of that stuff
There have been more deaths and major environmental disasters with fossil fuels than with all nuclear accidents combined (including the less reported ones that happened in the 50s and 60s). Nuclear plants are generally safe and reliable. They do not produce excessive waste like wind (used turbine blades) and solar (toxic waste from old panels that cannot be economically recycled).
Nuclear is the superior non-carbon energy source right now. Climate change is an emergency, so we shouldn't be waiting on other technologies to mature before we start phasing out emitting power plants in favor of emission-free nuclear plants.
If I were advocating for more use of non-renewables, your comment would make sense in this context.
I am arguing against non-renewables getting more funding.
But really my arguments don't matter, the market has decided and I feel like these nuclear posts are becoming mostly sour grapes and not any kind of legitimate discussion about what things nuclear would need to do to be price competitive.
Probably should be mentioned too that there’s the very clever idea of simply repurposing existing coal power plants to run nuclear fuel. The main ‘expense’ of nuclear power plants, as I understand, is the general equipment itself, not the nuclear core. Those can be built much quicker than building an entire plant from scratch.
the problem with this concept, is that nuclear plants are built ground up to be a containment vessel. If you can build a core that produces heat, very effectively, and very safely, this is definitely an option. But even the external building of a nuclear reactor is going to be a containment vessel of some kind.
thermal reactor skill issue, just use a fast reactor design.
Btw the mining is vastly less significant to something like coal, oil, and probably even natural gas production. It’s just a fraction of the volume being mined, to produce the same amount of energy.
because you literally talked about mining. You mentioned the environmental impact of mining, which is still significantly less, than any other form of extraction. Except for maybe natural gas. Though im not familiar with how that works.
It requires seriously damaging mining efforts to obtain the necessary fuel.
Maybe you weren’t referring to nuclear, but judging by the fact that the literal entire rest of the post refers to nuclear, and you are yelling at me about how you didn’t mention it, im going to assume, for lack of any better context, that you meant mining in regards to nuclear.
I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. I'm saying nuclear power requires mining to get the fuel. It's just one negative point about the power source. I didn't compare it to any other form of power generation in that regard.
Edit: I should have said "non-renewable form" - I'm listing it as a negative around nuclear because it's not a (direct) negative in renewables.
i mean even solar panels require mining material. Rare earth materials at that. Wind? Same deal there, hydro? Same deal there. Literally every form of energy production requires extraction processing and refining. Nuclear is arguably one of the least significant contributors, most of it’s primary extraction and processing is very similar to how large buildings and structures are built. The secondary extraction is very minimal. Compared to something like solar where you need continual extraction, processing, and refining, of rare earth materials in order to turn funny photon energy into electrical energy so we can bitch and yell at each other for no reason.
Wind is arguably better than solar, but it has the cool side effect of using fiberglass, particularly in the blades, which is basically landfill from the factory, due to how they wear, and how you can’t really dispose of them.
Of course mining material is a negative, but we can literally leech uranium out of the ground using zero human involvement, while it’s probably not great for the environment itself. That might even be a marked improvement over something like solar, nuclear probably has one of if not the lowest recurring cost of extraction for producing energy.
I’m not sure what the point of mentioning that is unless you legitimately believe that free energy exists. It’s entirely redundant otherwise.
You make a really good point with the comparison to dams. It’s not that it’s not a great way to generate power, but it is a fact that the worst case scenarios for failure are really really bad. It’s perfectly rational to worry about that. Consider, for example, how both dams and nuclear plants have been targeted by Russia in Ukraine. No one is worried if they smash a few solar panels
The only reason I put myself through these discussions is I used to be pro-nuclear. (And am not nearly as anti-nuclear as pro-nuclear people think me to be.) 😂
I’m pro nuclear based on the science, but I’m anti nuclear based on humanity. Nuclear absolutely can be run safely, but as soon as there’s a for profit motive, corporations will try to maximize profits by cutting corners. As long as there’s that conflict I don’t blame people for being afraid.
"Afraid" after seeing unfettered capitalism cut corners in every way it can, with zero regard for human life.
I am not sure it's fear so much as it is a logical response to the current situation to not want more nuclear in this context when renewables are so much cheaper.
