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...

True, misinformation coming from "trusted" sources is much more damaging than some idiot with a blog posting nonsense, simply by the fact that it's framed as something trusted by so many others.

False dichotomy. Nobody here is talking about an idiot with a blog posting nonsense.

False information coming from sources that "look" trustable but are actually not are very damaging - on purpose, as that is literally the intent.

Incomplete/biased information from trustable sources that are not deliberately attempting to mislead (as in sources that adhere to the ethics of not presenting information that is factually false, even if the picture is not "complete" as you suggest) is a slight wrong, and has existed since the dawn of the printed word - it's editorial in nature - but its effects on creating social problems pales in comparison to weaponized disinformation campaigns.

Hand-wringing about the later as if it's some kind of new thing, or something most people don't know about strikes me as super naive. The insidiousness of the former is simply that people don't appreciate the scale to which it's happening.

At some point, it stops being a mob and starts being a vote. And while it makes sense to not allow people to drag random folks onto the platform just to vote your way, it doesn't make sense to limit voting on an important issue to the 0.1% of users who pay close enough attention to notice. So I can see both sides on this one.

Maybe the right thing to do is to require a certain level of activity to earn the right to vote, then dump the canvassing rules. That way, any canvassing would only serve to increase turnout, rather than truly padding the ballot box.

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.

No, but treating two wrongs as the same degree of wrongness is pretty dumb.

Or just shit like this: https://www.wsj.com/business/m...

No, forwarding doesn't work either. For both reply and forward, all you get is the dividing line and the header info of the original message (sender, recipient, date, etc).

Switching to new Outlook works, but then that comes with the bunch of other issues that makes me stick with legacy Outlook. That said, the previous update to this broken one also seems to have resulted in a bunch of missing emails, even after rebuilding my profile in a different folder and verifying that I can see them in new Outlook and in the browser via OWA. An older version of Outlook on a different Mac that can't be upgrade due to it running on Big Sur has no such problems. I think Microsoft just aren't testing legacy Outlook properly anymore and rolling back to known older versions is difficult with their continuous delivery approach (or at least I don't know where to download the installers from for older versions).

Doesn't even need time code. FCP lines up the files by matching the audio, mostly, IIRC. Also AFAIK, digital cinematography is pretty much the norm at this point, so film likely doesn't factor in most of the time.

Final Cut Pro can already basically do that, and has been able to do that for several years. Just create a multicam workflow and tell it to synchronize by audio. Not sure how well it works if you're dealing with hundreds of short takes though; I've only used it to line up hour-long continuous shots.

Then again, as cheap as storage is, I'm not sure why anybody actually stops the cameras and audio recorders anyway. If you want to have a private conversation, you can always step off the set and do it in a hallway or whatever.