- 0 Posts
- 41 Comments
Well you’ll soon be able to subscribe to the big accounts on Threads, even from Mastodon, provided your server allows it.
I personally wonder if the time for this kind of microblogging hasn’t come and gone now. A lot of media on Instagram but my teenage kids don’t use Twitter, don’t want to use Twitter and don’t care about what happens to Twitter. Pry TikTok out of their hands, though…
What a load of hogwash.
I understand the railing against rent seeking. It’s my land too, so why am I paying for it, and all. I mean, I disagree with the notion, but I understand it.
This is entirely different. Cloud services haven’t been built for nothing - they are massive investment projects and like anything else we build that many use, capital allows us to distribute the cost. Yes there’s a profit motive and one could argue against it or not, but these services didn’t exist as natural resources that the cloud-lords dominated by force and then rented back to us. They built new lands and asked if anybody want to come live there.
Hey, likewise, thanks for a sensible debate.
I definitely think 0 nuclear is possible, just a lot expensive than “mostly renewable with some nuclear.”
I’ve commented extensively on this before here on Lemmy, let me copy pasta here:
Here’s a couple of good papers and articles on the topic:
A systematic review of the costs and impacts of integrating variable renewables into power grids - a large meta-study from Nature Energy showing that the externalised additional cost of integrating 1 MW of renewable production hits £40/MWh between 75% to 85% renewable penetration. Beyond that no studies have been done, but already at this level, renewable would be more expensive than nuclear (at auctioned build-prices today).
Real-World Challenges with a Rapid Transition to 100% Renewable Power Systems - finds that even if you set the Value of Lost Load to £40,000/MWh in a 100% renewable grid, you’ll still get power outages after 2030. It’s not equivalent to externalised cost of renewable integration, but is a heavy indicator that without forcing massive fines on renewable providers, the reserve capacity won’t be provided (it’ll be cheaper for them to just pay the fine). The study finds that a fine of £4 million (!) per required-but-not-fulfilled MWh is needed to encourage providers build the reserve capacity (through distribution, storage etc.).
How much can nuclear power reduce climate mitigation cost? - shows that nuclear will lower the cost of getting to zero carbon electricity product by 40%+, compared to refusing to use nuclear energy production.
Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems - shows some of the challenges of the assumptions that people make in thinking renewables will get us all the way there.
Projected Costs of Generating Electricity - shows that, all costs considered, nuclear remains an extremely cheap way to create energy, even up against renewables.
Local Complementarity of Wind and Solar Energy Resources over Europe: An Assessment Study from a Meteorological Perspective - shows that at least in Europe, wind and sun don’t anti-correlate (in other words, we’re not going to get energy from the sun on non-windy days and energy from the wind on cloudy days. Also shows there are many periods (days long) in Europe where we have don’t get neither sun nor wind. So storage will have to last us days across Europe.
Many of these articles refer to many other articles you may find interesting.
Overall, my point is that it does us (collective “us”, not just “you and me”) no good to argue that “it’ll be alright if we just commit to renewables”. One has to argue against these peer reviewed studies, done by experts in the field, many collecting and meta-reviewing many other studies, to argue that “renewables will be enough”.
And these are not “cooky studies” in “cooky journals”. Nature, Cell, Joule are some of the most respected journals, with the highest impact ratings and the authors & their reviewers have studied these topics for years.
I’m all for more renewables! But it won’t be enough!
That is honestly an urban myth that nuclear isn’t steerable. It’s not steerable in the second, but it is extremely steerable in the hour or the day, which is more than plenty given that renewables output change by the hour or day, rather than the second.
Yes it’s not frequency management - for that we have pumped storage and batteries. But it sure as shit is steerable enough for matching up with renewables. The wind doesn’t goes from Beaufort 6 to Beaufort 1 within a second.
You do realise solar and wind gets pricier and pricier to integrate as the level of steerable capacity decreases?
What you are looking at here is “cost to install ‘rated capacity * load factor’”. A big part of the reason renewables are still cheaper is that we have a lot of backup steerable capacity, mainly in the form of gas plants in the west and coal plants everywhere else.
Renewables dump electricity onto the grid and then say “here, buy this!”. And the only reason the grid can respond and say “sure” is that it can tell the steerable gas and coal plants “turn off for a bit, these other plants are dumping a crap tonne of capacity onto the grid”.
Given the insane challenge in building enough storage and/or enough transmission capacity, you are going to need some steerable capacity beyond 70-80% renewable to continue to have cheap integration of intermittent renewables. Do you want that to be based on fossil fuel?
If we wanted to treat renewable capacity in the same way as we have treated other generators, we should say “I want steerable capacity between 0-1200 MW” from this field of wind turbines!”. That would force the currently externalised cost of guaranteeing generation onto the builders of renewables.
Right now, a lot of the real cost is hidden elsewhere in the grid - so it’s no wonder it looks so cheap.
Please don’t misread my comment as being against renewables, which we need a lot more of. I’m against crappy accounting.
I loathe the guy but I really think you’re doing him a disservice. It is HARD to scale businesses while maintaining an environment of iteration and preventing things getting moribund. And while I’d never work for him on work-life balance grounds, you can at least not fault him for living the kind of environment he wanted to create, with absolute dedication to the task.
And honestly, how many CEOs do you know who can walk the grounds of his business and tell you exactly what each component does and why? While it may not be his idea, that’s still a lot of knowledge to hold in your head.
No. It’s a platform, which can load custom HTML-ish apps, like WeChat (very successful in being a platform) or Telegram (not very successful yet at being a platform).
