If that's true, why does the US military make the Pu-239 that the US uses for its bombs in special reactors that don't make power? Why does Russia have special reactors for making H-3 for the Tritium boosting of their Hydrogen bombs? Oh wait, its not true and you have no idea what you are talking about. What is true is if you make a really cheap type of NPP that uses natural uranium (yellow cake) then it naturally makes a lot of Pu-239 and you can process that out rather easily. However, this plant will need more safety precautions and have more downtime than the type of reactor the US uses, makes and sells. If you use enriched fuel, you make less Pu-239 and it becomes not a very efficient way to make enriched Pu-239. If you use Th-232, then it makes almost no Pu-239 and you don't have any proliferation risk.

Current reactors (designed mostly in the 1960s) don't load-follow (that's the term for a power source that can quickly change levels). Coal doesn't load-follow either for reference. Hydro does, renewable actually make the balancing problem worse and natural gas is usually used to balance that out. You can have reactors that load follow but its just cheaper and easier to use hydro and gas for that. What makes that problem worse are renewables and any grid with more than 20% renewables is going to have problems (see Spain).

Learn what capacity factor is. Then you will realize why your calculations are hilariously off. Just for reference, solar and wind have about 3.5x the utilization cost which is what you actual pay for power. You are looking at capacity cost, and the only person who cares about capacity cost is the CFO of the utility company. That's why advocates always intentionally tell you capacity cost which doesn't matter. This is why your power bill is so much higher (about 2x) than it was 8 years ago in CA. Renewable aren't actually cheap. They just use an accounting trick to make you think they are. NPPs are still the best use of nuclear power. They were when you were born. They will be when you die. The laws of physics don't change. The only change is the name of the politician who will be lying about that because most people are scientifically illiterate and scaring people gets easy votes.

Pure ignorance. There were over a dozen workable solutions. Politicians...mostly from one party consistently tanked those ideas. There was Yucca Mountain. That would work. There was reprocessing it, that would work. There was putting making it into a glass, that worked.

What they did do at this site was put it into big blocks of concrete, this also works fine. Also, not to point out the obvious, but this storage area is on top of a 60 ft cliff. So the idea that this will suddenly fall into the sea, probably not without a pretty huge earthquake (as in 10x the size as any seen on the west coast). Of course you can just put the concrete containers on a truck and move them inland. That works too. This isn't even a hard problem.

The "major political parties" is not the same as "competing political candidates", period. The part you quoted, "Candidates", and tried equating to "major political parties", is in the title of the US code, not the text thereof, and it still isn't the same.

The "competing political candidates" could include a Republican and someone from the Green party but no Democrats, in which case the "major political parties" would not all need equal opportunities (eg. Dems could be excluded if there was no Dem candidate).

Your second comment doesn't parse. I think that's related to your misguided idea that Kimmel chose not to broadcast Talarico's interview as a means of sidestepping regulation, rather than Kimmel planning on broadcasting it and the FCC strong arming them to prevent it from airing on broadcast. Do you have ANY evidence it was the former? Do you have ANY evidence that Kimmel or ABC did not offer a spot to Paxton as well (for broadcast)?

No, Linux succeeded because BSD was held up in court. Users overwhelmingly wanted *nix on commodity PC hardware.

And you are seeing a similar disregard for the license here. Demonstrating the viability of Rust being more important than the GPL.

My point is that if we have human writers and directors providing the creativity, and the AIs providing implementations, could it be art? I think that is the core of what we have to figure out.

I am arguing in good faith here. And I am arguing about what I've seen from the inside.

Reports of police misconduct are newsworthy. Reports of police doing the correct thing are not. The "news" does not portray an accurate picture. Neither for the police nor the people of underserved communities. They don/t really talk about the members of either group doing the right thing.

Pick a topic where you are truly an expert. A day job, a hobby, something you know from sources other than the media. Now consider how badly the media portrays those. They portray everything just as badly.

You are starting to understand. The officer wants to get the whole story from the followers side. The more he talks the better. If you start off with the serious issue that is your central concern that could spook him into silence. So start with the harmless stuff that will not tip him off.

Its a public safety concern, its why the officer wants to hear the followers side of the story from the beginning.

And the officer is certainly aware of the wave of attacks on flock equipment. Hence concern over a flock employee being followed.

Separating people about to fight is also a standard technique. Preventing the violence from breaking out. But truthfully, 15 minutes of getting the guy talking to describe the events so far is not really much.

15-25 kWh drawn by the utility is quite a bit! I hope they're paying him well for that.

Nope, you are still mistaken. "Candidates" represent the political parties.

They were offered the same as Kimmel, non-broadcast venues where FCC fairness rules would not apply. Venues were Kimmel could be as partisan as he wanted to be.

They're bringing outside scrutiny into their processes; that's going to slow them down, too.

Not "at the same time". You're conflating what AI can do now with what it will likely be able to do in a year or five, or 20.

Amodei and others are worried about what AI that doesn't yet exist may do, not about what current-generation AI can do. AI is getting better, very quickly, and unless there's some blocking obstacle that no one has been able to identify will at some point become far, far smarter than humans, individually or collectively. So before that happens, we need to figure out how to make sure that superintelligent AI wants to help us, and wants to do it in the right way.

You do understand that Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency that exists, right?

Actually... that could be a great way of making good of a bad situation. Bear with me...

Use it as a honeypot for shitty cops.
Keep the Flock cameras up.
Allow bullshit to be entered into request forms.
Periodically take action on those that enter bullshit into the request forms - mass firings and barring from future service.
If we're being really nice, maybe one round of warnings first, then the firings on the next review round.
Repeat the process with stricter controls on each pass (require verified ID, require a warrant, verify the user ID passes background checks, verify the warrant is valid and applies, add a judge to the loop, etc etc..).
If/when the system is no longer used frequently enough to justify its operating costs, so be it.