It's a valid point. The Guardian is biased. It's not their inability to make rational arguments or do math. It's more their propensity for focusing on certain facts, and figures and disregarding others to bolster their viewpoint. Much like what people call science these days. It's far less scientific than it is propaganda designed to shape public opinion. It's fine if you want to get your information from there, but you should go in with eyes wide open. The cancer implications are similar to Three Mile Island. There was no official leak but cancer rates skyrocketed in that area. Or Simi Valley which happened in the 50s and was hidden from the public until the late 70s. Rates of a particular kind of cancer known to be caused by the particular kind of radioactive release was off the charts. Never proven. Rags like the Guardian do a disservice to the facts due to their failure to be objective.

No we're quite familiar with the crusades. Fought by men, not Jesus, started by Muslims requiring a Christian response that was not necessarily biblical. Nowhere in the bible does it say kill the people who disagree with you. You're thinking of the Koran (Sura 4).

Not sure how this got marked as a troll. Seems pretty accurate to me. Maybe some people are offended by the truth?

Even after Sunburst happened I went to download an ISO for Orion and it had the same version number but the hash was different from the week before. They were quietly fixing things in the background and not letting anyone know. I understand the desire to protect the company, and shareholder value. But after something like that happens transparency goes a long way. Trying to cover things up just makes it worse. It came out later on that they were compromised for at least a year and knew about it before the FBI got involved and forced them to disclose it. So it's not really a surprise to me that the SEC is taking this stance.

He was no more or less broken than all of us. He just took his brokenness to a further extreme, and I believe it's possible to be broken and choose to do what's wrong just as it's possible to be broken and choose to do what's right. On your second point you are correct. That would be a very slippery slope. Who decides which people are too broken to continue on? Who is the perfect person with that ultimate metric? But attributing human characteristics to inanimate objects doesn't really do anything to further the point. Humans design cars so if a car is flawed it's because the human who made it is flawed. Can we learn from our mistakes? Can we choose not to? There are some things we can control, and there are some things that are out of control. The things that are out of our control do not obviate the ones that are.

Except we're not computers with predictable programming. We consider, we weigh consequences based on what we know and make choices. Spirit comes into play here as well so maybe it's not completely self guided, but neither is it 100% certain the same option will be chosen every time. The author's science is devoid of all of the known variables that disprove his theory. Making it more delusional conjecture than science.

This has all the scientific value of global warming and macro evolution. Neither are provable and rely on manipulated data for their points to stand. Neither stand up to scrutiny, but since most people aren't capable of thinking critically the masses are deceived. The guy is certainly in the right time in the right place.

I've done this at home. Just to see what it would look like. Maintenance is not trivial. Slackpkg helps, but that doesn't cover everything.

It depends on where you are. Here there is intense fear from management of anything that does not have enterprise support (critical infrastructure). Without an agreement complete with SLAs, patching contracts, and expedited support a manager could lose his/her job if something breaks. There's a very low tolerance for outages and tons of redundancy. It's why we're locked in with RHL / Microsoft Windows and can't go elsewhere.

I have a lot of distain for unions. The leadership usually cuts themselves in for way more than they give the worker. I see them as largely parasitic and not much better than corporations themselves. However, even in what's coming I don't think they'll be able to help the common worker at all. You have to have something to bargain with. If the labor is no longer necessary because of AI there's no conversation to be had. The best bet people have is to organize bartering and trade among the common citizens starving out the greedy by forgoing the goods and services they provide. This is the only way the masses can beat it.

Something tells me we've already militarized space. China and Russia likely have as well. We just don't know about it yet because it hasn't been used.

No matter how many factors you have until you get rid of the human factor you will never be secure.

Think? There's pictures of people falling off of planes, we had to leave billions of dollars of equipment behind, we stranded our own people there and some of them died. Yes, we needed to get out of Afghanistan. But no sane person would call that execution a success. The war in Ukraine has been nothing more than a money laundering operation. He could have ended that war before it even got started. It continues because he's making money off of it. Anti-war for sure.

For people who live and work close to the bus stop the bus is a good option. But really the reason buses aren't used more universally has nothing to do with cost. It's not convenient. You're waiting around half hour to an hour for the bus to come. You have to walk to it, and walk from it. If you're grocery shopping you have to carry all that with you. And in most major metropolitan areas you've got thugs that like to mess with people who take the bus because they're typically poor and can't fight back. Making it free doesn't fix any of that. In fact, it now encourages homeless people to use it as an air conditioned place to hang out that isn't on the street. Inviting more crime and risk to legitimate users of the system. That's a really terrible idea.

The biggest expense of nuclear is the disposal and long term storage of waste, and that's not in the LCOE.