Hey, don’t let me stop you. I only mean to say that you’re very likely wasting your breath, and I know that from my own experience losing the argument against the expanded definition of literally. Languages change, prescriptivism is a losing battle, and that’s just the nature of things. It’s why we aren’t having this exchange in Proto-Indo-European.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 202
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 202
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
Just mentally insert “you are observing” after the “POV:” and move on with your day. This argument has been a lost battle for a long time now, in much the same was that “literally” was.
I mean, I can’t imagine it’s too much of a threat, so long as you don’t directly interface your asshole with said pool drain.
I will say, as someone who personally went through the American education system, that the genocide of Native Americans is actually something that is talked about in our schooling, though really only in broad terms, with basically only the trail of tears getting a specific mention. Consequently, the scale of the atrocity is not properly conveyed, but we’re pretty much all at least generally aware. In my opinion, though, that cognitive dissonance makes us worse, not better.
The larger problem, however, is in my opinion twofold. The first is that it is often framed as something which was regrettable but ultimately inevitable “they were just in the way”. This inevitability this is often presented as a component of manifest destiny, that the “American people” (who, curiously, do not include the people who were here first) were always going to end up controlling the lands that we did (see: from sea to shining sea) and so as a result we are somehow absolved by fate. The second issue is that the way that native Americans are talked about in our education system are as something that either is or soon will be a part of history, rather than as still living groups of people who we are actively continuing to oppress and marginalize in the present.
All that is to say, rather than ignorance, we’ve chosen to believe paper-thin lies to absolve ourselves instead; arguably even worse than not knowing at all.
Regrettably, Americans come factory new without the long term memory module installed. Typical cost cutting enshittification, you know how it is.
- JumpNSFW
girls be like
Christ, I thought we moved past random = funny a decade ago, but apparently it’s alive and well.
Interesting! That’s a very reasonable view, and I hadn’t considered that problem of hybridization, but put in those terms I definitely see your point of how these are somewhat mutually incompatible. I would think, however, that energy storage and grid upgrades would, if I’m understanding correctly, also assist in solving the hybridization problem, as it brings those unpredictable generation methods closer to a stable output value, allowing for it to be more easily accounted for alongside the stable output of fission, with bursts either being handled by storage or some other generation method like conventional generators (after all, we don’t actually have to take carbon emissions to zero, simply get them below the value at which more carbon is absorbed than released). Additionally, while solar is unpredictable as a result of weather, what we can say is that it only produces power during the day, and the daytime is generally when power consumption is at its highest (not universally true, particularly in that evening/early nighttime period, but the daytime is a significant spike), so I would think that helps to some degree with the variable power output problem.
Still, I can see your point, definitely. I don’t think this reduces fission’s viability for stable generation, in particular for countries which might not have the right kind of geography for those other power generation methods to be viable, but when you have the geography of a country like the US, I’ll concede that it’s definitely not your only option, and that there are others with lower upfront cost than fission. Even this isn’t necessarily true if countries were willing to link their grids to expand the available geography, but that is unlikely to become widespread practice anytime soon due to the geostrategic risk that energy dependence like that exposes you to.
And, to your point, if we’re looking from a raw economics perspective, building a fission plant which you plan to replace with fusion in 30-50 years is actually even more expensive, because a large portion of the reactor’s operational lifespan is not being utilized and so therefore isn’t offsetting that initial upfront cost.
True, but I would argue that this isn’t an issue with fission power so much as an argument that it should be handled, either in part or in whole, by the government rather than the market. All kinds of things exist which are necessary for a populace which are not economically viable for private operators (fire departments, postal services, public transit, etc.), and typically the role of government in that scenario would be to step in and either make it viable through subsidy or just pay the cost outright and personally operate it (indeed, this is part of a larger argument that public utilities like power probably shouldn’t be privately owned in the first place). Nonetheless, if we’re being realistic, that is unlikely to change anytime soon, particularly in the US, so I can see the value in assessing from a perspective of optimizing for raw economic pressure, as that is likely the only way we’ll be able to get the people and organizations with significant capital on hand to align with the goal of renewable energy.
Correct. This is another part of why fission can’t be our only solution, but that doesn’t mean that we should be betting on fusion in place of fission. Typical times to build and operationalize a fission reactor are in the 5-15 year range from what I understand, but that is significantly lower than the expected timelines for us cracking fusion power and getting the tech mature enough to be able to implement it at scale for power generation. Additionally, the most likely type of fusion that we would be using in this case would be Deuterium-Tritium fusion, which generates neutron radiation and nuclear waste as a result (though significantly less than fission), so you would be likely to see similar waste disposal requirements. Consequently, I would expect similar timelines as fission power operationalization for a fusion plant (though likely still lower than fission, of course, due to the lack of reactor meltdown risk needing to be accounted for).
