ExFed

It is.

I’d rather establish licensing/training requirements for light truck operation. Nobody likes it when someone takes away their stuff. But convince them that the only people allowed to operate such heavy machinery are “elite” and they’ll gladly take pride.

Normal passenger car driver’s licenses in most of North America have such a comically low bar because people need them for life. You lose your license, you can’t live. It’s not just harder. You physically cannot get to work, get food, meet friends, etc. It’s bonkers. Solving that problem is hard. But making sure that people who really absolutely shouldn’t be driving something as dangerous as a truck can’t get one “just because it’s cool” is a different, much easier solved problem.

I work at a father son activity centre…

That’s great!

…you would be shocked at how few women I see spending time with their own children!

I’m not at all shocked. Selfish behavior isn’t exclusive to men. Women are also deeply flawed humans.

These are US based and based on separated parents.

I provided non-anecdotal evidence, and you shit on it? What are your priorities?

Selectively observing statistics doesn’t give a good representation of real life, but shitting on other people for selectively observing statistics doesn’t help, either.

If you’ve been alive for more than 30 seconds, it’s not just anecdotal. But to appease the challenge, anyways: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-269.pdf There’s a massive imbalance between custodial fathers and custodial mothers. Even worse is the imbalance in child support negligence.

Can we please just admit that there are normal biological/social/economic/perceived/identity differences between men and women? That’s not to say all of those differences are good or desirable, or that they are without variation, but can we at least recognize the state of our world without shunning those with different viewpoints?

Yes, they are, which is why the gifting of cherry trees is such a strong symbol of friendship! Experiencing Sakura is uniquely Japanese.

The transience of the blossoms, the extreme beauty and quick death, has often been associated with mortality; for this reason, sakura are richly symbolic…

https://doyouknowjapan.com/sakura/

Both kinds of trees have blossoms. Granted, people do call ornamental cherry trees “cherry blossom trees” … but, technically speaking, a “blossom” is literally the flower of any stonefruit tree.

cherry trees and cherry blossoms are two different trees

Do you mean “ornamental” cherry trees and “fruiting” cherry trees? A “cherry blossom” (or “sakura”) refers to the flower of a cherry tree, usually of the “ornamental” variety. The article seemed fine to me.

Can’t be going and adopting kids all willy nilly, or else the adoption factories might ramp up production!

/s

Harsh words. After all, Rankine is best.

Turns out there’s a lot of historical context. Also, whether it was God or Satan who influenced David is somewhat ambiguous thanks to quirks in translation.

https://www.gotquestions.org/David-census.html

I display a clock at work that I proudly label as “Standard Time” year-round. Screw daylight stealings.

I think we’re done here.

On that we can agree.

No, let’s make that 20 years of more environmental destruction.

Okay, hold up. Just take a minute here to breathe. Nobody’s arguing against renewables. They, just like nuclear power, are a part of a healthy, diverse mix of technologies which will help displace fossil fuels. That’s the whole point: get rid of fossil fuels where we can in whatever way we can.

make the leap to nuclear … in 10-15 year’s time

We already did. 70 years ago. Then the fossil fuel industry successfully replaced existing nuclear generators with coal-fired plants.

If I was a fossil fuel lobbyist I’d be pushing new nuclear hard.

Are you seriously arguing that fossil fuel lobbyists do the exact opposite of what fossil fuel lobbyists have been recorded doing? In other words, are you trying to argue for a proven falsehood?

If so, we have a term for that: alternative facts. Go try and deceive someone else.

Cost is cost … [in 70 years] it’s not got cheaper, in fact the opposite has happened.

I suppose you must still think a loaf of bread still costs the same it did 70 years ago, too. Prices are malleable thanks to the free market … and government subsidies. Why would anyone be so anti-nuclear when it’s another valuable tool for displacing fossil fuels? Are you shilling for the oil and gas industry?

Absolutely; but it’s hard to go that deep without someone arguing about hairs and how to split them. It’s kind of stupid to be arguing which is “safer” when both are orders of magnitude better than fossil fuels. In order to successfully displace fossil fuel generation, we’ll need to emphasize all the others: nuclear, solar, wind, pumped hydro, grid batteries, geothermal, etc. None of them are one-size-fits-all. They’re all tools in the toolbox for designing an energy system that works for any given context.

That’s fair: construction workers aren’t magically able to construct more than one reactor over those 10 years. It was late at night and I also lost track of the original point of this whole thread. The study cherry-picked rooftop solar, as opposed to utility solar, in order to prove a point. Nuclear power is safe. Fossil fuels are not safe.

Also, construction of solar panels has more deaths because of the workers involved. The “construction team” adding panels to your house may be just two guys on meth. If the same two guys worked on a nuclear plant, they would have equally high fatalities. If you used the construction workers from a nuclear plant to do a basic home solar panel installation, it would virtually eliminate fatalities due to better safety.

Even if every construction worker was hopped up on whatever you can imagine, it wouldn’t even matter.

It takes 2 workers to install 10 kW in solar panels that (might) last 15 years. That’s 75 kW-years of energy per construction worker.

It takes 1200 construction workers to build a 1000 MW reactor which will operate for (at least) 50 years. That’s about 42 MW-years per construction worker, or 42000 kW-years per construction worker.

Nuclear construction could have over 500x the accident rate of rooftop solar installation and still be safer. Try again.

nuclear is fucking expensive and takes a long time to build

So what? Cost is relative to supply, demand, and political willpower. Also, I suspect it’s much cheaper than carbon recapture.

Given this, why would you be in favor of nuclear?

I think you’ve lost the point entirely. The question is “what do we need to effectively generate electricity without fossil fuels?” Nuclear is one such answer. Heaven forbid we encourage the development of more than one thing at a time.

Audio, like a lot of physical systems, involve logarithmic scales, which is where floating-point shines. Problem is, all the other physical systems, which are not logarithmic, only get to eat the scraps left over by IEEE 754. Floating point is a scam!

Return to hunter-gatherer monke.