Cethin

Stop lying. No it doesn’t. Unless you can’t read the graph, it’s very similarly priced to the rest. Solar is significantly more expensive at low capacity but cheaper at high capacity. It’s approximately equal to coal and wind, depending on capacity. Nuclear can be cheaper than even the cheapest offshore wind.

The graph showing nuclear getting more expensive at higher capacity does show something interesting though. I can’t say what causes that, but I assume larger plants have more bureaucracy to deal with, which artificially increases their cost. (Edit: I even read it wrong I think. It shows as more are installed they got more expensive, which implies a temporal relation. More laws restricting nuclear make it more expensive, which is not surprising. Nuclear would be very cheap if it stayed at the same cost as the minimum was.) It may be something else. It’s hard to say. Nuclear is basically right on the middle of the cost axis though.

Energy is energy. It doesn’t matter what it comes from. It comes from an exchange of entropy. It all must create heat. Arguably solar only takes the heat that would be hitting the earth anyway, but it creates more electricity the more it absorbs, so having a lower albedo is better, which will be higher than what the ground would have been.

Also, yeah obviously some places aren’t ideal for a nuclear plant. That’s not an argument against it. That true for literally every energy source. You can’t build a solar plant in the shade. You can’t build a wind farm where there isn’t wind. Etc.

Which ones are sustainable and cheaper? They cost similar amounts per twh, and most cause more deaths. Nuclear creates, by far, the least pollution, including wind, solar, and hydro. Wind and solar also require something to provide baseline power, which is probably batteries. That requires mining lithium, which is very limited, or using some other battery technology which also have issue.

Nuclear is baseline power, clean, sustainable, cheap, and safe. The waste is easy to deal with and only exists in small amounts, most of which will be neutral in a very short period. The only reason not to like it is because we’ve passed laws to make it expensive and take a long time to build, but that’s artifical and promoted by dirty energy. The whole anti-nuke movement is paid for by dirty energy, which should tell you something.

They do it every time there’s a president.

I’m just some random person on the internet, but shouldn’t their fire system be non-water based if they’re working with water reactive chemicals. This plus the sprinkler failing makes me think this was totally preventable and likely due to negligence, probably to save money if I had to guess.

The Supreme Court decided you can even buy bump stocks!

It’s funny that no conservatives ever mention that Trump passed more gun control laws than Biden.

Hydro causes a whole host of other issues though. It requires changing the environment in a very direct way. There are methods to reduce the issues, like fish ladders and things like that, but it’s an immediate shift of an area from a running river to essentially a lake with a waterfall.

Posting an extra comment to say nuclear waste is not an issue either. Here’s two good videos on the topic that show through example how much it isn’t an issue.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k&pp=ygUXa3lsZSBoaWxsIG51Y2xlYXIgd2FzdGU%3D

https://youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU&pp=ygUXa3lsZSBoaWxsIG51Y2xlYXIgd2FzdGU%3D

Nuclear is expensive because we’ve made it expensive. The most expensive part is bureaucracy. Running nuclear plants is cheap. Even still, the price of nuclear around the world is competitive. If you scroll down to the regional studies, nuclear looks even better. In every place except the US that has nuclear, nuclear is the second cheapest, with large-scale PV the only one higher (which doesn’t price in solutions to provide baseline power, which nuclear has built in). The US has (purposefully) made nuclear appear expensive because laws have been paid for by dirty oil companies.

Nuclear is also one of the safest and cleanest energy sources. If you include negative externalities into the cost (which is never done but should be) nuclear is amazing.

It isn’t uncommon for a presidential candidate to meet with foreign leaders to discuss what may happen after they’re elected. In the case of Ukraine, they need to know what to expect in the event Trump is elected. They’re fighting a war, and it’d be a really bad idea to continue in ignorance.

He’s done plenty of bad and illegal things, but this is fairly normal.

