🦘min0nim🦘

Removed by mod

Three men walk into a bar. The American says, “actually that’s only 1 3/23 men in FreedomTM units”.

I’m not being facetious or unkind here, but for many 10’s of thousands of years we have been developing meaningful social circles by seeing people in person. Just give it a go!

It’s a big WHOOOSH, but I actually do respect all the people getting as far as reading ‘https://twit…’… and saying ‘fuck that’.

No. Hydrogen peroxide is the best disinfectant. Beats sunlight by a long long margin.

Bleaching Nazis on the internet is basically what OP is calling for, and by your own analogy, they’re right.

Dude. It’s an app, not your wife.

Maximally hilarious.

The whole premise of ads on Twitter is that they’re targeted.

IBM don’t sell consumer crap. They sell smoke and mirrors to major governments and industry. They’re chasing jobs worth millions per pop. They want ads to target the people making those decisions.

The good old Google way. I’ve no idea why so many people are so willing to hand over everything to them. Say what you like about Apple, but at least they’re not selling your personal info.

Weird take, what’s your beef? They most certainly do slap on huge fines, and are much more aggressive about enforcing privacy requirements than the US/etal.

This is kinda like cursing the worlds fastest sprinter for just not running fast enough.

Exactly. It’s all sympathy for the devil platitudes.

I don’t see this being very popular in Australia. It misses the mark for why people buy a Ute or dual cab here.

And what is your point exactly?

In the 2019 mega-fires, Sydney hit a max of over 2,500.

It can get a lot worse yet…

Checking sources twice is something you should do from a news agency that is actually reputable. As in it trades on being honest and accurate.

You’re not obliged to read everything from an outlet that has no track record of honesty and integrity simply because you’ve been beaten around the head with the internet ‘logical fallacy’ meme one too many times.

Thinking that everything you read on the internet should be worth your time to fact check is the ultimate logical fallacy.

You can do this but it makes them even more expensive, because you’ve built an expensive plant for operational capacity that you don’t use.

We should be load following with storage, not nukes.

In places where this has been studied extensively renewables with storage are still the cheapest by a long way. Australia has the whole state of South Australia (plus Tasmania) as a test case. SA has transitioned to almost 100% renewable supply in under a decade.

We have a cost effective, distributed, redundant, easy to build solution. SMRs are not proven in cost or reliability. They should be studied and trialed, but not at the expense of acting responsibly today.

Not gaming (obviously!) but the2019 MacBook Pro has a 140W USB-C charger to a single port.

Thanks for the tip. Their Orion browser looks pretty awesome too.

Can you find any recent analysis that supports your claim that nuclear costs are at the same level as solar?

The only one I’ve seen suggest this was from a nuclear industry lobby group, and it inflated the costs or solar by insane amounts.

In Australia this is a bit of a hot topic and all impartial estimates suggest that nuclear will not get close to renewables in any way, even taking into account storage and grid costs.

In the 10 years since this single reactor was built, one of our states has transitioned to almost 100% renewables. Wholesale costs have plummeted, but renewable projects are still profitable in the market. I was involved in a reactor project in a western nation some time ago (it’s still being completed unsurprisingly), and the lock-in wholesale price to support that project was simply extortionate. Solar generation prices are a whole magnitude smaller.