What is this devilry?

Never seen one before! Is that basically a filter coffee thing with the filter around all sides for convenience?

My main filter (it's the one at work) is one of these:

https://www.nisbets.co.uk/novo...

It takes a rather large paper filter. Less convenient for one cup, but it'll crank out 12, and keep them warm while cranking out 12 more.

Lower cost but not lower risk.

Why are people so I'm live with it? It's worked pretty well so far. Turns out global warming is the massive elephant in the room and will be fast now destructive than all the nuclear accidents including Chernobyl, the weapons ones and everything put together times 100. And all the major economies with lower carbon footprints have substantial nuclear energy in the mix.

Germany is the worst of all the comparable European states.

They are the worst in terms of absolute numbers and the worst in terms of improvement.

What they appear to have is a very good PR campaign based on unrealised future promises.

Is the future nuclear? Probably not too a major extent but to dismiss the efficacy up to now you kind of have to dismiss carbon dioxide as a big problem.

What's a coffee pad?

Mostly I drink kirkland signature filter these days (at work) and whatever's available locally in a cafetiere at home.

I think you tried to the wrong person. I was quoting the op.

Garbage regulations like IP create these behemoths. If you want freedom, stop regulating monopolies into existence.

The Soviets decided that they could save money because the probability of those reactors failing was very small.

Not really. They decided they could save money because they were short of cash and engaged in an arms race that they couldn't keep up in. They wanted something to bolster their weapons programme as well as generating power.

So they built a reactor with a void coefficient of 4.7!

Nothing like that has ever been built outside of the USSR. It's a completely mental design and of literally no bearing on anyone who isn't in the USSR. No one's built anything like that for power generation outside and a defunct empire won't make anyone build one like that either.

In both cases, the risks were known, and in both cases they were downplayed by the people making the decisions. Soviet or democratic, both systems failed.

The magnitude is somewhat different. Chernobyl was way worse, and wasn't assisted by being hit with a tsunami. Orders of magnitude more people dead. Orders of magnitude radiation released. Orders of magnitude bigger exclusion zone.

So the whole "yah but they both failed" is about akin to saying Starmer is no better than Tuss because they're both bad.

Nothing is perfectly safe (not wind or solar either). Everything is a money/death tradeoff. Including renewables. And coal. Which as you may know is needed to smelt the iron ore required to build renewables and nuclear (though less per GW for nuclear).

Chernobyl demonstrated the fundamental problem with nuclear power: Trust.

You have to trust the designers,

Oh come on. I know you don't like nuclear but there's no excuse for disingenuous arguments. People didn't trust the USSR, it's just they had no choice it what with it being a dictatorship that killed people who were too vocal about not trusting them.

And Chernobyl has zero bearing on any reactors built you know outside of the USSR. No one else has ever built a powerstation like that.

And while mini nuclear reactors are a real thing, they are a fantastically dumb real thing. Nuclear reactors aren't super safe,

This is false. They really are safe unless you make an utterly insane design. Outside of the USSR where no one was mad enough to build a design like that (and it was also a dual use reactor), nuclear reactors have cause way way way way fewer radiation related cancer deaths than the coal plants they originally replaced. Not to mention all the other deaths. They're one of the safest forms of electricity available. They're about on a par with solar and wind, and until people can make steel effectively without coal, then wind and solar are going to have the coal problem more than nuclear.

Chernobyl reactor was a very smart and safe design

What the actual fuck. It had a void coefficient of +4. That's beyond insane. No one else builds reactors with positive void coefficients like that (CANDU has a tiny positive one kind of on a technicality). It was built that way to cheaply be able to produce weapons grade plutonium and run on cheap fuel.

It was always mad, not a "very smart safe design".

A problem so costly if it gets out of hand that the US's original major nuclear research and production site in of Hanford, Washington

Remind me what a weapons research and production facility has to do with nuclear power?

On top of that nuclear reactors are expensive compared to renewables

You got something right!

Just build some fucking windmills

Now how did Sweden never figure that out? Oh no wait they already did build quite a lot of fucking windmills (maybe that's how they got so many, from the breeding program).

