What is this devilry?

Never seen one before! Is that basically a filter coffee thing with the filter around all sides for convenience?

My main filter (it's the one at work) is one of these:

https://www.nisbets.co.uk/novo...

It takes a rather large paper filter. Less convenient for one cup, but it'll crank out 12, and keep them warm while cranking out 12 more.

Lower cost but not lower risk.

Why are people so I'm live with it? It's worked pretty well so far. Turns out global warming is the massive elephant in the room and will be fast now destructive than all the nuclear accidents including Chernobyl, the weapons ones and everything put together times 100. And all the major economies with lower carbon footprints have substantial nuclear energy in the mix.

Germany is the worst of all the comparable European states.

They are the worst in terms of absolute numbers and the worst in terms of improvement.

What they appear to have is a very good PR campaign based on unrealised future promises.

Is the future nuclear? Probably not too a major extent but to dismiss the efficacy up to now you kind of have to dismiss carbon dioxide as a big problem.

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 am not expressing an opinion on the morality of any party in this drama. Taken on its face, ascertaining whether the claimants were speaking wholly as private citizens or as Amazon associates is a reasonable action to take. That matters. I worked for two decades for a very large industrial company in sensitive spaces. If I had gotten in public, declared my affiliation, and proceeded to undermine the company, no matter how right I was I would have expected to be fired. Would not even have occurred to me that it shouldn't happen.

What I think also matters is whether or not their testimony was volunteered, or court ordered. If it was the latter, they should be shielded. The former? Not so much,

I think you tried to the wrong person. I was quoting the op.

For accuracy's sake the people in Titan didn't drown. Given how fast it happened they would have been simultaneously roasted and crushed.

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).

Mos sensible post I've seen in this thread. Are you sure you're on the right web site? :-)

With over 15,000 residents per square kilometer in the center of the city you wouldn't want ANY drones overhead where if they lose power, lose contact with the controller, hit something, etc. there's a high likelihood of personal injury. Now with the introduction of robot air taxis into he mix there would be even higher risk. In that sort of situation requiring permits and flight plans makes absolute sense.

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.

Apple runs about 25% profit margin overall. That's very healthy but I wouldn't call it obscene.

If you insist on calculating margin as the sales price minus unit manufacturing costs, you would be suggesting other expenses - such as R&D and employee wages - don't count.

I have an iPhone 13. It's fine. In fact, a couple of months ago I paid Apple to replace the battery in it with an OEM replacement. It was actually a pretty reasonable cost. I should be good for another few years. I'll hang on to this one until I damage it beyond repair, or they retire LTE. Because in all other ways, it's as much phone as I could possibly want.

Nissan? Isn't that Japanes?