a lot of older nuclear plants were built in the 70s and 80s and those plants are going to be EOL even with extensions, unless we’re going to extend the lifecycle of those a second time. They should probably be decommissioned, unfortunately.
there are still going to be a lot of people who need power though. Cutting the US of AI isn’t going to magically remove coal plants from the grid, it’s going to do nothing actually. We need to be building new plants, period.
using surplus power to make steel
isn’t steel still primarily made through the coking process? Or is that transitioning to more efficient means, last i heard the barrier was efficient hydrogen generation.
there are almost certainly heuristics you can use, but these are going to be heuristics the size of the national US grid, with physics similar to how water flows through pipes. Except these pipes are dynamic and significantly less restrictive.
Plus source generation is very sparse, CCG gas plants for example generally only run when peaking, and solar only works during the day, generally, and nuclear power runs 24/7 around the clock, so it’s not quite trivial to calculate. More than likely what the heuristic they’re using here is that they consume 43% more power as a corpo, and thusly, produce 43% more CO2.
oh, and the atmosphere on venus is mostly sulfuric acid. No big deal.
who’s denying that Israel is committing war crimes like these.
ah yes, 1000 USD to anyone who can find an example of this (this post is not legally binding)
scumbag fascist state Israel
israel is literally democratic. Fascism, is a fucking dictatorship bro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Government_and_politics
Ofc I copy the piece of comment I wrote because you’re so desperate not to address those links, as your brainwashing just won’t allow you to.
it’s not the written material that i have a problem with, it’s fine, you’re the fucking problem because you keep mischaracterizing and completely ignoring what it says. It’s not my fault you’re stupid.
You keep acting like i’m disavowing what the material says (strawman btw) and then ignoring what i saw about what you’ve written, which is completely fucking asinine.
i mean originally, this was about taking photos of naked children (which i still think is weird) and then showing them to other people for the explicit purpose of embarrassing them.
It was, rather civil, if i recall. You were the one that came out swinging at me, am i not supposed to respond in kind? You don’t play with fire and then get mad when it burns you.
You keep responding too.
mostly because idk what the fuck you’re trying to say, and i’m trying to figure it out, but you keep fucking cock blocking me here. You literally could’ve said something like “80% of the parents i’ve talked to do the same thing i do” and i would’ve just accepted it. But so far you’ve really only been angry at me for thinking differently than you.
i argued that hypothetically it could’ve been a crime, i didn’t accuse you, that’s a complete mischaracterization. And just to be clear: https://ehs.cornell.edu/research-safety/biosafety-biosecurity/biological-safety-manuals-and-other-documents/bars-other/feces-and-urine-human
There is literally an entire standard for how you should be handling this shit because it’s considered a biohazard.
Bacteria and viruses that cause only mild disease to humans, or are difficult to contract via aerosol in a lab setting, such as hepatitis A, B, and C, some influenza A strains, Human respiratory syncytial virus, Lyme disease, salmonella, mumps, measles, scrapie, dengue fever, and HIV. Routine diagnostic work with clinical specimens can be done safely at Biosafety Level 2, using Biosafety Level 2 practices and procedures. Research work (including co-cultivation, virus replication studies, or manipulations involving concentrated virus) can be done in a BSL-2 (P2) facility, using BSL-3 practices and procedures.
Now to be fair, this isn’t exactly a fucking nerve agent, but in the same way that i don’t want to shit on the floor of a public bathroom, it’s definitely something i’d be conscious of if i had a kid.
I don’t think you’re stupid enough not to be aware of that, so I can come to no other conclusion that you just want to feel superior to someone.
i wasn’t arguing that it was, i was stating that it could theoretically be considered to be a crime based on it’s classifications alone.
so you wouldn’t know. And yet you keep acting like you know. The reason I posit, again, is because you want to berate someone you feel superior to.
i feel like you’re discounting how brazen you’re being about this.
Feel free to explain to me why you’re actually talking to me if not for that reason.
likewise, why not. But also, perhaps because i don’t fucking know anything about this topic.
hahaha
No. Not a fallacious fallacy. The fallacy from fallacy.
