Yes you do "need _something_ for base load", obviously. And noone appears to have any reliable solution to this apart from nuclear. So commonsense is playing a part here (not something you often see, particular in the HN comments section).
I'm kind of stunned how much extra effort you put into being condescending over and over during a contribution whose idea is "only nuclear is reliable for base load"
Kinda shocking we have a power system then, no? :)
No it's not shocking. For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear (as part of the mix) if we want to go fully carbon-free.
I'm not explaining anything complicated here.
I don't know what you're trying to say, at all, really, because you were very condescending and now, very short.
"For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear" is false.
"For base-load 24/7 power the cleanest, by far, option w/r/t greenhouse gases is nuclear" is true.
"For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear (as part of the mix)" is nigh-unparsable.
In any case, it's unreasonable to claim I thought the following was false:
For base-load 24/7 power the cleanest, by far, option w/r/t greenhouse gases is nuclear
Nothing in my comment could plausibly indicate it. In fact, my comment says: "Only real argument is "but you need _something_ for base load""
Also in any case, your tone in both cases has robbed us of a positive interaction, in favor of you getting to feel good, but really smug, for 30 seconds after your first comment.
ok I was assuming you would understand the obvious context in which nuclear power was being discussed.
And I dont feel good or smug or anything like that. I'II leave it there.
The US is the third largest country on the planet with the second largest nuclear arsenal and controls the currency that other countries denominate their international debt in.
There's very little that happens in the world that does not touch or get touched by the United States. The USA doesn't have much choice in this.
100% of the money recovered from these fines should be spent on researching and publicising the privacy abuses of these companies.
They should essentially be funding their own policing.
Who knows how this data they are harvesting at scale will be exploited by AI in the future. It is pretty scary.
If Google hired a PR firm to lobby and protect their interests with chrome, this is exactly the kind of article they'd be placing in the media to achieve this aim.
I think you might be right. I think "flooding the zone with shit" might be the only effective response when the zone is already flooded with everyone else's shit (msm, social media etc)
He's also not the only one doing it. Every time the Deep State needs to sneak in something particularly vile and avoid public scrutiny, we get "UFOs", or "directed energy weapons", or "Russian/Iranian/North Korean hackers" or something like that. "UFOs" have been used for this since the 60s. "Directed energy weapons"/"Cuban syndrome" - since the 90s. "Hackers" are more recent. Works like a charm.
If you ran a social media site and app, and had a problem of many different groups employing bots to post tons of content for nefarious purposes to your site, what would you do?
reply