KDE Connect doesn’t require the use of KDE otherwise. Check it out, it might be worth your while.

Compared to any browsing experience without uBlock, Firefox wins by a very large margin.

The comment about weight was unnecessary, even though I broadly agree with the message.

So Accelerationism, basically.

It’s going to be significantly more than the year 33000 before we run out of 64-bit epoch timestamps.

The max value for signed 64-but epoch values is more than 292 billion years away, or 20 times the age of the universe itself.

So yeah, we’re basically solid forever with 64-bit

Same goes for where I grew up/live - kids that live far away enough to not be able to walk/bike get free passes for public transit and take that to school.

Might want to give notebooks like Jupyter a try - they make for a pretty good time when it comes to working with data.

Honestly spreadsheets are kind of great for some things. I’m sure most of their bad rep comes from being applied to the wrong problems - see businesses using it for basically everything.

I had to double-check, because I’ve only ever used the spelling “Ess”. Turns out both variants are correct.

I’d probably have transcribed the letter pronunciation as ‘ve, ve, ve, punkt, de, en, punkt, ess e’.

Just goes to show you that ‘en’ doesn’t even follow the normal pronunciation rules of Swedish, unless we’re talking about the tree, in which case it does.

Fwiw, I’m pretty convinced that the anti-seed oil crowd is approximately as grounded in science as the anti-vaccine crowd - that is to say, not at all.

Vibes-based QA only

To draw a parallel to the problem of health care - in systems of socialized medicine, a health insurer does de-facto exist, so health insurance does not get entirely abolished when switching to socialized medicine. It’s just that the health insurer is now the government, and the system is no longer ran to optimize for extracting money out of the system, but instead to optimize for population-level health.

Similarly, when trying to reform the housing market, landlords don’t fully go away - you can for example imagine a system where the government becomes a very large landlord and optimizes the system for maximum level of ‘people housed’ (or whatever you want to optimize this system for).

There are also various forms of housing cooperatives, where the landlord is a body consisting of all the tenants collectively.

The landlord most people want to be rid of is the rent-seeking kind, which optimizes the system for extracting money.

I’m so embarrassed. I wish everybody else was dead.

To be clear, no streaming company is paying royalties on a per-stream basis, it’s basically always ((total revenue-platform cut)/share of total amount of streams).

So the artists are not really getting more money because you’re streaming on one platform or the other, they are all getting roughly the same amount out of what you’re paying on a monthly basis.

Feel free to put money into it if you believe in it. Given nuclear’s track record with regards to actually making money is not particularly strong though, so I wouldn’t advise doing this if you actually want to make a return on your investment.

It’s also cheaper than solar in many cases. While the upfront investment in reactors is large, the cost per energy produced and ongoing costs are quite low. Lower in many cases than fossil fuels like gas. Plus reactors last longer than solar panels and wind turbines.

Solar + storage is currently at less than half the cost of nuclear, while wind + storage is at a third of the cost: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1475611/global-levelized-cost-of-energy-components-by-technology/

I’m going to work on the assumption that you’re working off old data, because the claims you made are very far from where we’re actually at.

What happened to the idea that renewables didn’t need public funding anymore? If it’s really so cheap as you say that wouldn’t be necessary.

In many cases, public funding is no longer necessary for renewables. That’s why Texas of all places is becoming a wind powerhouse. Energy storage technologies are less mature and still warrant public investment.

Both renewables and storage technologies have something very important in common - they are absolutely plummeting in costs year-over-year, meaning that while nuclear is not competitive on price today, it’s just going to get worse from here on out.

I like to look at Sweden as an example, where the current government is pushing investment in nuclear. Their proposed plan is to:

• Have the public guarantee loans for nuclear construction
• Have the public guarantee a minimum kWh-price for these facilities

Aside from being incredibly expensive for the public, displacing other potential investment whether they be in energy production, other climate initiatives or just investment into the welfare of the population, it also makes private investment into renewables less lucrative and as such less likely to happen. On top of that, it’s being used as an excuse to not grant permits for construction of renewables by aforementioned government.

Currently around 0 outside, we’re running with the heat off at the moment, because it’s not strictly speaking necessary yet. In practice it lands at around 20 C inside right now, and the lower bound I accept is 18, after which I turn on heating. Let’s see whether it becomes necessary this winter.

Agreed, if you’re going to be taking home 120k you’re not going to get out ahead in SF.

That’s a lie.

Not really, no.

Renewables produce more CO2 than Nuclear reactors per unit energy produces.

From what I gather, wind is on par with nuclear. Other renewables have slightly more than either wind or nuclear, but compared to the other nonrenewable alternatives either option is far better.

They can also be significantly more dangerous (higher number of deaths per unit energy) in the case of hydro power or biomass.

You left out that solar and wind are largely on par or safer than nuclear per unit of energy. All of these options are again far safer than other nonrenewables.

Solar and batteries require various rare materials and produce significant pollution when manufactured and must be replaced every 20 or 30 years.

As opposed to the ever so clean extraction and storage of nuclear fuel? Come on.

And all of this leaves out the most important aspect - nuclear is incredibly expensive compared to renewables, and is trending more expensive each year, while renewables are trending in the opposite direction. This means that for the same amount of resources, we will be able to displace more nonrenewables, leading to a net reduction in deaths/emissions pursuing this route as opposed to nuclear.

Of course, I have nothing against fully privately funded nuclear. If private actors can make the economics work under safe conditions, then nuclear construction is an obvious net positive. When they displace public investment in renewables, however, then they are a net negative.