All Spacebaby is saying is “I have an audience, let’s address it with everything and charge an access fee for companies accessing it”. I very much doubt he sees Twitter creating all these things, just providing a platform that allows others to do so while seeking rent.
He’s imagining the sort of closed off internet like what you see in China. I’m sure the ultimate purpose is that he can censor anyone calling him a Spacebaby. What a Spacebaby!
Ha ha me too and I wrote it.
I’m very aware that there’s nothing to stop a bad actor from ignoring whatever is on the blockchain. But imagine removing all the web3/cryptobro bullshit that makes us all sick and instead just look at it as a record of who’s done what to which file. It could also be a centralised DB but it seems no one should have that power. A smart contract (aka ethereum) that says “anything derived from this sends some transactional fee up toward the originator”.
I mean I’m aware it won’t work.
I’m just saying that I can’t come up with anything better and so I also believe the battle is lost.
It depends and that’s why both your answers aren’t quite the full truth.
If you are a deep resident of the Google ecosystem (maps, Mail, android etc.) Google’s results are second to none. That’s because Google knows exactly what you care about and what is relevant to you. They know where you work, where you are, what you talk about etc etc.
With all that knowledge google can optimise both ads and answers to you almost perfectly.
If you’re not a deep resident, ddg is better - their results have to work harder, so to speak, because they don’t have your every waking thought to hand as a relevancy scale.
So, yeah, if you give Google everything they make money off it and keep you dependent on them.
Sounds like a dealer, right?
The US government is often accused of being genocidal and expansionist. Is there any truth to this?
Accusations of genocide and expansionism against the U.S. government, like those against any government, are complex and often contentious. It’s essential to evaluate such claims critically and consider historical context. Here are some aspects to consider:
-
Genocide Accusations: The U.S. has faced accusations related to its historical treatment of Indigenous populations, particularly during the westward expansion in the 19th century. Actions such as forced removals, displacement, and violence have been criticized as having caused significant suffering and death among Native American communities. Some argue that these actions constitute genocide, while others view them as part of a broader historical context.
-
Expansionism: The U.S. has engaged in territorial expansion throughout its history, including the acquisition of land through treaties, purchases, and military conquest. Manifest Destiny, a 19th-century belief in the inevitability of westward expansion, played a significant role in this process. Critics argue that this expansionist mindset led to the displacement and dispossession of Indigenous peoples.
It’s important to note that whether these actions legally constitute genocide under international law is a subject of debate. Additionally, historical actions should be considered in their respective historical contexts, recognizing that societal norms and values evolve over time.
Contemporary U.S. foreign policy can also be critiqued in terms of expansionism or interventionism in various regions, but these evaluations are often subjective and debated based on the specific situations and motivations involved.
Ultimately, discussions surrounding accusations of genocide and expansionism against any government require nuanced historical and legal analysis and are often the subject of ongoing debate and examination.
What are some of the places where the US has been accused of genocide?
Accusations of genocide are grave and often highly controversial. While I can provide information about places where the U.S. has faced accusations related to actions that some consider genocidal, it’s important to note that such allegations can be subject to debate and legal analysis. Some examples include:
-
Native American Removal: The forced removal and displacement of Native American populations, such as the Trail of Tears, have been criticized as acts that led to significant suffering and death.
-
American Indian Boarding Schools: The policy of forcibly separating Indigenous children from their families and cultures, which existed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, is viewed by some as having had a devastating impact on Indigenous communities.
-
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings: The atomic bombings of these Japanese cities during World War II have led to discussions about whether these actions constituted genocide, although this is a highly debated topic.
-
Vietnam War: The use of tactics like the widespread spraying of Agent Orange and allegations of war crimes during the Vietnam War have raised accusations of genocide by some.
It’s important to emphasize that whether these actions legally constitute genocide is a complex and contentious matter, subject to international law and interpretation. Accusations of genocide should be approached with care, as they involve significant moral, legal, and historical complexities. International bodies like the United Nations or specialized courts are typically responsible for assessing such allegations.
Was the LA police too heavy handed in the crackdown of the Rodney King riots?
The response of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) to the 1992 Rodney King riots is a subject of significant debate and controversy. The riots erupted following the acquittal of four LAPD officers involved in the beating of Rodney King, a black man, in a highly publicized case of police brutality. The LAPD’s handling of the riots raised several concerns:
-
Use of Force: Critics argue that the LAPD’s response was heavy-handed, involving the use of excessive force and military-style tactics. Some instances of police violence against protesters and civilians were documented.
-
Lack of Preparedness: The LAPD was criticized for being unprepared for the scale of the riots, which led to a delayed and, in some cases, inadequate response to the escalating situation.
-
Widespread Property Damage: Despite the concerns about the police response, there was also widespread looting and property damage during the riots, which further complicated the situation.
-
Broader Issues: The Rodney King riots were seen as a manifestation of deeper issues, including racial tensions, economic disparities, and longstanding grievances against law enforcement in minority communities.
The events of the Rodney King riots prompted significant discussions and reforms within the LAPD and sparked a national conversation about police brutality and the need for improved community policing. It also led to a federal investigation and oversight of the LAPD.
Assessing whether the LAPD’s response was too heavy-handed is a matter of perspective, and opinions on this issue vary. It is, however, widely recognized as a pivotal moment in the ongoing dialogue about police-community relations and the use of force by law enforcement agencies in the United States.
If you can’t tell the difference you need your head examined.
Answers from ChatGPT.
Is your argument pro market regulation or against market regulation or just there to stir up shit?
The EU is a heavily regulated market economy. Broadly that creates better outcomes and higher levels of happiness for its citizens.