Between the research component which we have no true ability know the timeline of, only make educated guesses, alongside the construction and operationalization timeline, you’re probably looking at twice the length of time as bringing a fission plant online as a hard minimum, and I’m of the opinion it will likely be even longer. As a result, I think there’s a compelling argument for fission in the interim, though I will admit you are correct in that fusion research investment may have the ability to significantly change this calculus, so I understand your perspective.
I agree we need to fund it more, absolutely, but I heavily disagree with your assessment. Our fossil fuel emissions are a problem we need to address now, and I think it would be incredibly unwise for us to gamble on the unknown timeline of fusion to mature enough to address the problem in time. In my view, we should be focusing on halting our emissions with current, proven tech first, and then once fusion power becomes viable and scalable, then we can start switching from fission to fusion.
For real. The only maybe compelling arguments are the risk of reactor meltdown and nuclear waste, but modern reactor design and safety practices make that essentially a non-issue (indeed, nuclear power is safer even than wind power, statistically), and people typically vastly overestimate the amount of waste that is produced (all of the nuclear waste from power generation that humanity has ever produced could fit on just six cargo ships with some room left over, and that ignores the fact that not all waste is equally dangerous) and it’s not like other power generation methods don’t generate pollutants and waste either, it typically just gets vented into the atmosphere. Personally, I’d rather the waste be in a form we can contain.
The only actual problem with nuclear is that there isn’t enough nuclear material in the world for it to provide for all of our power generation needs, but that’s not even really a problem so much as it just means it can’t be our only solution to the problem, and nuclear is incredible for generating a stable baseline, an advantage that something like wind and solar lack. Until we crack profitable fusion, it is far and away one of our best options.
I honestly don’t know which I’d prefer. On the one hand, Trump’s obviously compromised mental condition makes him much easier to control as puppets go, but it also significantly hampers his effectiveness. On the other hand, JD Vance is likely more dangerous with the reigns of power than Trump on account of being not completely stupid, but he lacks the “charisma” (air quotes and a heavy eye roll on that one) and allegiance of the MAGA crowd that Trump has.
Though, after saying all that, it’s not like things are going to get better as they are, and it’s not like the MAGA crowd is ever going to acknowledge Trump’s declining mental state, no matter how loudly they screamed about Biden’s, so I figure it’s probably worth it to roll the dice to see if we can splinter the right. Unfortunately, that risk of splinter is probably precisely why the 25th won’t be invoked by Vance and the cabinet - the MAGA crowd would see it as a betrayal, I should think.
God, that was a satisfying read. Thank you for posting the full text here.
Yeah, I’m realizing this is just a bias toward familiarity on my part. There’s several bad assumptions that I made in there which I hadn’t really given too much thought; bad practice on my part, I’ll admit.
Fair. I’ll acknowledge I’m biased here in retrospect. In particular, I’ve realized my argument for Fahrenheit (increased granularity) is directly contradictory to my argument against centimeters (too much granularity). Indeed, my view (however poorly conveyed) was that imperial units of length measurement, and the foot in particular, lend themselves to day to day estimation of size, as meters require estimation with fractions/decimals and centimeters require estimation in quantities too large to be reasonably accurate, so I was of the view that the lack of decimeters in common usage was a problem, but you make a good point that this is a fundamentally flawed assumption. After all, if you’re familiar with metric already, it’s not particularly difficult to just say ‘10cm’ and estimate in relation to tenths of a meter.
Well argued, and certainly more impassioned than my tepid defense of imperial. Consider me convinced; I’m switching teams lol.
If I might make an argument for the imperial system? I’ll acknowledge that it is bad, particularly from a scientific perspective, but one advantage that imperial has over metric is its use case for human related issues. Most of the stuff you interact with daily is much more easily measured in feet and inches vs meters and centimeters (this ignores decimeters, but I’ve literally never seen anyone use decimeters in my entire life). Another good example is temperature. Celsius is more objective, but when dealing with the standard sorts of temperatures humans are generally concerned with, Fahrenheit gives you more granularity within that range.
All that is to say: If I’m at work and someone uses imperial for an official measurement, I’m putting my fist through the drywall, but from a day to day perspective, I actually prefer imperial.
Also, the mile is fucking indefensible. I’ll happily leave all 5280 of its feet out to rot.
Just because it’s arguable doesn’t mean I’m arguing that. Besides, my point was more intended to mean that the symbol used there is correct for the sound that is being conveyed (and I wanted an excuse to share information I thought was interesting.)
Also, smfh, spoilers dude, Beowulf literally just came out 🙄
If you think you’ve got the… guts for it, then be my guest