areyouevenreal
@areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
- Comment on Brother accused of locking down third-party printer ink cartridges via forced firmware updates, removing older firmware versions from support portals 2 months ago:
Yeah this is terrible from a security and usability point of view. Just stop using proprietary bs systems. Why do you think so many technical people use Linux and avoid IoT devices like the plague? So we don’t have to deal with companies doing stuff we don’t like without a choice.
- Comment on Brother accused of locking down third-party printer ink cartridges via forced firmware updates, removing older firmware versions from support portals 2 months ago:
Because it’s a lot simpler and avoids the issue of dealing with printer drivers on all your machines.
- Comment on Bad UX is keeping the majority of people away from Lemmy 3 months ago:
If right wing (or even other leftist groups) came into ax explicitly tankie community and started arguing with people how would you react?
- Comment on Bad UX is keeping the majority of people away from Lemmy 3 months ago:
Is this a joke?
- Comment on Bad UX is keeping the majority of people away from Lemmy 3 months ago:
I don’t think partisan is even the right word here as many Lemmy users are too far left for mainstream political parties. In fact I am further left than most any mainstream party, but am still considered a capitalist shill by people here.
- Comment on Bad UX is keeping the majority of people away from Lemmy 3 months ago:
I don’t think anti-tankies can be blamed when said tankies regularly engage in brigading of other instances. Like is everyone actually behaved this wouldn’t have been an issue.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
Nuclear actually releases less CO2 than renewables, because renewables aren’t nearly as clean as you think they are. Those solar panels and wind turbines have to be made somehow. The things needed to make solar panels and batteries aren’t exactly great for the planet to mine and manufacture.
This concept of 100% clean energy is a myth, there are just more and less polluting sources. Nuclear being the least polluting, with fossil fuels being the worst, and renewables in the middle.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
I know manufacturing panels and batteries have a significant environmental cost. Being a net negative though I am not sure about. Could you link some sources?
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
How many of those incidents killed anyone? It’s the same with aviation, lots of incidents but few are actually fatal. We still fly everyday.
You can argue all you want but unless you have something that’s actually significantly safer then what are you going to do?
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
Yes it can. Pretending it’s that dangerous in doses normally consumed by humans in say coffee would be silly though and that’s exactly what you are doing. Like you could make a dirty bomb from spent fuel rods, but that’s irresponsible. You could build outdated and unsafe reactors, but again that’s irresponsible. You could also burn people to death using the power of the sun and some mirrors. Do you get my point?
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
That’s actually an interesting point. Maybe we shouldn’t put nuclear reactors in Germany.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
You can’t call nuclear dangerous when it’s literally safer than many other energy sources. It’s like calling Caffeine dangerous when meth exists.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
Wait are you saying that renewables have too much environmental cost to make?
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
You do know what a city is, right? The regulations on nuclear are also around population density if I remember.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
Which cities? I haven’t heard of any cities being made unlivable, only towns and villages.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
Since when? There are dams all over the place.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
While I think most of this is true, I do doubt your claim that Chernobyl didn’t cause birth defects. Even if it didn’t cause defects in humans because they were evacuated, it still caused birth defects in animals that stayed behind. I mean the thing killed a forest. It’s easier to cause mutations than outright kill something.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
There was never any real risk of ruining an entire continent. Stop watching TV shows like Chernobyl for accurate information. Perhaps some people thought that at the time, but we now know that kind of thing is impossible. It could have been a worse accident for sure if there was another steam explosion and it would have effected a wider area, but not even close to a continent lol.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
This is the way. Nuclear is actually one of the safer energy sources, and one of the more reliable. It’s also more expensive than most renewables. As always it comes down to local conditions and situations that favor one power source over another - like countries with lots of geothermal that can be exploited or solar probably won’t go nuclear.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
Yet it still has much lower deaths per energy generated than fossil fuels, and even less than some renewables. A single hydro accident can kill more people than even the worst nuclear disasters. It’s not fair to pretend that all the other sources are perfectly safe.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
A hydro damn breaking has killed more people than Chernobyl before, and probably will again. Renewables are not perfect either unfortunately. Though some are slightly safer than nuclear.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
People don’t put reactors next to cities for a reason. Meaning this scenario wouldn’t happen. Nuclear is also one of the safest energy sources overall in terms of deaths caused. It’s safer than some renewables even, and that’s not factoring in advances in the technology that have happened over the decades making it safer. This kind of misinformation is dangerous. It’s also not a good reason not to do nuclear. The reason why renewables are used more (and probably have a somewhat larger role to play in general) is because they a cheaper and quicker to manufacture. Nuclear energy’s primary problem isn’t safety but rather cost. It’s biggest strength is reliability.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
Renewables folks are also always looking for things that don’t exist. Like magical energy storage and transmission solutions that don’t cost the earth or have huge losses. Or wave power which still hasn’t materialized after decades of research.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
Breeder reactors already exist??? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_rea…
Moving electricity around is a hard problem. Even just moving energy from one end of Britain to the other looses us 10 or 20%, and we are a small nation. If you need to start moving energy in from somewhere actually sunny like Spain you are going to have a big problem.
Crypto isn’t looking for a problem, fiat has plenty of problems, it’s just not an optimal solution. Probably the real answer is not using money at all.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
The guy replied with reasonable arguments. You just don’t want to entertain that nuclear might have a place in some countries. Apparently wanting nuclear to make up less than half of energy generation is called being a shill.
Nuclear power is also not a fossil fuel. That’s ridiculous. It comes from elements naturally found on earth that are the product of nuclear fusion reactions in supernova. Not the result of plant matter decaying underground.
Do you not think there are pro-renewable lobbies too? There are lobbies for all power sources including fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables. Can you link anything that doesn’t come from a pro-renewable lobby.
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
You don’t actually need to mine more uranium though. You can run certain nuclear designs on Thorium, Plutonium from weapon stocks, or even waste from other reactors. Current generation nuclear designs are laughably inefficient at using the nuclear fuels we have available, and I fully understand why people don’t support them.
Realistically though I don’t ever expect nuclear fission to be as cheap as renewables in most areas. In some places nuclear or another power source is always going to be needed though just because renewables are not practical in certain conditions.
In the long term the answer is almost certainly going to be nuclear fusion or another future power source like neutrino voltaic. Solar and wind power are ultimately just offshoots of fusion, and so is fission if you think about where uranium, thorium and so on come from. In fact all power we know of seems to come from either gravity or some kind of nuclear reaction (inc. geothermal and fossil fuels).
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 6 months ago:
You do realize that all that is also expensive, and limited? We haven’t invented room temperature superconductors yet, and battery technology is far from perfect. There is only so much lithium and cobalt in the entire world. Yes we can now use things like sodium, but that’s a technology that’s still young and needs more research before it’s full potential is realized. There is also a reason we have overground cables and not underground. Digging up all that earth is hella expensive.
- Comment on where the magic happens owo 6 months ago:
Could honestly try a virtual machine or an emulator at that point. Would be worth a shot.
- Comment on Nahh 7 months ago:
Can someone explain what is going on here?