It’s really hard to know whether you’re actually so stupid you can’t help but ignore things, or if it’s something you do willfully. A mystery, truly.
i’m trolling you, you’re just stupid lmao. And no, it does work. It’s just a different fallacy. It would be using a fallacy that is in it of itself, a fallacy, i.e. fallacious. The english language is stupid, so you could even argue that it’s equivalent to “fallacy fallacy” because fallacious is just an extension of fallacy itself.
Your English is fucking horrible man. How does it feel that I know your native language better than you do?
honestly i feel pretty good considering you still keep pulling shit out of your ass and doubling back on things you’ve already said trying to make a point that doesn’t exist. It’s funny how a dumbass on the internet that doesn’t understand the english language can do a better job constructing your argument than someone who knows english can themselves. Also you don’t even know if this my native language.
Oh, so, all these recorded crimes against humanity
no, i agree that there are war crimes, the fallacy comes from the words that you type, not the words that other people wrote that you linked to, fascinatingly enough. You’re the one fucking up their entire argument by completely mischaracterizing it. You have said so little things of value that you don’t even have any examples of something you’ve said that’s fallacious to use as an example.
while being completely unable to even address any of the material I’m linking from credible sources, only managing to monger “it’s all trolling, it’s all fallacy!”
you still refuse to address most of my statements of value, phishing for the easiest ones for you to target, while ignoring literally everything else i say.
You literally have no free will and your entire life is driven by some third party entity, which ironically, is not the papers you source to, because you don’t even fucking cite them correctly.
Even a lot of literal children realise that trying to equate Israel and Palestine as being equally guilty here is not like comparing the US space program to the Soviet’s. It’s more like comparing the US space program to the Ghanan space program.
i’m not equating them.
You just can’t accept any fault on Israel’s part,
i have, numerous times. You’re just lying through your teeth here.
i like how the section you block quote doesnt even once mention the word “genocide” in it. You’re still pulling it out of your ass.
Europe is not worse than America, both have their upsides and downsides. I can say that as a Russian, and I also acknowledge the positives and negatives of living in Russia in general and my city in particular. All are good at something, and bad at something else.
are their upsides to living in russia? Seems like right now wouldn’t be a particularly good time. Really the only thing i can think of off the top of my head is piracy, and maybe some more lax internet rules. But that’s about it.
Your post pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter in completion.
yeah but that still begs the question of why even give limited access. Just put it behind the paywall, it’s not like people don’t understand what spotify is, and it gives them a better excuse for selling a service anyway.
worse bait.
Patriotism also sucks, because it implements a bias that can then be exploited, and brings very little to the table.
patriotism is a very personal thing, by the very definition of it. You simply cannot apply it outside of yourself. If you are outwardly patriotic. You have already fucked up.
I would argue there is a valid reason to have some form of special relation to your country, your country is simply, not any other existing country. If you live in estonia, you have a fully digital government. If you live in america you have one of the foundational democratic governments of modern society, as well as a particular cultural history (though turbulent, rather remarkable) as well as a particularly unusual geography and land usage. If you live in europe, you live in a moderately to high density populated area, that is highly socialized, and cooperative. Etc. Etc. Etc.
The fundamental problem here is thinking that europe is worse than america, simply because it’s different. What you’re applying here is a soviet level utilitarian “collective” identity.
Though i agree with the state level patriotism, that’s fucking weird, stop doing that.
do that but make sure it’s just, the background of the image.
the president already has immunity as well? Though i believe specifically, it’s civil immunity, which tbf is probably most of the cases that would arise.
Regardless it’s literally enshrined in the founding papers of america, that the president is not treated any different from a normal civilian. It’s a foundational part of our government.
And if you really wanted immunity. Why not provide immunity during their tenure? And not outside of it. We can’t justifiably hold our president from the prospects of criminal charges, and we don’t (privately), and haven’t (entirely) for the past 200 years. And even if they did get charged with something, it’s not like you couldn’t get a pardon. That’s what happened with nixon.
Here’s a better question though. Why would the president ever break a law, could you provide a example where it would be obviously beneficial for the president of the US to be immune (across the board) from prosecution? Because in most cases where you would argue for it, it’s already explicitly immune due to a separate exclusive immunity, rather than inclusive immunity, as this provides. At best this seems incredibly redundant, and at worst this literally removes an entire segment of checks and balances against the executive, as currently defined, it basically blanket removes a check and balance.
