Still not really the point. If by to "move away from nuclear" you mean closing existing plants early, you might have a point. However if you just mean not building new ones that it really seems like you do not. New renewables go up fast, and they are operational essentially immediately. A nuclear plant produces no power until after "first light" when it is 100% complete. A 10% complete wind or solar farm produces 10% of the power. If you only complete 70% of it then have to stop for a decade, the farm produces 70% for that decade.

Synthetic jet fuels would be a parallel goal of course. Ideally as much of aviation as possible would be swapped with electric. Using swappable metal-air primary batteries (for example aluminum-air) and and efficient flying V plane designs (which have the added advantage that they naturally have enough volume relative to weight capacity that the airlines simply can't stuff people in like sardines) has the potential to make 80% of plane routes all electric (and still just as fast as current commercial airliners). The remaining 20% would be routes that require higher altitude flights to avoid turbulence over certain mountain ranges or certain storm patterns.

I am pretty sure pretty much everyone in this discussion is aware of it though. In any case, it is a serious indictment of fossil coal (not a problem for the synthetic stuff I mentioned though, since the only elements in it would be carbon and any radioactive carbon in it would have come from the atmosphere to start with anyway), but coal wasn't really a consideration in this discussion in the first place. I will certainly concede that "it's not as bad as coal" is actually a good argument when we already have coal under consideration. So, coal being a bad idea seems like something we can all agree on.

Regardless of Hollywood context though, it's pretty much undeniable that what the original poster said about the catastrophic nature of something going wrong is correct. There is, in fact 880 tons of what they are calling corium barely kept cool by constant pumping of water underground in Fukushima right now. The place needs something like 50 megaWatts to pump and filter the water, ventilate and maintain negative internal air pressures, oh and maintain a massive zone of frozen ground! They have only just now started removing the spent fuel rods that weren't even involved in the meltdown. They can't even realistically start on the actual cleanup until what they now say will be 2037 (that is likely to be pushed back) and that job is not expected to be completed for a century.

Given that sort of thing, I think it is reasonable for someone to point out that, when a wind turbine goes wrong, the consequences aren't quite so massive or require so much trouble to clean up.

Now, some of the new designs do indeed deal with some of those problems. Like the whole thing with needing constant power to avoid a catastrophic failure, or the pooling of spent fuel into a critical mass. That's definitely a good thing if any get built, but it doesn't remove the concerns for people who have been told repeatedly that this sort of thing literally can't happen again before it happens again.

Personally, at this point, any such concerns are on the back burner for me. I think the safety questions and the waste disposal problems that have lingered for nearly a century at this point are frustrating, but they are simply not showstoppers for me. My problems with nuclear power focus primarily on speed and agility and nuclear power is not fast or agile. Renewables quite simply seem to be faster and more versatile, not to mention, until someone proves otherwise, cheaper.

As for SMRs specifically, my concerns boil down to economies of scale and essentially the square cube law. Everything suggests that SMRs produce less power per unit of pretty much everything involved. The reactor cores don't produce as much thermal energy for their size relative to larger cores in the first place. Then, while some things in the rest of the plant may scale down linearly with the size of the core, many things do not, so there needs to be more overall plant for the actual rate of power produced. Plus refueling schedules, etc., etc. Ultimately, they seem to mostly exist at this point to draw in investment. Most nuclear scientists whose careers aren't riding on this will tell you that SMRs aren't really practical except for niche applications.

That is a pretty loaded statement.. Let's not forget that the anti-nuclear stance of Greenpeace was mostly about nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons testing. Even the single guy, who isn't generally considered a "founder" (let alone multiple founders) by anyone other than himself (or all the people who quote him as the founder or multiple founders to promote nuclear power). Basically, there are 7 founders from the original committee and then 2 more who were involved in the Green Peace name and in directing the committee. Patrick Moore, the "founder" you're talking about wasn't on the committee, wasn't originally a director, didn't name the organization, and, even if he counted as a founder, would only be 10% of the founders. He was an early member and was on the first boat trip, and was an early leader and was there as the organization grew and renamed to Greenpeace. There is another claimant to being a founder, Paul Watson who formed a breakaway organization who never went pro-nuclear power. Ultimately, there are dozens of early members with similar bona fides to Moore who could make a roughly equal claim to him to be a founder. ) Moore was a guy who left Greenpeace after a dispute over chlorine policy (as a tipping point anyway, he was apparently pretty autocratic and didn't get along with people), then failed in his business and realized he could make a career out of selling himself to lobbying firms as a "Greenpeace founder". He started with promoting the clear cutting of old growth forests for logging companies. He expanded from there, eventually to nuclear power. He also moved on to climate change denial, including claims that it's actually good for the planet.

Basically he's a sellout who went into PR and "crisis management" who helps companies green wash. This is the guy who had an interview where he said you could drink a whole quart of glyphosate and "it wouldn't hurt you." to which the interviewer replied "We have some here. Do you want to drink it?" to which he replied "I'm not an idiot!" and stormed out. So, in other words, someone who literally can't swallow his own story.

Basically at present, nuclear is pretty much doomed to be relegated mostly to niches for the foreseeable future because there seem to be better alternatives.

People taking uncalibrated and unverified stuff and claiming life-changing benefits are why we are testing this in the first place.