I am not "afraid" of nuclear power, I just think it's a really bad option right now and that its risks, like all other forms of power generation, need to be considered carefully, not dismissed out of hand.
It’s risks are pretty minimal, in the grand scheme. I won’t say non-existent of course. The possibility of a release is always there, but the impact is going to be measured in negative public perception, not deaths. One of the reasons the plants cost so much to build is because they have to stick a real big concrete dome over the dangerous bit.
And let's not forget that every reactor type was "very safe" at the time. It's true, every power plant can have problems and fail, but if a nuclear one does, consequences could be WAY worse.
First off, RBMK (Chernobyl) wasn’t safe as designed. In the US, the style of reactor wouldn’t have made it through the required licensing.
Second of all, the consequences being way worse is an exaggeration. If a nuclear power plant has a small release, the (real, scientific) impact would be minimal. If it has a large release then something else happened and the reactor containment was destroyed and whatever massive natural disaster did that is causing waaaaayy more problems. We’re probably all dead anyway.
People are afraid of radiation because you can’t see or smell or hear it. Which is probably a good thing considering you are surrounded by it all the time.
Someone recently said to me that if people had been introduced to electricity by watching someone die in an electric chair, they’d refuse to have power in their homes. People were introduced to radiation by an atomic bomb.
People are afraid of radiation because you can’t see or smell or hear it. Which is probably a good thing considering you are surrounded by it all the time.
People: “I’m going to enjoy this sunny day with my shirt off and no sunscreen”
Same people: “I don’t want a nuclear plant anywhere in my country.”
Also fun are the 5G haters who don’t realize that 5G is being delivered over 3.4 ghz to 4.2 ghz but they’re ok with the wireless home phones doing 2.4ghz. Also fun fact for those who don’t know but you can actually destroy cellular tissue with ultrasound if the amplitude is high enough. Of course the range for this is very short and ultrasonic imagers don’t have the power to do this but ultimately this can be summarized as “everything is dangerous if you use enough of it” which just seems obvious and shouldn’t need to be mentioned.
Oh absolutely the corporations are going to want to maximize profit. There are just a lot of things they can’t get out of, especially when it comes to safety.
The nuclear industry (in the US) since TMI has had a heavy amount of oversight from its regulatory body. That the plants pay for, too, which is good.
Except that modern nuclear technologies like LFTR are objectively way safer, and even with 60s technology and unsafe operation, nuclear has fewer deaths per MWh than just about every other form of energy generation. It's just that nuclear's failures are more concentrated and visible.
Thorium is unproven in a commercial setting, molten salt reactors in general are plagued with technological difficulties for long term operations and are limited currently to just a few research reactors dotted about the globe.
There’s no denying that originally a lot of the early nuclear reactors chose uranium because of its ability to breed plutonium for nuclear weapons proliferation but nowadays that’s not a factor in selection. What is a factor is proven, long-lasting designs that will reliably produce power without complex construction and expensive maintenance.
that’s true, but so is everything that hasnt been built since the decline of nuclear power. Frankly i don’t think it really matters anymore. We struggle to build existing gen 2 and 3 plants now, we don’t have gen 4 plants off the ground yet, and thorium is in that camp.
Being skeptical of trusting “authorities” is only rational if you’re still living with boomer information. There are plenty of designs now that would have made Fukushima a non-issue. Until fusion comes along, nuclear is easily our best option alongside renewables.
You got it. I’ve had this discussion and the anti nuclear boils down to “somewhat, somehow, something, someone, maybe, possibly, perhaps may go wrong. Anything built by man could fail”. There’s no logic, just fear.
At this point, you can be economically anti-nuclear. The plants take decades to build with a power cost well above wind/solar. You can build solar/wind in high availability areas and connect them to the grid across the states with high power transmission lines, leading to less time that renewables aren’t providing a base line load. One such line is going in right now from the high winds great plains to Illinois, which will connect it to the eastern coastal grid illinois is part of.
There is also innovation in “geothermal anywhere” technology that uses oil and gas precision drilling to dig deep into the earth anywhere to tap geothermal as a base load. Roof wind for industrial parks is also gaining steam, as new designs using the wind funneling current shape of the buildings are being piloted, rivaling local solar with a simplier implementation.
