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.

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.

Volume is definitely an issue. I went from a Pixel 4a to a 9a and now I can't get the volume loud enough on Bluetooth headphones. When walking, traffic noise is enough to overwhelm my headphones so that I can't hear a podcast or phone call. I have read that this is a deliberate choice to stop people damaging their hearing, but I don't think it is going to be loud enough for use on a plane.

It's so bad that there are apps to increase volume:
https://play.google.com/store/...

Nissan? Isn't that Japanes?

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.

That timeframe is ridiculous.

It it.

There's no reason why the courts can't operate more efficiently than they do other than that the lawyers and judges have no incentive to move things along.

That's conservatism for you. Turns out if you strip masses of funding from the justice system under the guise of "austerity", then it grinds to a halt. Next time a conservative insists that they are a party of "law and order" or "tough on crime", call them out for being outright liars.

The reason may be even more stupid

How much more accurate is that compared to CPU emulation in something half modern?

It's amazing how few people here get that about the pi.

Sure it has some jankiness and isn't the best bang for the buck by benchmarks, but if it can do the task you save a whole lot of time by getting something widely available and widely supported.