Why on earth would you predict the same levels of traffic, though? People charge EVs at home and work. People don't fuel ICEs at home and work.
My Zoe on a PCP cost me £2k upfront and then £160 per month (electricity costs are negligible, under a fiver a week). I think that's pretty damn cheap for a new car.
Hmm, let's see if I can spot the difference between an accident mechanism which is very real and is the reason why nuclear plants spend billions on preventative and adaptive mechanisms and some made-up imaginative bollocks about solar panels that I'm going to cite for fun reasons of false equivalence. Why yes, I can. Because I'm not a complete idiot.
If I'm cuddling the kid, I'm not smoking. Just sayin'.
If only that were universal...
If a cancer doctor tells you "stop smoking" and you respond by saying "I don't have time! I'm gonna cuddle my young child instead" -- you're a muppet.
People really do seem to struggle with the word "conceivable", don't they? I know reactors have not killed that many so far (although I'll bet accident rates during construction are in line with industry average, not zero). But people aren't worried about an accident in line with historical nuclear accidents. They're worried about an accident that is *out of line*. A catastrophe. At which point, saying "how were we supposed to know? All previous accidents weren't that bad!" is really not going to cut it.
No no no. NOT "given past events as examples". I said "conceivably*, didn't I? We don't plan safety engineering on the basis that "nothing too awful has happened so far".
Why people are so obtuse on this point is quite beyond me.
A nuclear power plant accident could conceivably injure or kill tens of thousands of people and render large tracts of land off-limits for human use for centuries. That is *precisely why* great efforts are made to create safety systems that mitigate these risks, such as defense-in-depth, redundancies, over-engineering, etc etc. But pretending the underlying risk doesn't exist because it's been mitigated so far (well, the injury / death part -- large tracts of land are indeed off-limits due to nuclear accidents for centuries to come) -- that's just moronic.
I'm guessing he voted for Brexit, ie ignoring experts is core to his identity
I have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about
You really didn't need to explain that. It was perfectly apparent. I assure you, this is to do with your lack of intellect, not his lack of communication skills, what with everyone else understanding him very well.
What a pile of horsecock. Science uses adjustments to account for systemic error such as in measuring instruments the entire frigging time.
To give one example from another unrelated field:
You people who think you know something about science. You really are pathetic.
By all means, when you get cancer, go find yourself an oncologist who isn't passionate about treating cancer. Find one who doesn't give much of a shit, secure in the knowledge that their lack of passion means they'll be dispassionate in their judgements.
Except it happened. Every fricking year. So this was actually crying wolf and a wolf showing up each time.
FFS. If things go really, catastrophically wrong with a solar panel installation, how many people could it conceivably kill? One or two if it fell off a roof? Whereas, if things go really, catastrophically wrong with a nuclear power plant, how many people could it conceivably kill? Bearing in mind that no production pebble bed reactors are in operation anywhere.
Tilting at strawmen rather than acknowledging the actual safety concerns people have about nuclear makes you look like a shite imitation of Don Quixote.
The whole point of the fat man problem is to raise the question of whether there is, in fact, a moral difference. There is no definitive resolution.
In any event, you're rather missing the point of what I'm arguing: I didn't raise the trolley car to *defend* the doctor actively taking someone's life early in order to harvest organs to save another -- that doctor has behaved unethically. I raised the trolley car to point out that if everyone refrains from donating organs for fear of being killed by an evil doctor of this sort, then that ultimately causes more harm and costs many more lives. So we should:
- create systems that guard against doctors acting on the incentives to take lives too early (such incentives are small in my view, but still this should be policed)
- create systems that minimise the incentives (opt-out DNR does this by increasing the supply of organs, reducing the intensity of demand for any single organ. Increasing the supply of organs has other benefits too, of course)
- not act like dicks and thus not shout about minuscule risks while ignoring much bigger harms
- prevent more suffering and harm by being cautious about the use of close to end-of-life interventions, per Atul Gawande
Economists can certainly disappoint you. One said that the economy would turn up by the last quarter. Well, I'm down to mine and it hasn't. -- Robert Orben