While speculative, many of these techs are online and working at a small scale. At least some of them will pay off much faster, much cheaper and much more consistently before any new nuclear plants can be opened.
Nuclear’s time was 50 years ago. Now? It’s a waste to do without a viable small scale design. Those have yet to happen, mainly facing setbacks, but i’m rooting for them.
there is one cool thing about nuclear though, if you know what you’re doing they’re ripe for government subsidy investment. One and done, they’ll run for like 30-50 years. No questions asked. It’s really just the upfront build cost that’s the problem.
The georgia plant just opened 7 years late and 17 billion over cost. It is already running residents $4+/month in fees, with up to $13+/month being discussed, and that outside of the cost of electricity. It far, far over ran even huge government subsidies, with the feds putting up 12 billion.
There are much better places to put those billions now than in incredibly late and overly expensive “modern” nuclear.
To be completely fair to them, a ton of the delay was over lawsuits. I mean, you’d definitely end up dealing with those regardless of where you put upa NPP, but just giving them that small benefit f doubt there.
I’m a customer of theirs, paying the stupid fee. They got all celebratory about getting to the end and now the bill has to be paid and oh look, it’s the customers paying. Joy.
I work nuclear industry adjacent, so I guess it’s job security. And with that disclaimer I’ll add this:
Building new plants is definitely going to take too long. If we get small modular reactors that will help. Same way if we get better batteries for solar and wind storage or new tech in geothermal. The simple point is that we are 50+ years behind. We gotta try anything and everything. It’s our only hope at this point. And no matter what, it’s going to cost. Money, land, your view from your backyard. People aren’t willing to sacrifice anything to get it done, and that’s how it’s going to end for us if we don’t change. And that’s true for literally every problem we have. Nimby-ism will be the death of us.
most of that is going to be skill issues. “modern nuclear reactors” are multiple factors simpler than existing gen 2 and 3 plants. The problem is that they don’t exist, and nobody wants to fund them right now.
If none of them have been built, then they aren’t “modern” reactors. They are “theoretical” or “promising designs,” with any improvements being just as “potential” as other unproven techs.
they are modern reactor designs, forgive me for not speaking like an autistic nerd who has a hyper fixation on weird shit for 12 fucking seconds.
They are modern reactors. Just like the RBMK is an old and antiquated reactor, even though they aren’t being built anywhere. Same thing for BWR reactors, which aren’t nearly as common as PWR even though they may be built every so often.
there are a lot of subsidies for renewables right now. They both have use cases, and different advantages. Nuclear is just particularly apt for the exact situation we’re in right now.
As someone who works nuclear field adjacent (and has pretty frequent convos with people working for Plant Vogtle, the plant that’s nearly done adding 2 units in Ga) I completely agree about the expense. You can’t do full scale nuclear quickly or cheaply enough for it to realistically compete over the short term. Honestly, somewhat rightfully so. I wish every industry had the regulatory hurtles to cross before they got to impact the environment. And they have to pay for their regulators.
As for SMRs, I’m also hopeful there. Mostly because of you could get a small enough one you could literally take it anywhere in the world and power a small town with ease.
the solution is never build an RBMK plant ever again. And invest in gen IV designs, which are inherently safe, and have basically no active safety features, because they dont need them.
Well there are plenty of rational arguments against nuclear. Its very expensive and time consuming to build, so its better to build renewables that can start generating power in a couple of months vs at least a decade for nuclear.
Then they are actually pretty significantly more polluting than renewables due to the amount of concrete they use. And decommissioning them is a costly and expensive process that also releases a lot of carbon. And theres only one permanent storage facility in the world for nuclear waste. And theres the fact that due to needing a constant and highly skilled workforce, they need to be near population centres but far enough away that people feel safe, which makes it hard to plan.
And also specifically for the reactors mentioned in the article, they were built in the 60s, they are not nearly as safe as modern reactors.
I use to be very pro nuclear. I’d write letters to papers and such explaining how the waste, which is the main concern most people have, is not as big of a problem as people think - and that certain manufacturing processes produce other waste products that are very bad and people just don’t think about those…
Anyway, I changed my mind some time back. There are three main things that have turned me against nuclear.