Starmer is still better than the alternatives (Farage, Badenoch) but that's not saying much. The alternatives are just that shit.

Well quite. The thing about the lesser evil is it's still less evil.

I mean some stuff he's done is good. Some bad. It's all directionless.

Some of the laws they're creating are made to be abused, even though Starmer isn't going to abuse them

Well apart from the laws against protest which are selectively enforced (left wing aligned protests get policed heavily with long sentences, farmers causing disruption get zero arrests) and of course the utter, shameful abuse of anti terrorist legislation proscribing Palestine Action (without reference to agreement on their actions, what they did is not terrorism).

Thing is he happily abuses laws he railed against in opposition.

and yes we will be properly fucked. Starmer wants people to obey HIM, NOW. He is not smart enough to realise he will still be alive when someone else gets a crack at it, somehow.

Statism creates billionaires.

Nissan? Isn't that Japanes?

The restrictions are a mix of reasonable nuisance management and paranoia about who is flying drones, what they can do, and chain of custody.

Beijing proper is a city with a population density of over 21,000 / km^2 -- so you can imagine the chaos if any tech enthusiast resident could fly a drone without a permit. Except for a couple of free zones in the outer boroughs, New York City restricts drone launcing and landings within the city to flights with a permit and flight plan, because otherwise the sky would be black with drones. Many cities -- both red and blue -- have zone restrictions for drone flights, and those currently hosting World Cup matches have tightened them for the duration of the tournament.

You would think that with a former-lawyer as the prime minister now it would get sorted

You'd think that with a former human rights lawyer as the prime minister, he wouldn't be so keen on shitting on human rights.

No for Starmer, everything was just a stepping stone on his career ladder.

It's weird but he's a vacuum. He doesn't appear to stand for anything in particular. This is why none of the decisions make much sense as a whole, why there's no coherence, why he has no articulated vision, why the policies are a complete mishmash.

But it's weirder. He doesn't even seem to stand for enriching himself beyond career climbing. He's somewhat non corrupt as these things go (I mean the glasses thing was dumb shit but small fry on the scale of these thing).

So sure he knows about the courts and human rights and etc but he doesn't stand for any of them.

Actually scratch that.

Judging him by what he's achieved, about the only thing he has been consistent on is a kind of petty authoritarianism with him in charge. This isn't even to say he hasn't done anything good (he manifestly has), but as part of a weird directionless morass (nationalise the trains, but repeat water company press releases about why that's impossible for water, for example).

The only one who does not understand physics, is you with your stupid signature.

Says the man who screams insults when he tries some highschool physics and doesn't like the answer.

No idea what the ROI part of the British islands is. Did you typo something?

I mean this is on brand for you: you are holding forth about something and don't even know the basics of what you're talking about. ROI is the Republic Of Ireland, a EU member nation located on the island of Ireland which is one of the British Isles.

That is a silly statement. Because they are. Plus: north Ireland.

It includes the Republic of Ireland which hasn't been part of the UK since 1921.

British Isles - that is a term with a meaning: it is a nickname for the UK, stupid idiot.

Hmm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

What about Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney? Are they part of the British Isles?

You mean the channel islands? No, they are the channel islands.

Are they part of the UK?

I have no idea what in your brain passes for "part of", but no. They're crown dependences. Hence the whole tax thing.

See: neither can I. Because it is farking completely unimportant for the discussion.

Right it's not important what things are actually called when you use a name for them... That figures!

The islands are property of the crown - hence: King Charles III owns them.

No, the Crown owns them. Chazzer is the king. I really can't be arsed to explain the subtleties of nomenclature of the British constitution to you. It appears that names of things are not your strong suit.

Talking about the "UK" and the "British islands" or "British isles" is: complicated.

It's not, really. Also did you know the British Isles and British Islands are not the same?

No, of course you didn't because facts are not your strong suit either. Your main skill is holding forth on subjects that you are monumentally ignorant about, so keep up the good work!

I also will not accept "bothsides!" arguments here.

Ever noticed how it's never "bothsides! so I voted Democrat"? Even the "bothsides" people realise that voting for the current clowns requires hefty justification, and ye they do it anyway.