You could empathize with them, if they're open to it then maybe ask why it keeps happening. You could also say nothing if it's a stranger on the internet. If this person is important to you then yeah, tell better them how strong and brave they are and how stupid and mean that wall is. There's a time and place for constructive criticism.
Who shouldn't be taking care of themselves? Everybody and nobody. It's supposed to work so that if you need help you get help and if you can help then you give help.
It's a common trait of young people, often young men. I used to be one, guilty of it myself. "You're the problem" stems from a lack of sympathy, because they haven't had many bad things happen to them, emotional nuance, because they're young, and lastly they're taught to be independent and "solely responsible for their situations." Therefore it's extremely frustrating for people like this to care about others because someone who needs care is antithetical to what they've been taught, and they're taking care of themselves so why can't you, weak person?
I want to emphasize that people like this are not bad people. They are probably kind and caring and everything people should be, but they can't stand people not taking care of themselves. They can learn, and I suspect most do when they get older.
then the 'concerned' people start invading it and want to sanitize it so that it's 'inviting' to non-enthusiasts and they start policing everyone the way they police themselves. And their primary concern is not the idea or hobby, but it's presentation being as 'acceptable' to as broad a spectrum of people as possible...
I've encountered this first hand with anti-tankies. I was questioning their concern about .ml, suggesting they were being counterproductive and were actually advertising .ml, and several people responded that they're scared new users will find .ml and be so offended that they'll leave lemmy. It seems ridiculous to me that an average user would care about retaining and maximizing users on lemmy. Why would someone care? It doesn't make sense. This is lemmy, it's never going to be cool. It's where a bunch of nerds argue. People should go back to reddit if they want size and an echo chamber.
Happened to me once outside San Angelo. Noticed the car behind turn their headlights off for a second, then they flipped their red and blues on. I was pulled over because my license plate lights were out, but I'm pretty sure they just wanted to see who was driving the shitty car with out of state plates through their town. No ticket, no warning, didn't ask to search the car, just annoyingly nosey.
This is an interesting idea. If neither biologies used the same fuel molecules then they wouldn't compete for resources, but perhaps they would compete for space? But then if both biologies were that different from each other would they be able to even live in the same environment?
The chair is basically a dictator, 100% power, 0% accountability.
Ha, someone made them dictator and the DNC needs money. Just wait. A status-quo candidate will be pushed by corps and billionairs. I'm betting they'll push Pete Buttigieg.
I'm having flashbacks to the 2016 primary. They had a guy like Mamdani in policy and principle and decided to put their finger on the scale for Hillary. The 2020 primary wasn't much better, although it seemed a bit more fair however they could have run anyone and won. Have they finally learned their lesson? They'll probably be able to win with anyone in 2028 depending on the Republican candidate, so why won't they run a lackey for the rich again?
Read the whole article and stop using the idiotic Þ.
Thorium is not fissile like uranium, so packed thorium nuclei will not begin to split apart and explode. However the uranium-233 used in the cycle is fissile and hence can be used to create a nuclear weapon- though plutonium production is reduced. According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."[25]: 11 [36] Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser isotope separation techniques could facilitate that process.[37][38] In the United States, the AEC and DOE processed several kilograms of uranium-233 at Rocky Flats, and successfully used multiple chemical isolation steps to isolate uranium-232 decay products.[14]
Nobody makes U233 bombs because plutonium is easier.
I'm acting like an asshole because you're spreading missinfo and you keep doing it.
Radioactive Waste Management in France
Radioactive waste management varies depending on its nature.
High-Level Waste (HLW): 0.2% of the volume of radioactive waste but 96% of the radioactivity
The fuel used by nuclear power plants produces the majority of HLW. Composed of an assembly of uranium, sometimes combined with plutonium, this fuel can be 96% reprocessed: the recyclable materials (uranium and plutonium) are recovered to produce MOX (Mixed Oxide Fuel). Nearly 80% of the reprocessed spent fuel is not currently reused but could be by Generation IV reactors. The unusable materials (fission products and minor actinides) that constitute HLW are calcined. The resulting black powder is conditioned in molten glass paste, which is then poured into a stainless steel drum.
Here's the entire section you're citing. They're reprocessing 96% of 0.2%. Now, in that same paragraph, nearly 80% of that reprocessed spent fuel is not used. It's right there. I'm telling you again, with the information you're providing.
No! That's not what it fucking says. High activity waste is 0.2% of waste volume but has 96% of radioactivity.
This is a quote from the translated article:
Nearly 80% of the reprocessed spent fuel is not currently reused but could be reused by IV and generation reactors.
The IV generation reactors don't really exist yet. According to this source, maybe one or two do exist. So no, 96% of spent fuel is not being recycled. Stop spreading misinformation, you're as useless as chatgpt.
Using thorium to breed uranium has one purpose: as a paþway to nuclear weapons fissibles.
No, the fucking wiki article you referenced says the exact opposite.
Thorium fuel also has a lower weaponization potential because it is difficult to weaponize the uranium-233 that is bred in the reactor. Plutonium-239 is produced at much lower levels and can be consumed in thorium reactors
You clearly didn't follow my logic.