The first thing was that I read a detailed analysis of the ‘payback time’ of different forms of energy generation. i.e. the amount of time it takes for the machine to produce more energy (in dollar terms) than it cost to build and run it. Nuclear fairs very poorly. It takes a long time to pay itself back; but wind was outstandingly fast; and solar was surprisingly competitive too (this was back when solar technology wasn’t so advanced. That’s why it was surprising). So then, I got thinking that although nuclear’s main advantage over coal is its cleanliness, wind is even cleaner, and easier to build, and safer, and pays itself off much much faster. And Australia has a lot of space suitable for wind power… so I became less excited by nuclear energy.
The second thing is that as I grew older, I saw more and more examples of the corrupting influence of money. Safely running a nuclear power-plant and managing waste is not so hard that it cannot be done, but is a long-term commitment… and there are a lot of opportunities for unwise cost-cutting. My trust in government is not as high as it use to be; and so I no longer have complete faith that the government would stay committed to the technical requirements of long-term safe waste management. And a bad change of government could turn a good nuclear power project into a disaster. It’s a risk that is far higher with nuclear than with any other kind of power.
The third and most recent thing is that mining companies have started turning up the rhetoric in support of nuclear power. They were not in favour of it in the past, but they smell the winds of change, and they trying to manipulate the narrative and muddy the waters by putting nuclear into the mix. They say nuclear is a requirement for a clean future, and stuff like that. But that’s not true. It’s an option, but not a requirement. By framing it as a requirement, they trigger a fight between people for and against nuclear, and it’s just a massive distraction form what we are actually trying to achieve. If the fight just stalls, the mining companies win with the status-quo. And if nuclear gets up, they win again with a new thing to mine… It’s not nice
So yeah, I’m not so into nuclear now. It’s not a bad technology, but the idea of it is a bit radioactive, just like the waste product.
Also the nuclear waste is a big problem, it will be around for thousands of years. We have a nuclear plant near us and none of the waste has ever left the site, it just keeps getting added to big casks on a concrete slab outdoors and is a big potential vulnerability.
Most radioactive waste is just mildly contaminated and has a relatively short danger period in the realm of a century or less. The truly dangerous stuff represents the smallest amount of waste and that’s the crap people have been trying to put very deep underground for decades. For whatever reason the political will just hasn’t been there. For now it rests on-site in casks designed to keep it safely stored for a very long time, but it will eventually need a permanent home.
I am sympathetic to the don’t trust the powers that be viewpoint. For example I just assume everything an economist says is the exact opposite of what we should do.
What I look for is multiple independent groups able to present the same data showing the same results. For example I trusted the first Covid vaccine because Universities and multiple government agencies of different countries agreed. If it was just the Orange White House administration lawyers claiming this shit is the bomb yeah I am not getting it.
Guess we need to basically just keep saying “look you don’t trust the government, and that’s fine. Here is the science for all these other places”
Or go full Running Man with it, win a million dollars if you can tape and paint a living room with a homicidal American gladiator chasing you around with a chainsaw
I wonder why people are downvoting your comment. It’s literally what happened. See for instance this paper on the history of gender segregation in the Olympics: theworld.org/…/see-120-years-struggle-gender-equa….
Quote: “Margaret Murdock from the US won a silver in a tie in the 1976 Riffle Event, one of the events in the shooting categories. The rifle event was split into men’s and women’s events in 1984.”
Sports without contact mechanics I’ve always wondered why the split. Like men’s and women’s chess… what?
But men’s and women’s football? That kind of makes sense, not saying women’s should be banned from the men’s leagues, but let them make that choice themselves
Women’s chess leagues exist for women who want to compete without facing misogynistic behavior. They can also compete against men, however, unlike in other sports, and many do. If you ask me, what should have been done from the start would have been tackling the misoginy.
I think it is a bit more difficult than that. I have really enjoywd watching downhill bike racing in the past, and both the men’s and women’s races are incredible.
If you don’t know, It is a single rider time trial down incredibly technical courses on a mountain bike.
Unfortunately I don’t think it would be good to mix men and women, because the men are faster. This year’s world champs race had the men finishing 30s faster, the fastest woman would have been 66th. Results
I would love to see more mixed competitions in the elite level of sports where it makes sense.
