Yes, because the effort is focused and attention is deep. Distractions are minimized and if I need to go into the office, I go. If I need a meeting, there is zoom or the phone.

Few work well when they are micromanaged.

People have a right to burn carbon based fuels for no other reason than to sit in traffic enjoying the look of the taillights of someone doing the exact same thing.

I'll also point out that some people really enjoy waking up day after day, week after week, year after year to catch public transport to avoid sleeping well and exercising.

And just because it saves employers millions of dollars in rent and electricity cost whilst simultaneously reducing the volume of traffic on the roads and pressure on public transports systems all because they're "educated" enough to do so is just plain selfishness when they could be doing their fair share of contributing to the environmental damage every other human does just going about their business.

I've worked from home since the 1990's when 2400 baud modems and second phone lines were a thing. I don't interview for roles that won't offer this.

You mean like getting the acronym for Small Modular Reactors right?

Current reactor technology only achieves burn-up rates of less than one percent of the fuel ore. Over 99% of the energy density of uranium fuel is inaccessible with current reactor technology. Including this one.

Once they reach then end of their service life and the metals start to corrode they will be impossible to move and impossible to leave in place.

These things are totally impractical.

It's an Oxymoron.

When Nuclear power had promising developments with the Integral Fast Reactor, Big Oil undermined it in a similar way.

First they reframed the mission of Greepeace, who was always drawing scrutiny to Oil and Coal projects into one that was scrutinising Nuclear power, when it was actually more concerned about nuclear weapons.

Then when all the nuclear supporters were distracted and point their vitriol at Greenpeace, Greenpeace were no longer able to draw attention to Big Oil's activities and keep them under scrutiny.

Meanwhile, Big Oil got to lobby congress for changes to energy policy unhindered, successfully defunding the IFR Project and the most promising breakthrough to nuclear power ever made. Something Greenpeace would more than likely have supported were they given a chance to examine the technology and see it fitted in with their mission for nuclear disarmament.

Solar advocates beware, the playbook is virtually the same. Draw scrutiny away from Big Oil, create infighting amongst supporters. The only thing remaining is to look out for what lobby activities are occurring that frame new energy policy to benefit Big Oil and Coal over Solar Power.

Expect more balloons then.

This, and PEW PEW!!

Does that make it cost any less? Spend 2 million to shoot down a $100K balloon? Sounds like asymetric warfare to me.

The air force could always mount lasers on the fighter jets PEW PEW!!!

No real need to cite, the ballons are like cling wrap and the helium within them is about the same pressure as the atmosphere, so you could shoot them up a fair bit and they can just keep ambling on.

Don't forget, F22 cost per flight hours (I think about $85K), then there is the two support F15s, and the KC tanker - so yeah, pretty costly to bring down a cheap balloon.

I think this is where a laser would really work well.

Thanks - I wonder what the built up gasses are CFCs perhaps?

Butt it is.

I don't think asbestos accumulates in the food chain the way PCBs and radionuclides do. From all I've learned of asbestos the primary danger is as an inhalant much like oxidized pu-239 or U-238 cause respiratory disease..

The iron would probably be a good thing for the ocean though as the ship decays. As long as they pump out all the fuel and get rid of other nasty stuff this is probably the only other thing they can do with it since they can't recover costs from scraping it.

The article is paywalled - so maybe that's covered in the article??

Also responsible for a radioactive sulfuric acid in World Heritage National park. 200 Megalitres IIRC

It's exactly what Facebook was designed to map.

Which is probably the approach that would have been successful. The issue being is Lawyers fill the legal system and whilst it has value to the construction and interpretation of democratically created laws - a parking ticket is still a parking ticket.

Had the AI been framed as a "Legal Assistant" for the advocate I would reckon that the news would have been different, ego being what it is.

I will point out that interpretation of the law should %100 remain in the domain of human beings, furthermore, we will need lawyers so that we can keep human judges. Reason being that the concept of Strict Liability is the domain of parking tickets and terrorism laws (I kid you not) whereas the vagaries of human relations is something that can only be judged by a human capable of measuring how severe a punishment should be.