That’s guilt by association. Their viewpoint is awful.

I also wished there was no security at the gate of concerts, but I happily accept it if that means actual security (if done reasonably of course). And quite frankly, cute anime girl doing some math is so, so much better than those god damn freaking captchas. Or the service literally dying due to AI DDoS.

Edit: Forgot to mention, proof of work wasn’t invented by or for crypto currency or blockchain. The concept exists since the 90’s (as an idea for Email Spam prevention), making their argument completely nonsensical.

Never before has anyone accomplished to make me want to throw a whole library in its entirety at them, including the building. Good job.

How are they supposed to do that, push someone out of an airplane “for scientific purposes” to see what happens?

Naah, was just early in the morning and I didn’t caught the joke.

Except water becomes incredibly hard if being hit with too much speed. If there’s vegetation next to it and you’re at (or close to) terminal velocity you might want to land there instead. There are confirmed cases of people surviving a fall into vegetation after their parachutes didn’t open.

A strong FDP hurts us as badly as the CDU/CSU does. They’re equally corrupt and opportunistic. Without the nazi threat they’d arguably even be worse given the conservatives at least can be convinced into neccessary investments by now, while the FDP would “privatize” their own child. However since both parties are very close to jumping into bed with nazis there really isn’t a worse one right now.

It’s important for all three of those parties to be weak if we want to tackle the big problems.

In a proper democracy shit like this would lead to people voting for a party with the same values as the mayor but without the infighting. Hell, perhaps the mayor would even jump ship themself. This pressure then forces the corrupt party to either fix themselves or vanish.

In Germany we got enough parties so they can completely tank for a while for doing stupid shit, then recover organically. The Greens did that, The Left just recovered, the Libertarians… hopefully never recover. Well, except for the conservatives/right-wing 'cause old as well as pissed off people do not properly think about it anymore (conservatices just lose because old people are dying). An inherent issue with democracy you’re completely at the mercy of.

A 2-Party system simply can’t properly work.

“It never happened before, therefore it will never be.”

That’s what people keep saying. And then shit happens, because it always does.

I always realize how bad this is when I go to the hardware store. Other than any other place I go to, it got a HUGE parking lot in front that’s just an asphalt wasteland with no tree in sight. The increased heat is immediately noticeable.

Given fascism currently focuses on trans and black/non-white people and actively tries to separare them from the community: Yes. Yes it did.

What the hell is a “Liberty University”? Do I even want to know?

We can also solve the risk of Kessler syndrome. Send catgirls / -boys to space, they’ll push every object out of orbit.

To be clear, nuclear isn’t inherently bad. Indeed it will most likely be very important to massively reduce CO² emissions quickly and cover bigger chunks of the base-load of our energy infrastructures. However to argue that nuclear could be cheaper or even a replacement for renewables is just completely and utterly wrong. Neither can it be less expensive in any universe, nor is it able to replace renewables since nuclear reactors are very slow regulators (indeed the slowest - they’re best at delivering a lot of power constantly). Meanwhile solar can literally be simply switched off, and “rotating” renewables be turned into or out of wind / water flow / whatever else.

To quote some studies, this one from the Deutsche Bank has the following to say:

For nuclear power plants, different statements on the LCOE can be found in the existing literature. The U.S. investment bank Lazard estimates it at about 14 to 21 US cents per kWh for new nuclear power plants (in the US; for comparison, onshore wind power: 2.4 to 7.5 US cents per kWh). The cost of treating radioactive waste is explicitly not included here. In its latest Word Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency (IEA) put the LCOE for nuclear power plants in 2030 at 10 US cents per kWh in the US, 12 US cents per kWh in the EU, and 6.5 US cents per kWh in China. Wind and solar power are cheaper in all three countries/regions. For the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant that is under construction in the UK, the operator has agreed a guaranteed power purchase price of 10.7 pence per kWh. The LCOE of investments in extending the operating lives of existing nuclear power plants is significantly lower than that for new nuclear power plants. According to an IEA study from 2020, they ranged from less than 3 to less than 5 US cents per kWh.

Meanwhile the World Nuclear Report focuses on the LCOE which might be better suited for comparison (and even that says nuclear is 2 to 3 times more expensive) and points out massive delays and problems with nuclear reactor projects.

All of this doesn’t include the dependency problems (only very few countries can produce refined uranium rods), and even specifically excludes the long-term costs. And “It’s cheaper if you remove lots of the regulation on the most powerful and dangerous technology humanity ever developed” is probably the worst take one can have. Just as a reminder, the very reason for the almost total blackout on the Iberian Peninsula (Spain & Portugal) recently was due to miscommunication and a lack of proper regulation. It wasn’t the renewables (the power stations that started the cascade were mostly fossils, and the energy companies didn’t care enough to keep sufficient reserves that day), no matter how much right-wing media wants you to believe that. Enormous, continental grids would become unstable if we build it upon badly regulated nuclear reactors.

Still far away from commercial viability though, nothing we can count on right now.

Personally I see this rift in the trans community rather often (although not as much right now anymore, there isn’t much room for controversial arguments when being threatened from ‘outside’). On one hand the absolute majority will tell you that they “wished to be born in the right body”. On the other hand many dislike or even reject science into how being trans happens (like this study) out of the very reasonable fear that it will be used to, again, pathologize our existence or outright eradicate us. I’ve heard similar hard questions and controversial discussions from other communities over the years as well. They usually somewhat reach academic circles at best but are never really discussed in public.

In the end it boils down to what the ulterior motive behind the science or technology is; care for- or eradication of humans (or their natural expression). And of course where we out the line between the definition of diversity and illness, something society has a really bad track record for.

Hate to break it to you, but nuclear power isn’t cheap, that crown goes to the renewables (unfortunately even fossils are cheaper than nuclear). Arguably rather reliable and ‘acceptably’ clean though (if used in good locations with sufficient cold water and with modern technology & proper recycling concept).

Edit: After looking up the most current studies regarding nuclear power I found out that by now fossils are indeed more expensive than nuclear (although nuclear usually gets calculated without the costs of permanent waste storage, so… who knows). So disregard what I said about that. 🙃

Unless you have conducted all the experiments leading to that theory yourself, which i doubt, because you don’t have particle accelerators readily available, you will have a basis of “scriptures” and “scholars” whose judgement you trust and follow.

That’s nonsense. The difference is that you can conduct all those experiments on your own, and every further experiment is based upon earlier discoveries creating a chain of rationality. Also, if something is proven to be wrong or phenomenally unlikely we adapt our worldview to those facts, not the other way around. What’s trusted is the scientific method, not individuals and what they wrote. Some scientists simply become more trustworthy as their track record for applying the scientific method is immaculate, both by making discoveries as well as happily accepting when their assumptions were wrong. A well educated and critical mind is absolutely capable to read most studies and get a general understanding of its quality (of course those about particle physics require more knowledge than those about homeopathy). Meanwhile with religious texts it’s inherently impossible to come to any sensible conclusion that isn’t derived from yourself and your own opinions and emotions.

tl;dr Science and Religion are inherently incomparable as one derives truth from systemic processes and measurable facts, while the other derives “truth” from everyone’s worldview and emotional state of individuals. There’s no inherent reason to believe the latter (some random thing about some god).

Bad people instead suffer eternal tinnitus I guess.

More rare than an i5-8600 and probably becomes rather rare as time moves on.

If it was this easy we wouldn’t have so many problems. Or, you know, discussions about assisted suicide in cases of untreatable and unavoidable suffering in order to respect human dignity.

Sometimes the pain is here to stay. We all get old, health is a precious privilege and the power doctor’s are wielding is unfortunately limited.