I often think of the Olympic skier that was interviewed by NPR a few years ago. She described how the boys around her were encouraged to do riskier jumps, whereas when she’d bring it up coaches, parents etc would all express concern about “what if you get hurt?”
There are a lot of social factors I think we should consider before writing women off as inherently lesser in competitive sports. We don’t know how many women are held back by these narratives if they aren’t even given the chance. Even if it’s the case now, I really wonder how much is purely biological
Sports without contact mechanics I’ve always wondered why the split
Look at world records for any sport that requires raw strength/power, speed, and endurance. The split is pretty extreme. The marathon world record is 2:00:35, set in 2023. The women’s world record is 2:17:42, 13% slower. For the 100m, the top time is 9.58s for men. Over 180 men have broken the 10 second barrier. The top woman is 10.49; no woman has ever broken the 10 second barrier. Given that power lifting is harder to do direct comparisons (…in a way that readily makes sense to people that aren’t competitive power lifters…), I’ll just note that it’s not even close.
Any sport that has a significant speed, endurance, or strength component is going to tend to be dominated by men. When it’s purely a skill issue, the splits are much more even. When you look at archery, for instance, women sometimes beat men; the split is fairly even.
In a lot of ways, it makes sense to have a hard gender split in sports, and not try to make a solid delineation between what sports require enough skill to overcome a physical gap versus which ones don’t.
I suspect because this being what has happened in “most sex segregated sports” is a very very bold assertion. In which of those sports are women holding top positions? I mean women athletes are awesome, but the idea that separation happens because the poor men can’t keep up is just… I don’t know, maybe I’m a confused old man.
But I thought it was so that women could compete at the top levels of their sport in sports where their times, weights, etc. are not really proximal. They should of course be combined where the physical implications are negligible, but the idea that what’s preventing that is that the men just can’t compete with the women seems strange to me.
Richard Jewell’s life was destroyed over the same thing except social media was tiny compared to today, so I hope Denton Loudermill sues the fuck out of them.
Dealers are still a big problem for EVs on top of the points mentioned in the article. They complain about it being hard to sell EVs, but also mark up almost every model and push customers toward ICE cars. Dealers are incentivized to sell ICE cars that support them long term with overpriced service intervals and repairs. EVs don’t require as much regular maintenance. States with strong dealer laws like Oklahoma have been fighting against EV adoption by banning direct sales, show rooms, and even service centers.
Just had a guy at a dealer be like “yeah, electric cars aren’t for me” after I told him I was there specifically to see an electric. I ended up buying from a rental agency’s sales branch. They weren’t pushy (like a CarMax) and also had better prices.
I went to test out a Kona EV a few years ago and the dealer allegedly had one in stock according to the website but when I got there, the guy told me they don’t sell them in my state. I thought that was odd, but he explained it that there was no way to charge them here. I acted dumb and asked why I couldn’t charge at home. He just said it needed a special plug and my state didn’t have those…Not public chargers (of which there were many), the dude tried to tell me my state did not have access to standard RV or Dryer plugs.
But yeah, there are some great used deals out there right now with Hertz dumping their fleet due to collision repair costs.
Yeah, I bought from Budget, and they had a pretty decent selection. Although when I went to pick up the guy said they’d sold a bunch of the electrics that were there a week before.
I would love to be wrong, but it’s too bad one of the injured or killed weren’t connected to the governor. That seems to be the only time some people give a shit.
If you had a gun would you pull it? There were likely hundreds of guns there. But there was also hundreds of police officers ready to take down anyone with a gun.
Not an option you have if theres people between you and the shooter like a dense crowd, and firing through a crowd is general frowned upon, even when you’re trying to not hit them. The last thing you do if you have a gun in that situation is pull it out before you have cover and know where the threat is coming from or your will absolutely be shot by the cops if not the shooter. Dense crowding also played a part in why they were able to be tackled to the ground. A lot harder to get close if the shooting starts and no one’s physically near the shooter.
The only difference is they were a lot faster to admit it was an act of terrorism. No efforts to limit the access to firearms to prevent it in the future.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.