Yeah, I agree. I think nuclear is going to be necessary, but arguing with anti-nuclear advocates is just not worth the effort. I hope the anti-nuclear advocates are right about how wind and solar are so cheap and sufficient that we don't need nuclear, but I think they're probably wrong. I'm just going to wait and see. If wind and solar don't solve the problem, I hope we supplement with nuclear before it's too late.

It's unfortunate that they stopped the building of more nuclear a few decades ago. If it weren't for the anti-nuclear advocates, climate change might never have become a problem at all.

North America can't start now because North America started ages ago and is continuing. Starting now would require a time machine to go back to the past and delay the start.

Have you not seen all the wind and solar that has been built and continues to get built? I just wish they'd stop with the unsolicited telemarketing calls trying to sell more solar. If wind and solar can't be built fast enough to deal with the problem, I'd be supportive to adding more nuclear in addition to building wind and solar as fast as possible.

For whom? Please cite specific legislation that passed which you think shouldn't have passed or that didn't pass which you think should have.

If you cite specific bills and state which way you think the vote should have gone, I assure you I will check my current representative's voting record to see how they voted.

People like you have me convinced that wind and solar are so cheap that it's not worth considering nuclear power. Wind and solar are being built, so problem solved. Hence, not worth worrying about.

That's not my industry, so nothing for me to do. If it starts to look like building wind and solar isn't going to solve the problem, we could start looking at nuclear. But for now I'm just going to assume the people who are building wind and solar are going to get this taken care of.

This is exactly why you get people coming in to work while they're sick. If somebody has a limited number of days off then they're not going to want to waste them when they're not feeling well enough to go do something fun. If they're sick they might as well go into the office and be miserable rather than stay home and be miserable if it means they save a paid day off to do something fun when they're feeling better.

Fortunately for me, my company has sick days that don't come out of your vacation time. And if you're feeling well enough to work but think you may be contagious then obviously you work from home. People I work with are generally very sympathetic when you're on a conference call and you say you're not feeling well or apologize for muting during a coughing or sneezing fit.

Why are you still using flakey Teams? Teams has some questionable design choices, but it has been working solidly for me for at least a couple of years. It was pretty rough when it was first rolled out, but in terms of being able to instantly transition from text chat to voice call (or video, but we hardly ever use video) and screen sharing they got all the kinks worked out a couple years ago and it works perfectly.

I find it much easier to work with someone when I can see their screen either on half of my big monitor or over on my secondary monitor and still have full access to my windows while sitting in my chair with my hands on my keyboard.

Standing uncomfortably hunched over somebody's shoulder to get my eyes down at their seated level, or squeezing in side by side with only one keyboard is a hassle. And of course, even if I'm in AN office and they're in AN office, that doesn't mean we're in the SAME office. So we still need to use Teams or Webex or Zoom if we want to avoid one of us getting on a plane. So if Teams were still flakey, either my employer would need to fix the problem or we'd use one of the other options.

I flew over five hours to meet with people face to face this week, but three times per year is about the max that is worthwhile. It's impractical to have everyone in one location all the time.

Where did you see "BIG NEWS EVERYBODY!"? That wasn't anywhere in the article that I could see.

The article is substantiated statistical data, not unsubstantiated noise. Let me give you an example of unsubstantiated noise so that you can see what that looks like: "Young layabouts prefer FREE over PAID!! News at eleventy!!!"

Notice how there's no data collection to back this up, it's just the meaningless opinion of some anonymous internet troll. It contains ad hominem instead of mathematically calculated percentages derived from collected data. Note also the use of all caps and multiple exclamation points in the unsubstantiated noise which are completely absent from the article which presented substantiated statistical data.

Now, it is possible that you have no interest in the video viewing habits of teens. Brace yourself because I'm about to blow your mind: You don't have to read every article on Slashdot. You can skip the ones you're not interested in. Can you believe it? It's true, I do it all the time.

No need to be absurd. Shovels are fine, just outlaw backhoes, front loaders, ditch witches, etc. Plenty of job creation.

There's nothing wrong with being an outlier as long as you realize you're an outlier.

You won't buy an EV unless you can drive 200 miles and charge in less than an hour. I won't buy an EV unless it's a two seater with a drop top. Neither of us is representative of the vast number of people who just want a generic car and hardly ever drive more than 100 miles per day.

No, it's what our political system is built on. In the US at least, there's a huge portion of the population that wants to concentrate money in the smallest number of hands (i.e. the federal government) in the hopes that your "team" will be able to impose its will on the other "team". Naturally all that concentrated money and power attracts corruption.