Why not institute some form of decorum for processing and handling criminal charges against the executive that ensure that no duties are “inhibited” without providing a total immunity, except for cases that are not currently defined. It’s not like the president doesn’t have any legal experts around him.
And while it’s true that it’s dependent on what’s classified as an “official duty” the sole discretion of that is left up to the supreme court. Which removes the independent nature of the congress performing a check and balance. Especially considering the often turbulent nature of the modern supreme court.
So angry at me and sore at losing the argument that instead of just replying with your usual garbage, you replied to three different comments of mine; one on a completely different post (so you got so mad you started stalking my profile, hahahah), then this one, and lastly in the actual thread itself.
if we’re being factually accurate here, it should be four no? You left two comments in reply to one comment i made that i split into two separate ones due to word limit. And then i responded to this one, and another one about harry potter, and possibly a fifth one, though i’d have to go check it to be sure.
Just a proudly American fool who’s denying that Israel is committing war crimes like these.
demonstrate it.
nice copy pasta btw, try harder. You’re clearly tired from being wrong so often.
You’re such a bad liar
please explain to me what you think i’m lying about, i’m very curious.
Ah, so we’re using your definition, but the definition of the UN and the actions of Israel actually fulfilling reasonable grounds for it doesn’t matter, the experts on international law don’t matter, but things you pull out of your arse do? :D
ah yes, just the colloquially accepted definition of genocide by most jewish people, and also the general public at large, as a result of the actions of nazi fucking germany. Also i find it cute how you have silently retconned from saying “confirmed genocide” to “reasonable grounds for genocide”
And again, i don’t disagree with the experts, you just completely mischaracterize what they say and then shit yourself over it repeatedly until someone quits yelling at you for being wrong.
You’re literally ignoring the fact that the world is against Israel’s slaughter of women and children, so you get to this tantrum and start kicking your foot and going “waaah, waah, no no no, Israel no bad, only hamas bad!”
“fun fact, most people don’t agree that killing people is morally good” wow aren’t you just a stand up citizen, stating the laws of nearly every fucking country in the world. And the culturally accepted moral status of murder globally across the world, wow look at how far you’ve come.
Again, i am also against this, i have literally said as much. You’re just fucking stupid and refusing to acknowledge it.
The following are quotes of things that i have said, in this conversation:
did i mention the israeli settlements in westbank/gaza (however that works) because if not, why the fuck are they there? Yet another anti-israeli point for you to wrap your head around.
Oh look, another question you haven’t asked yet which btw, yes israel is comitting war crimes, and so has hamas. It’s almost like answering actual questions is, rather easy.
And this is just the first page of comments on my profile. You can almost certainly find more if you actually look through my history. But you won’t.
Then you go on a tiresome tirade about how you see “fallacies”. It’s rather entertaining, really, watching a kid like you larp understanding debating. That’s why I’m still in this thread. People like you disgust me, but it’s that sort of morbid type of disgust in which I’m sort of intrigued by it. Your willfull ignorance is psychologically interesting.
my brother not in christ, you have sealioned me this entire debate, and then without a hint of irony, you accused me of sealioning, even though clearly, you’re significantly more aggressive on me answering your questions, than i am on your answering my questions. WHICH MIGHT I ADD, IS BECAUSE YOU FUCKING IGNORE THEM.
following pulled from an actual philosopher. Something you would be deeply unfamiliar with.
American academic philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong discussed the term in his book Think Again: How to Reason and Argue, saying:
Internet trolls sometimes engage in what is called ‘sealioning’. They demand that you keep arguing with them for as long they want you to, even long after you realize that further discussion is pointless. If you announce that you want to stop, they accuse you of being closed-minded or opposed to reason. The practice is obnoxious. Reason should not be silenced, but it needs to take a vacation sometimes.
Your willfull ignorance is psychologically interesting
bro if you think willful* ignorance psychologically is “interesting” I regret to inform you that i don’t even yell at you to gather interesting information about you, because literally everything you’re doing right now is an already documented existing form of fallacy, or trolling. There is nothing else here.
And besides, willful ignorance is a well studied concept since at least the beginning of science. Probably well before it. Stoicism in some capacity is primarily based on willful ignorance. There are entire fucking religions based on the ignorance of modern society, and it’s methods of operation. In fact, there is an entire disorder on the schizophrenia spectrum that is primarily related to willful ignorance of most things not immediately relevant to an individual.