Yep. Just look at Bioware. BG3 would have been theirs if they didn’t go the action game route. In the past they made BG and SWTOR, but then they made DA: Origins (not an action game, but moving that direction) and then Mass Effect. At that point they never went back from that direction. They’ve been successful most of the time, but I feel it can only last so long, because it isn’t really made for anyone anymore. I think we can see that now.

Just a couple of questions. You aren’t an expert in the field of constitutional law, correct? If not, do you presume you know more than experts do? If so, do you agree that not all your peers through history agree with your stance?

I’m not stating one opinion or the other. I’m not an expert, nor have I claimed to be. I’m pointing out that you keep implying there’s no way someone can disagree. However, it has been a topic of disagreement of experts for literally hundreds of years. If it was clear this wouldn’t be the case. You seem to imply that they’re wrong for this. If you want to know the reasons, look for their arguments, not random Lemmy users. Again, Judicial Review is the term to search for. There’s hundreds of years of debate for you to catch up on.

The other person commenting linked this, which you subsequently ignored and asked for more evidence (sea-lioning). If you cared to actually engage, maybe I would. Instead you’re ignoring what others say because you only want to read what you have to say.

Edit: I want to add, there’s plenty of scholars who hold the same opinion as you, and I potentially do too. However, I recognize that many people more knowledgeable on the subject than myself do not agree with that stance. If this is true then it’s clearly not particularly clearly defined.

If it was straightforward there wouldn’t be several hundred years of debate over it. I’m glad you’re so intelligent that you can see past all the issues others have noticed, but no one else is that lucky. My advice for you is to get a degree in constitutional law (it should be easy for you) and solve this issue once and for all for all of us. It’d save us a lot of time.

The whole intro part didn’t add anything anyway, so it just made the viewing experience worse for no reason. That was frustrating. Still, every debate should be like that one.

Stop sea-lioning. You don’t get to just ignore what someone provides you and ask for more proof. Fuck off.

It wouldn’t. They gained that power by saying they have it, but it isn’t specifically granted. We just continue to assume they’re correct, and that they’re the ones who get to decide if they’re correct, but we don’t have to.

Judicial Review is the term to look for if you want to learn more.

Well, knowing Catholicism, I would bet on him being a monster. Most likely worse than the ones in RE.

Simplicity to access the content is important, but I’d argue just as important is they’ve tried to make the games simple and appealing to everyone, and they end up not really appealing to anyone. Make an interesting game for the people that want it. Don’t make a game no one wants.

Hiring based on gender and sexuality means you purposefully pick lower skilled workers in order to fill a diversity quota.

Incorrect. It means that you pick the best candidate, and when they’re equal you don’t just choose the white man like we always have in the past.

I’m a straight white man. I have no issue with diversity because it makes everyone better.

Every worker regardless of background has a unique view, and can provide creative solutions without having to be reduced to their genders, sexuality, skin color.

Sure, that’s true because everyone has a different background. However, a straight white Christian man would likely never think of some of the things a gay Muslim would think of, because they have faced different issues and been taught different things.

For example, there’s an issue with IQ testing, where the tests were designed for typical western education. However, different cultures can be better or worse at certain questions just by how they’re phrased. Some cultures may think of something geometrically. For example, all math by the ancient Greeks were done with shapes, not numbers. They would solve math problems in totally different and unique ways than a typical modern day western educated person would. They aren’t less smart for it. Their brains were just wired differently because of the way they were educated.

Not every person thinks the same. Cultures, education, oppression, trauma, pleasures, and everything else effect how you think and you you’ll think of. Diversity in thought allows us to take advantage of this as much as possible.

It’s important to have a diverse workforce, especially in entertainment, because people with different backgrounds will have different ideas. Ideas are the lifeblood of how we improve things, and especially creativity. You people who can’t see this are destined to fail. If you think this is evil rather than smart business to ensure you have the greatest strengths through differences of opinion are really blind. All of history has pretty much shown that diversity breeds creativity and growth. Hegemony breeds stagnation.