Small town governments can be corrupt, but at least people who care can tell who the worst crooks are and actually influence how much corruption they're willing to tolerate. And in the worst case they can move to a different town without too much disruption to their life. But there's literally nothing you can do about the corruption of your senators or congressional rep. No matter who you vote for in a federal election, only the people who play the corruption game are on the ballot.

The economic model would work just fine if the federal government had barely any money and the corporations had to corrupt hundreds or thousands of state and local governments to do what you claim of "privatizing profits and socializing costs"

I have to give Verizon credit. They offered me FIOS for $39.99 and so far the amount they've charged me has been $39.99 every single month.

I haven't looked at the actual bill lately, but I'm pretty sure there are no fees itemized. They did insist on payment via ACH, so I opened an account with a new bank and deposit funds periodically to cover the Verizon bill. When I check the bank account, every single ACH is for exactly $39.99 just like the Verizon sales rep quoted to me before I signed up.

My Comcast bill had crept up to over $70/month in a series of small increases and Comcast said they couldn't match the $39.99/month that Verizon quoted me, so I switched and have not had any regrets.

Thanks for the link, I'll try to remember that for future travel to Europe. But it looks like the shortest trip I see in a quick search is 8 hours and 45 minutes. Compared to a 1 hour flight, that's extremely slow. It would have been faster than sitting in Frankfurt airport for 12+ hours waiting for my 1 hour flight, but not by much.

If I had been able to make my original flight via Munich with the much more reasonable layover time to make it through international arrivals and get to the domestic terminal with a short wait, there's just no comparison.

You list Prague and Frankfurt so you've caught my interest. I needed to go to Prague in February and I did do some searching to see how to get there via train but ended up giving up. I booked a flight instead.

My original flight had me connecting through Munich to Vaclav Havel, but the flight to Munich was cancelled due to equipment problems and I was rebooked via Frankfurt. When I arrived in Frankfurt I missed the absurdly short connection (like 45 minutes or something to get from international arrivals to domestic departure gate) so I while sitting in Frankfurt airport for over 12 hours I spent some of my time trying to figure out how to get to Prague via train. I was unable to figure it out. Possibly I was just overly tired due to the delayed departure on what was already scheduled to be an overnight flight.

For future reference, can you help me out with the how to get from Frankfurt to Prague via train? It was only a one hour flight, but the 12+ hour layover in Frankfurt sucked.

I have carried a personal iPhone and an employer provided Android phone simultaneously for over ten years. I have also had multiple iPads and multiple Android tablets. I disagree with you entirely. I have upgraded iPhones and Android phones multiple times over that time and every time I have to make a decision on whether to pay for a new iPhone I consider whether it's worth it. It is, every single time.

Perhaps you dislike iOS because you're unfamiliar with it and you don't like being asked to help someone with their device that you don't know how to use. Or perhaps there are some specific Android features that appeal to you. Neither of these objective reasons to say the iOS UI is terrible.

Despite using multiple employer provided Android phones for over ten years, there are many things that I find much faster and more convenient on my personal iPhone.

That being said, I've never used CarPlay. My Mazda has physical buttons that can be used to do everything that can be done via the touchscreen. The only thing that's easier via the touchscreen is typing addresses into the navigation system, but even that can be done with a physical knob and button.

It would be nice if I could press a physical button to cause my iPhone's screen to be mirrored onto the in car display and have touches on the touchscreen sent to the phone, but honestly I would probably rarely use that. Just syncing addresses from my iPhone calendar to the car's navigation system is all I really need.

You misunderstood the comment you replied to. The question mark was meant to indicate a stipulation of someone else's point.

The person you replied to wasn't saying that library fines affect poor people disproportionately, but rather saying "Hypothetically, if we stipulate for the purposes of discussion the previously claimed statement that library fines affect poor people disproportionately, then ..."

Any poor people who are fine, upstanding, responsible, on-time returners of library books are out of scope for this discussion. The person you replied to was only talking about the hypothetical, maybe don't exist at all, poor people who don't return their library books on time and therefore suffer financial harm from fines.

I practically lived at the library when I was a kid and I didn't have much money to spare, so I was very, very aware of due dates and didn't take chances. I had very, very few incidents of returning books late. I have one traumatic memory burned into my brain of the time I realized that I had set a library book down on the top of my mom's car and not picked it up before we drove away. (It was Riverworld by Philip Jose Farmer and nothing like that ever happened again. Losing a library book and having to replace it was an experience that taught me a lasting lesson.)

It's the people claiming that library fines disproportionately affect poor people who are casting moral aspersions, not the person you replied to. It's those people, not the person you replied to, who are claiming, accurately or inaccurately, that being poor somehow renders a person less capable of comprehending and honoring library book due dates.