It is if you're a journalist or financial analyst with nothing else to write about. Nice thing is that it happens all the time. Pretty much every other day if you don't restrict yourself to the difference between open and close.

Tell me what is truthful about obscuring negative associations with an ideology?

It isn't "bad mouthing" an ideology to clearly indicate the consistent ideological association of that ideology with state-sponsored genocide.

That's kind of a big thing.

"Cancer is the rapid growth of cells, just like when you're young and growing strong!" is how most advocates paint socialism. It's dishonest.

Lol. You just want to complain. Now that I've pointed out your weird complaint is bullshit you're off on some other tangents.

There is no reactor in the world that can "burn" fission products, aka "WASTE".

Not much (> 10% IIRC) of the uranium fuel is fissioned in a typical light water reactor. The "waste" from those reactors contains that unused uranium and fission products, many of which are themselves fissionable. Plutonium for example. Reprocessing can be used to recover fission fuel from the "waste".

https://world-nuclear.org/info...

Reprocessing is pretty standard. Far from "no reactor in the world", pretty much all reactors can used reprocessed fuel. CANDU can too, as well, including plutonium either from reprocessing or weapons disposal. However, reprocessing is expensive. The DUPIC process basically involves running spent PWR fuel through a CANDU with minimal reprocessing. Basically just chopping it up and packaging it so it fits.

https://inis.iaea.org/records/...

Stupid brainwashed Americans.

1. I'm not American.
2. Can you say "ultracrepidarian?"

They can also run on thorium.
Unlikely. Thorium has to be bread into Uranium before fission. I do not think a CANDU reactor can do that (without upgrade or modification).

At least you're willing to admit there's a possibility you're wrong on this one. No, it doesn't run on pure thorium. You mix it with uranium or plutonium.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
https://www.nucnet.org/news/cl...

Great Scott! We just need 0.21 gigawatts more!

Yes:

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

L1 is where you want to put solar observatories. L2 is popular for not-solar observatories. L4 and L5 not as much, but there are some satellites like Stereo A and B that passed close, and the ESA plans to put a solar observatory actually at L5.

I was curious WTF you're talking about so I looked up the quote. Poettering was proposing socket-based activation where an infrequently used process, for example, sshd, would be launched when a connection was made rather than idling in the background at all times. You know, like process-based webservers do all the time.

It would have pretty much zero effect on your use case even if it weren't completely optional.

As for the accuracy of the example in the actual quote, excluding phones, which usually aren't running SSH, about half of Linux machines are web servers, another third are cloud machines hosting containers, and another ~10% are file or email servers. The vast majority of those are going to be running SSH for occasional administration. Machines hosting remote X connections are going to be a minority.

Yeah, this is apparently where the water usage numbers come from. Somebody makes up a stupid number and then that gets repeated over and over.

Tracking down the source of silly datacentre water usage was a bit of a sport for a while. It seems a lot of it traces back to a single writer who sort of picked a number.

They are not unsafe, they just unfortunately produce the same / similar waste "standard reactors" do.

One of the neat tricks CANDU reactors can do is burning the "waste" from "standard" reactors. They can also run on thorium.

It's not an either-or discussion? So you're going to pay for both things to happen?

Yes? Canada's solar, wind and storage capacity is all growing at double digit rates and BC just finished an enormous new set of hydropower dams.

That makes the narrative that data-centers are 'water hungry' very effective at causing unrest.

Which is probably why that narrative gets pushed so hard. You CAN build a datacentre with evaporative cooling and that will use a lot of water. You can also build one with a closed loop and radiators that doesn't use any water except for the original fill. You can even build one that's air cooled and doesn't use any water at all.

All of those options also apply to anything else that needs to be cooled, which is pretty much everything.

Scanning for Starbucks cups, flagging possible continuity errors, pose estimation and tracking for motion capture, inserting CGI, rendering, there are all sorts of boring tasks that could be automated or improved if already automated.

How can you tell how many red balls there are in the bin if you don't properly sample its contents?

Because I told you:

"a bin full of blue balls with one red ball in it"

If we dropped 8% of a system's capabilities each revision cycle, pretty soon there wouldn't be much left.

The argument that changes to support the majority use case compromise important minority ones is a reasonable one. You didn't make that argument. In what I presume was your effort to be pithy your brain cast "most" to "all" and you provided a single counterexample.