Yeah, people like you. People who act in this way,
as defined by what strict standards? Because you cannot be the one to define them. As that would be a conflict of involvement. For one thing, that’s dehumanization. A tale as old as racism. Secondly the entire purposes for the definition of my “actions” is to argumentatively enclose me into your small framework of the world. Because you don’t have the mental capacity to conceptualize anybody thinking outside of three cubic meters of physical space. And unfortunately for you, i am unbound by physical space. I could literally just start saying “israel is committing genocide against palestine” “death be to israel” tomorrow if i so pleased, and you could do nothing about it.
Which is what you’re doing, and which is what I talked about through-out this thread
it’s throughout, though i suppose that could be a regional difference huh?
you being the case in point
you ever stop to think about the everlasting effects of the dunning kruger effect? Yeah me neither. Good thing i’m not making any assertions on anything.
I hate genocide deniers
yet curiously, you defined it earlier as “grounds for genocide happening” weird how you slip in and out of frameworks isn’t it? Almost as if my technical accuracy has tainted your restricted framework so much that you’re working between two different frameworks entirely.
maybe Google “fallacy fallacy”, unless you’re still pretending not to know how to Google. :DD)
the fallacious fallacy is a good one. Curiously, i never stated that your argument was wrong due to use of fallacies, i just pointed out that you used fallacy commonly. Because fallacy is a rather weak rhetorical device that can almost always be applied retroactively due to the sheer amount of them out there. Your argument is wrong because it’s fucking bad. Your entire argument rests on the basis of one statement being worded in a specific way, meaning something that it does not. The ONE argument that you have is that “according to the ICJ and UN courts, Israel has “committed genocide”” even though the rulings you cite do not fucking say that.
Israel is a war criminal
wow look, something i’ve agreed up three fucking times, from the first time you mentioned it.
and you are defending it.
please, demonstrate it. This would be libel if it weren’t for the fact that you were demonstrably wrong.
And yet, curiously i’ve not once heard you mention anything else i’ve mentioned that would also count as genocide under your own definition of genocide.
ah cool, still terrible.
I don’t think you are trying to figure out what I mean because I just explained to you what I meant and instead of responding to that, you berated me once again.
bro i literally asked you what you meant by a park and you said almost verbatim “a fucking park dumbass, what the fuck else do you think i mean”
I think what you’re trying to do is find someone to constantly berate to make yourself feel superior and you found someone.
you literally keep responding to me, idk why you’re saying that. You have a family (i assume), clearly im a dumbass that just doesnt understand anything and is trying to piss you off. Then why do you keep responding?
i think comparing nuclear to renewables is irresponsible at face value. Nuclear energy and renewables pair together extremely well, and i feel as if we should be building nuclear to satisfy the hard challenges of renewables, while building renewables to augment nuclear.
Nuclear is a base load power plant, of which nothing but very few hydro plants are capable of accomplishing, most nuclear plants have an extremely high capacity factor, i’ve even seen some operating at 100%+ Solar pairs extremely well with residential cooling throughout the summer, providing cheap power when most needed. While also pairing reasonably well with heating in the winter, since you want it colder at night anyway. Though you would have a relatively low draw in the morning heating up your home throughout the day until the evening when you stop heating it, or possibly even earlier.
The main reason i mentioned a second extension is that im not sure its even possible, legally speaking it would have to be approved, and they’ve already approved one extension, so it might very well be “EOL, legally speaking” by now.
Nuclear plants almost alleviate energy storage problems with renewables, if not alleviate, because most nuclear plants (modern ones) also have some capacity of thermal battery, meaning they can operate some level of peaking. (more than likely just using it for augmenting renewables though)
They are extremely expensive to build, however, that makes them very apt for subsidies and government spending. It’s also relatively insured power production after having been built, considering that you can run them for 30 years, minimum. Maintenance costs are relatively high, but modern plants are a lot simper than they used to be, and i’ve seen pretty reasonable price estimates out of designs like the SSR, though they have the downside of not existing yet.
It seems like the future of nuclear reactors is going to be either, molten salt pool reactors, or molten metal type pool reactors. Either using lead or a eutectic mixture of lead and bismuth. Like russia is currently developing.