That doesn’t mean all fact checks are bullshit, just that fact checkers are people with jobs and opinions too.

Gee, it’s almost as if their religion’s name patron had preached to love and forgive each other and aid the poor and downtrodden. Crazy thought.

Say what you want about al Qaeda, but at least they know they’re evil

I’m pretty sure they think they’re the good guys.

Everybody is the hero in their own movie.

Kinda. I set my office hours in outlook, so people see if I’m available. I mostly don’t actually work at unusual times. But I can, if necessary. What’s more important is that I don’t answer work calls outside my hours, unless it’s one specific co-worker or I know in advance that a certain thing may require my attention.

I don’t understand how people can live like this and not consider emigration.

I have flexible hours. What it means is not that I’m reachable around the clock, but that I decide when I work and am reachable.

Nuclear has never been profitable without massive government subsidies and guarantees, and Google Kairos too will either manage to collect those or lose money.

It’s unclear how Google and Kairos set up the deal — whether the former is providing direct funding or if it just promised to buy the power that the latter generates when its reactors are up and running. Nevertheless, Kairos has already passed several milestones, making it one of the more promising startups in the field of nuclear energy.

I guarantee you, they are shouldering on none of the risk (like the Chinese and French at Hinkley Point), and this startup will be going down.

Nuclear is only competitive if you don’t factor in the negative externalities ( it has that part in common with fossil fuels) and the massive amount of government guarantees and subsidies that go into each and every plant.

Nuclear accidents are not insurable on the free market, that should tell you everything. If they were and owners had to factor in a market based insurance price, that alone would be so astronomically high that no investor would ever touch nuclear.

So governments guarantee to pay for damages in case of nuclear incidents. Governments bear the cost of waste disposal. Governments bear the cost of security (as in military /anti terrorism measures, because these things are awesome targets). Governments pay huge amounts of direct subsidies or take on debt via government owned companies to cap consumer prices. None of this is factored into electricity prices, none of this is factored into most studies.

If small nuclear plants are so impractical, why is Google funding seven of them?

Because, again, google won’t ever have to foot the actual bill. Also, google has a history of investing into things that don’t work out, so I wouldn’t necessarily cite them as an authority.

Edit: We don’t even know if google is actually “investing” anything here. They only say they agreed to buy power.

It’s unclear how Google and Kairos set up the deal — whether the former is providing direct funding or if it just promised to buy the power that the latter generates when its reactors are up and running.

Windows isn’t any less vulnerable now than 1 week after end of support.

So the UNIFIL report just doesn’t mention the combat taking place so close to their base that an Israeli tank accidentally backed up into their main gate during retreat?

Yeah, sure.

I keep hearing about micro nuclear reactors

They are not becoming a thing and they are an asinine idea from the start. It’s basically decentralizing something that can only profit from centralization as it requires massive amounts of infrastructure for safety and security reasons in each location.

Nuclear is the most expensive way to make electricity and that will not change anytime soon.

So, basically like a massive UPS with some physical, local energy storage. Here’s hoping these will become practical in the near Future.

They are practical, and they are already being built.

I drive by 3 different pickup stations during my commute and there’s one in walking distance from home. I invest maybe 5 minutes of my time to pick something up. For that I never risk having anything stolen, damaged or misplaced and no driver has to look for parking in my street and climb the stairs to my door.

No idea what you’re doing in your precious time that that seems like such a bad investment to you. That sounds even more ridiculous when I think about how much my parent’s time was “disrespected” when they had to go to a store to get their stuff.

The fact of the matter is that home delivery is not a sustainable model in a world where everybody orders so much stuff online. Drivers are overworked and underpaid, and if that were fixed you would be the first to complain about higher shipping rates.

I would not buy from someone who used a parcel service that just dumped my stuff outside.

Does it work out for you? I’m German, and in theory the sticker has to be respected here too, but in my experience a lot of junk mail bets on me being too lazy to sue them.

Where would that be?

Quoting myself from another answer:

This paper takes it’s data from a survey in Finland, so I believe it should use the Finnish power mix in it’s conclusions or at least compare to it.

And while the study seems to make sense, the article is just awful clickbait.

“I actually played Bloodlines 1 quite recently, and it is a good game, but it is also an old game, and there are many things that would not fly today,”

No new Heather. I guarantee it. Also, there will be a shitstorm about it.

This paper takes it’s data from a survey in Finland, so I believe it should use the Finnish power mix in it’s conclusions or at least compare to it.

Also, even using 100% coal power an EV emits less CO2 than an ICE car over the same distance. It comes down to rich people emitting more CO2 in general, which was known, and I don’t see the need for the focus on EVs. Smells like click bait conservatives are gonna abuse in their BS “EVs have higher emissions than ICEs” arguments. OP already made that mistake.

Edit: The article title is click bait. The actual research paper is titled

But can it drive to Lapland? A comparison of electric vehicle owners with the general population for identification of attitudes, concerns and barriers related to electric vehicle adoption in Finland

which makes more sense.

Uyghur slave labor should not be seen as the solution to our emission problems. Tariffs are the right thing here, albeit for the wrong reasons.

Mozilla’s model would only “do something for privacy” if it replaced what we have today. Not if it just ran alongside the others. That’s not absurd, it’s reality.

That’s not what this is. Neither Mozilla, nor anybody else, has any data tied to you.

That’s the kind of data companies like Meta and Google (I’m sure among others I don’t know) track and use to sell ads today . That is their entire business model. And they will not stop it of their own free will for an alternative that gives them less useful data than they had before.

Mozilla’s model does nothing for privacy unless legislation forces companies to quit the current more invasive kind of tracking. But if it did that, we would have won and wouldn’t need Mozilla’s model either.