Some parts of these articles are always so weird for me. It's not that I disagree or don't understand the point, but that it's always such a stupid part where they say "...now then, Trump said we're X and Y, now this actually isn't true, because in fact, he is." and I can't help but very silently yell to myself "my brother in Christ you are yet to prove your point in a logically sound way". I mean I know that he is and he acts like people other than him are, but it shouldn't be assumed I have that knowledge.
I think it's just bad writing from the journalists' part, that's all.
True that may be, however anyone with the capacity to reason should have been aware that this may not be the appropriate response to such an offense, especially with their future goals in mind. Someone bestowed with such an ability should also understand, that telling people about it is itself not the brightest idea, especially if one does it honestly. The question remaineth: is she an imbecile?
(yep i head some fun with this)
I absolutely dispise this meme, why on earth can't it be rotated 45° the other way around? If I want to read it my head is 90° from the head of the fox. It should be 0.
A nuclear scientist once explained this to me and a few of my friends in such a great way and I can only do injustice to that explaination, but I will try anyway.
What the nuclear disasters are, are tail risks. What he meant by that, is the more severe a disaster is the less chance it has happening, which you can imagine like the tail of a rat: the further away it is from body the thinner it is.
Now the thing about nuclear disasters is that the tail is very long and gets very thin towards the end. That makes it so most incidents reported are incredibly unintresting (thankfully), most of them being non-vital valves gettint stuck and such.
But when those really small (and with advancement always shrinking) chances cause a disaster you may have to evacuate a town.
Then he told us about the Eschede train disaster. What happened was basically that a wheel of a train cracked and through incredible unluck killed half of the passangers.
And looking at the history of trains, while this particular kind of mishap is very rare and we even have systems in place to prevent it from happening, other kinds of catastrophic failures have happened multiple times throughout history, sometimes even killing bystanders, much like a nuclear reactor could.
This didn't stop people from boarding trains though, since the odds were always in their favor and the usefullness of the train was incredible at the time.
At the end of the day we have to evaluate whether the benefits are worth the risk. And once again this scientist told us that while he may be a bit biased in this regard he does think those disasters are less and less likely to happen by the day and with the amount of energy generated they are quite worth it.
I'm not here to defend the soulless multi-million dollar corporation, but we don't actually know how much money it costs for youtube to stay up.
The scale they are operating on is immense, I wouldn't be surprised, if they were still making a loss with 10 midroll ads.