Camacho was a good president. He listened to Not Sure (eventually).

After COP29…it should.

Does anybody have an article that details the existing situation and the changes the bill would make? That article was completely void of content.

Investments in nuclear power are not taking money away from investments in solar.

This is interesting. Why do you think that?

I would disagree, because is see investment capital as finite. There are only so many investors able to operate at infrastructure scales. And therefore I see nuclear’s true cost as opportunity cost.

In the UK and a city? Probably Liverpool and because of The Beatles.

A Town? Well it certainly used to be Lockerbie where Pan-Am flight 103 crashed after a terrorist bombing just before Christmas 1988. It was on it’s way from London to New York.

Probably not known by the younger generations though.

Motorcycle at 16.

The land thing isn’t anywhere near enough of a concern for me, especially when dual uses of land are quite feasible.

24/7 is just about over commissioning and having storage. Build 10x as much and store what you generate. At those sorts of levels even an overcast day generates.

Storage. It’s all about storage. In exactly the same way that our water is handled. We have reservoirs to handle the times when natural water supply is low.

You’re using factors of less than 10 to argue against a factor of 100.

• Finland: 338,145 km² and 5.6 million people
• Germany: 357,596 km² and 82 million people

Where do you want to put your hazardous waste again?

Finland with it’s vast swathes of frozen tundra.

All of that time wasted for an election they lost anyway.

$60k per MW or $210M for a nuclear reactors worth (3.5GW). Sure… the reactor will go 24/7 (between maintenance and refuelling down times, and will use less land (1.75km² Vs ~40km²) but at 1% of the cost, why are we still talking about nuclear.

(I’m using the UKs Hinckley Point C power station as reference)

It’s the fact it’s so common that it has a name. And then there’s the fact it’s a name that doesn’t really convey the seriousness. “Phantom Braking” is so dry and unemotive. It’s sounds as if it’s etherial and you’re unsure if it’s happening.

“No-cause emergency braking” is accurate and doesn’t soften the impact of the issue. As consumers we should label safety issues with terms that no company would ever want associated with their product.

The social media scene should be fragmented. The fact that everything became so centralised was a problem, and became weaponised. Too many people see these things as necessary to get a singular “good” message out, but a monoculture is unhealthy regardless of how well intentioned the message is.

What fragmentation means is that now sites need to put more effort in getting an audience. No more posting on Twitter/Facebook and watching the clicks come in. The flip side will be a better diversity of opinion in discussions and a healthier community.

The author is very quick to write this off as “it’s people burning people off the line”, but that hardly a trait shared with Kia’s in the number two spot.

It’s still very possible it could be something to do with the design of the car.

I’ll take the branding.

I haven’t to be fair.

Doesn’t help when you send the men to war.

So more how newsgroups fell, because ISPs didn’t want to run the servers due to storage.

He stacked the Scotus for sure, but he never should have had the chance. The fact that Obama’s vacancy from Scalia’s death was delayed by a full year into Trumps term, and then RBG, who had decided not to retire under Obama, died in September of 2020 just a couple of months before Biden’s election. If you play by consistent rules then at least one of those should be a democrat appointment.

So having done that, what was his role in overturning RvW? He takes “credit” for it, but all he did was appoint two judges. Two very damaging judges, but you don’t have to act with intent to make stupid choices that are exploited by others.