Critical systems includes any power source.

Without electricity -- specifically without refrigeration, most of us are going to die very quickly.

It's not so simple as re-using it. "Plain" water itself is part of the nuclear reaction, so injecting radioactive water changes the equation ever so slightly.

It's a matter of "which is actually safer for everybody," and letting the experts who are actually qualified to make decisions make the call.

The hard reality is something *will* fail soon, and waiting really isn't an option given the volume of water involved - something's going to fail. A planned water treatment and controlled release is likely a better option than an unplanned, untreated, and sudden release when a tank fails.

So, people of Earth: pick your poison, because you're drinking one. The UN approved one.

There are already at least two uncontained nuclear reactors at the seabed, and their effects haven't been world-ending.

Sometimes there's no happy ending, just one that's less sad.

I'd argue against Deans Ultra as there is no shield of any kind for the male pins. (Yes, they're supposed to be unpowered; unless of course they are partially inserted.)

These days, there's no excuse for a contact that's exposed from the side when partially inserted.

I just... what!?! The inner workings of the human body are driven entirely by chemistry; the drugs doctors prescribe are chemistry, substances patients ingest, inhale, or apply to their skin are chemistry.

I've never known a single good doctor that wasn't good at chemistry. My brother is a dentist and his other major area of study is O-chem. My own dentist is the same. My physician knows chemistry backwards and forwards, and my Gastroenterologist is pretty impressive with her chemistry knowledge too.

Saying a medical doctor doesn't know chemistry is about as sensible as an engineer that doesn't know math.

Nah.

There is a paradox of freedom: that pesky matter of other free agents deciding they're free to slowly feed you to a wood chipper, for example.

There are boundaries; the only matter up to debate is how to maximize aggregate freedom for all, and whether feeding people to wood chippers is a freedom or not.

I'm way late to this party, but here's the huge problem: not only are lawns normal, in many places they're *mandated* by city code.

Wanna do something sane like xeriscape your yard? Too bad, because city code enforcement will fine you up to $150 every day until you put sod back down.

My wife & I are killing our lawn this year anyway.

I have probably a hundred devices on my home network, most are IoT. (TV's, door bell, speakers, switches, sensors, lights, thermostats...). They all respond to IPv6.

It really shouldn't be a surprise: IoT devices don't predate IPv6, and use modern TCP/IP libraries, which universally have IPv6. It's irresponsible not to have IPv6.

One anecdote: I looked at my brother's network the other day, and sure enough - he had IPv6 fully functioning. Firewall worked great. He's just an average person, not a networking/computer guy. He just bought the router & plugged it in, followed the quick start instructions. Boom. Native IPv6, and he never noticed a thing.

I just don't see consumer adoption as a problem.

If there are no Russians to remember Putin, OR Russia, what's the point?

China exports â500 billion in goods to the EU per year. Another $350 billion in goods to North America. Russia's trade is worth about $168 billion USD.

There's a pretty solid reason to not upset $850 billion in trade for the sake of $168 billion. Or even better, just try to keep the status quo.

The point of which being what? The Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) can detect a SCUD launch anywhere on Earth, and that is a *lot* less energetic than an RS-28.

The US (And British, and French) response would be in flight and beyond recall before any of those missiles or warheads fell.

The end result would be the annihilation of every city in Russia.

The only way to win Nuclear war is not to play.

Most people don't care about decentralized virtual currency trading platform.

You know, I have a Coinbase account, almost entirely to get the "free" defi coin they give out every so often. Almost every time they have some presentation about the system/token du jour, and how that particular clone of the day is somehow different.

I have trouble seeing any difference in any of them.
It all sounds like the great "I'm creating yet another social network!" fad from a dozen years ago.

Many of the DeFi use cases described depend on transaction fees hundreds of times below current levels. It makes the whole ecosystem seem untethered from reality.

It's purpose is to be able to brute force anything a cell-phone can handle. Any real encryption is always weakened just enough to supposedly allow mobile use to not take on heavy power usage or battery issues.

What utter nonsense. AES-256 is fully quantum resistant to the heat death of the universe, and can run efficiently on an 8-bit microcontroller. It's doubtful that AES-128 would ever be broken by a quantum computer, but at least it's *possible*

Elliptic curve cryptography (like Curve25519) is also extremely efficient and requires low power -- and is perfectly suitable for extremely low power devices, and has been very thoroughly vetted. EC is vulnerable to Quantum computing - hence the competition.

We (rightly) applaud wildly when researchers manage to get to another milestone. It's also important to realize the ENORMOUS gap between the current state of the art and a quantum computer capable of Shor's algorithm -- which may as fanciful as faster than light travel.

I'm not saying they can't do something similar. I'm saying "ARM and RISC-V are both RISC architectures" means exactly nothing to the entire discussion.

Even RISC vs CISC is nearly meaningless - a PowerPC G3 (Reduced Instruction Set) processor has more instructions than its contemporary CISC Pentium II competitor. Many chip designers call this the "Post-RISC era" for a reason.

Just because Apple has done something with ARM isn't necessarily a question of if RISC-V can do it -- but whether it should be done? It's sort of a philosophical thing of whether to keep RISC-V truly RISC, or to make it post-RISC.

RISC-V's future doesn't depend on Rivian by any means; SiFive, Andes, Seagate, Google, Frauhoffer produce or sell RISC-V chips. The demise of Rivian doesn't mean the end of RISC-V at all - in fact, even if there were no claims of trade secrets being stolen, Rivian's future is almost certainly in being acquired by somebody else. (Well, that or something similar to Transmeta... silicon is a rough market)

"Right to work" means the law in the state gives workers the right to get and hold a job without having to join or pay dues to a union, and the union can't interfere with a worker's ability to receive promotions, hours to work, etc.

Not everybody feels comfortable being forced to give money to an organization who supports causes or political candidates they despise.

You probably are thinking of the doctrine of "at will employment" which means your employment is at the will of both sides and there is no contract.