Both parties are electing extremists. This is because our voting system is broken.

Some sort of ranked choice or approval, and STV for electing more than one representative per election, would work. Unfortunately the party in charge (of either side) does not want that because it means their extremists will lose. So this likely will never be fixed.

I use left as change things quickly, break things, tear down Chesterton 's Fence, taking big chances, and right as gradually careful change, thinking about why things exist before destroying them, and be averse to risk. Trump is left of FDR in that view.

Republicans lost two presidential elections, 2008 & 2012, due to running conservative candidates. So they gave up and became a further-left party. Now Obama looks like a relative conservative .. but Clinton & Harris look conservative _too_.

Voters are insisting on left-wing presidents, with the exception of Biden because the initial leftist shock of Trump pt1 was too much to absorb.

Ah, forgot I was on slashdot, home of black and white thinking. Cool story, all wrapped up in a neat bow. If that's what gets you thorugh the day sure....let's all say (to you) it's just that simple and they were all in on it.

It's clear you've not driven something like that are are just doing the 'ol slashdot "I can figure this out from first principles".

You're not gonna see what's to either side of you when you're parked in between two other trucks or SUVs. When you're backing 8 foot of bed and 4 feet of back seat out of a parking spot before your head is in a position to see LEFT AND RIGHT you're just hoping nobody is coming/somebody sees you.

They back into spots because you need to be able to SEE to pull a 24 foot truck out of a spot. Backwards doesn't give you that visibility.

That's a very strange take. What the auto manufacturers did was not at all conspiring: they reacted to the legislation and rules in place in a rational manner, by making the choice that made the most money. Elections have consequeces.

The advantage of small reactors is that (in theory) you could build a plant with 20 or so of them. This would make them less expensive because they would all share the support infrastructure. The reason this would be less expensive than a single big reactor is that they can be individually shut down for maintenance, so a SMR that only works 50% of the time is useful, while a big reactor has to work 99.9% of the time. Obviously as you stated they also have to make SMRs work at all and at a price that is less than 1/20 of a big reactor, which has not been proven yet.

The fantasy that towns would put a single SMR in their town square or a data center will put it in their basement are just that, fantasies. But clusters could be a deal changer for nuclear.

It's transaction fees that are the problem with credit cards.

"Now that same mob has blocked me for trying to bring an intellectually diverse group of thinkers and editors to the site," Translation: "That mob blocked my mob!!!!". Sorry he lost me there, I was sympathetic earlier, but he blew it with that.

It's not clear how you can possibly think "if we take the worst people out of prison the rest of the prizoners will have better outcomes" without making the half step into understanding "our prisons aren't being run properly if prisoners like that are causing such problems for other prisoners."

There's also another thing at play for the ones who would be otherwise redeemable: most prisons are hellholes of punishment, not rehabilitation. If you choose to run a system that way do not be surprised that the likely outcome of people who have been in the system for any real lengh of time is recidivism.

So yes, you are too delusional to understand that you just made my point for me. Your entire perspective is the issue here so there's not going to be any way to get through to you.

So you're just doubling down on the same tired and unconvincing methodology. How pathetic. And predictable.

Irrelevant.