> but can be largely controlled by the clinician/therapist/shamanic guide

From what I can tell this is a drug user myth, and one of the reasons these drugs are a drop in the bucket compared to other illegal drugs. A "trip sitter" is certainly a good idea, to avoid people hurting themselves as a result of drug-induced beliefs, but they won't save you from randomly having a bad trip, and once users have had a couple of those, they lose enthusiasm for the drug. LSD and friends are less affected by user expectation than other illegal drugs/alcohol.

"We should be moving away from coal" is a good argument. Absolutely we should be moving away from coal. But that argument is orthogonal to what we should be building for new power generation aside from that we shouldn't be building coal power (not fossil coal anyway, though there is an interesting argument for capturing CO2 from the ocean to make what would essentially be pure carbon synthetic coal to be used as carbon-neutral to slightly carbon-negative third or fourth tier power storage and burned for power with iron-oxides to avoid burning any atmosphere nitrogen and producing only pure CO2 as exhaust). Since the actual context was safety standards and how they needed to be tighter for nuclear because of how catastrophic things could be if things go wrong, then contrasting with coal power wasn't really appropriate.

Well, certainly you can't trust what he says or does. I was just pointing out that the claim that allies lined up behind the US and Israel against Iran was a bit odd because they didn't and Trump has been attacking them for it. He seems truly confused about the purpose of NATO and the obligations of its members.

None of which requires bypassing downloading the actual, current page in favor of whatever tokenized version the AI model has.

I have also worked with implementing right to know and can attest that some companies take it very lightly and are one annoyed customer away from a very stressful and potentially expensive process.

I also helped push Spotify to implement listening history across devices with a DSAR, after first asking politely and getting the answer that it "wasn't a feature they were prioritizing".

All credit to our Austrian backgammon developer. More people should be like that.

I explicitly said that it almost certainly isn't happening because of the lack of selection pressure.

Once again, they don't kill remotely enough birds, so there is indeed no filter. We do not disagree on that. If, however, somehow it were an issue then there are numerous existing features, behavioral or otherwise, that would be selected for. I named a bunch of them. They already exist, natural selection would just make them more prevalent. None of them are magic, they mostly fall under existing avoidance instincts.

Sure, although there is some possibility of some birds thinking they can roost on them.

I think you may have gotten it into your head that I'm disagreeing with more of what you're saying than I actually am. The only real disagreement here is about existing instincts and other genetically coded factors that would be concentrated by selection pressure if any real, significant selection pressure existed from wind turbines.

Not actually correct. License plate laws in various jurisdictions go back to at least the late 1700's.

Yes, it's crazy to believe that many police are not trained in the art of pretexting. If they use the right magic words, they can justify their actions.

As for videos, as an aside, the ones where they are yelling orders at a deaf person who isn't facing them are usually pretty heartbreaking. Just in general people apply some pretty impossible standards to people in police interactions. Quite aside from conflicting orders, basic human psychology tells you that in incredibly stressful situations like having a gun pointed at you, many people will lose the ability to comply. While it's not a pointed gun, watching videos of people walking across glass bridges over canyons shows this pretty clearly. When faced with the prospect of imminent death, even with a supposed safeguard such as "1000's have people have walked across this without falling off", or "if you just comply no one will shoot you" some people can handle it, but some people can not, they collapse, become incapable of responding to their surroundings, even freak out and violently react to people touching them sometimes. For some people, they're even fine one minute, they something breaks. Ultimately, the expectation of perfect compliance in a police action, especially with guns drawn is actually an unrealistic standard to apply across the board.

The rarity runs into a sampling problem though. There were five officers directly involved, and all took part. Now, obviously in that case there was a systemic problem, so that anecdote doesn't mean that 100% of officers everywhere would take part in those actions. It is notable though that, in virtually all of these incidents, it's not just one single random officer acting alone, but rather a group acting in concert. There are definite reasons for this aside from concluding that 100% of all officers would participate, but that means that you have to isolate the reasons why the officers in these cases don't act like randomized individuals. When people complain about these things, it's those systemic issues they are looking to address.

Also, I think you are making a mistake saying that it's "extremely rarely the fault of the police for a bad outcome". Many of the cases of bad outcomes, when carefully examined often show numerous mistakes by the police. Examining those mistakes and trying to correct them is a basic part of quality assurance.

It's weird that you read that statistic and appear to think: "Yikes, that's a lot of people attacking the police" while I look at it and say "what the hell were the other 60% doing that they were shot for?"

If it hasn't happened already, it seems like it's bound to. Of course, when it does, no matter the actual situation, someone, or many someones will explain how it's entirely the fault of the completely innocent person because they didn't comply and never wonder why a completely innocent person suddenly apparently turned into a dangerous desperado who had to be shot entirely through their own fault.

I think it's pretty clear that this system is not random and it's not just using the pure URL as a cue. It is actually browsing for the website, just not on the actual servers, rather the compressed copy that exists in the AIs model. It regurgitates that and fills in and reinterprets the missing detail. So, this is more like you dial a number, then it looks up whose number it is and all the people who could be answering the phone, then simulates that person using whatever information it has in its model about that person.

The fact of the matter is that it sounds a lot like it is actually loading the website, just not directly from the server. This is just another form of caching. AI models are mostly just a lossy way of compressing the input data, which includes basically the whole web. It's highly unlikely this is creating a web site from scratch, it's just coughing the compressed data about that site up from the model and filling in and/or re-interpreting. Yeah, whoever thinks this is useful is an idiot.