solo

Since in point 6, it is suggested to use Cloud services to view your work on multiple devices, I thought of adding an openstack link of open source based cloud services.

solo @slrpnk.net 1mo ago

I thought of adding the Know your rights link that is included in the text, for easy access, and because it has a reasoning that can be useful elsewhere too.

solo @slrpnk.net 1mo ago

There is also the option of Session and similar apps that don't use mail or phone number. From my experience with it, it was super easy to use and even tho at first it was quite buggy, but the devs were constantly improving it. I haven't used it for a couple of years now, and was great then for the way we used it - but I wouldn't be surprised if it is even better now. I mean, I hope!

https://getsession.org/

solo @slrpnk.net 2mo ago

Thank you for the info!

Just a reminder that Signal is not 100% open source since 2021. This means that we can no longer verify if what they say about privacy, security, etc, is true.

1

solo @slrpnk.net 2mo ago

To my understanding the backdoor was opened in 2021.

we must depart from our totally-open posture and develop one piece of the server in private

[source: Signal]

solo @slrpnk.net 2mo ago

It looks like this is a new (to me) feature I was not aware of and this is why I deleted the comment you replied to.

Since I consider this super important I would like to ask Smookey4444@anarchist.nexus to change the post description and ask for those who want to participate to follow the necessary steps as indicated by Signal (see here), before joining this group. Otherwise, it's a problematic situation on so many levels imo.

2

solo @slrpnk.net 2mo ago

5

solo @slrpnk.net 2mo ago

Please reconsider. You can join a group like that without giving away your phone number to a person you don't know, asking for it online. See relevant comment in this comment section.

2

solo @slrpnk.net 2mo ago

I will repeat stuff that are already present in this conversation because I consider this super important.

With Signal one has to share their phone number. Please don't share your phone number with random people you meet online.

solo @slrpnk.net 4mo ago

I am not an expert on bees, but I've had long discussions on the topic with friends who are beekeepers. The more we talked the more I understood I knew nothing on the topic.

I can't say I remember too many details from these conversations. Still, there is one thing that stuck with me: the fact that we say they have a Queen, tells more about us observing them and our frame of reference, than about the way they actually organise. In a way, it's more about projecting a belief system, on what we see, instead of just observing and trying to describe it. Something like that.

solo @slrpnk.net 4mo ago

The scientific community is not a unified body, so having scientists questioning any scientific model does not seem like a "wow" moment. But, when the discourse starts including strong vocabulary, admittedly I start questioning/researching claims. And I appreciate it when studies conclude by saying things like: cautious of interpretation is needed, or further studies are warranted, etc.

Apart from that, sure, maybe the LNT model needs some re-evaluation, maybe not - I dunno, time will tell. Still, to my understanding, one problem with ionising radiation is that the dosage received by people is not always as tightly controlled as needed for it to be safe, despite all efforts. Not even in work environments.

For example:

This recent meta-analysis about occupational radiation exposure and risk of thyroid cancer from 2024 saying:

A total of six studies (covering 3,409,717 individuals), which were published between 2006 and 2021 from 4 countries met the inclusion criteria. (...) Pooled analyses indicated that occupational radiation exposure was associated with a 67% higher risk of thyroid cancer

And this article from 2024 about a Lancet research, called: New study provides crucial insights into radiation exposure’s impact on cancer risk - Updated findings to a long-term international study on workers in the nuclear sector.

The researchers assembled a cohort of more than 300,000 radiation-monitored workers from France, the United Kingdom and the United States, employed at nuclear facilities between 1944 and 2016. (...) The study revealed a positive association between prolonged low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation and mortality from these hematological cancers. The study concluded that health risk remains low at low exposure levels. Nevertheless, the evidence of associations between total radiation exposure and multiple myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes signals the necessity for future radiation studies to expand the discussion on radiation protection and occupational safety measures on a global scale.

1

solo @slrpnk.net 4mo ago

- If I got this right, from in table 1, p3 one could get to the conclusion that to decommission photovoltaics creates 7 times more CO₂ (more precisely g CO2e/kWh), than decommissionning a nuclear plant for decades, as shown above. It made me wonder how they arrived to these measurements. But the link to the study for the nuclear is dead (see Heath, Garvin A., and Margaret K. Mann. 2012). So this cannot be verified.

Having a potential solution in the works for nuclear waste is very different from what you said, which was: Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem.

Bye-bye now

Edit: The strikethrough, because it looks like the decommissioning of nuclear power plants was not reliably assessed after all. To be more precise, this is the 2012 meta study that is used for the g CO2e/kWh from nuclear decommissioning, and that I had difficulty finding. It clearly states:

Decommissioning was not usually described in detail; when described, most seem to closely resemble only “immediate dismantling,” not full decommissioning (see the Downstream Processes section of the supporting information on the Web).

3

solo @slrpnk.net 4mo ago

The lifecycle emissions of nuclear plants are similar to (...)

The link you provided talks about something more specific than what you just said. It's about the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation. This means that the decommissioning of a nuclear plant for example is not taken into account for these emissions, and it is well known that decommissioning a nuclear power station can easily take several decades (example from world nuclear news)

Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem.

The links I added above about France tell another story.

Edit: I looked a bit more into decommissioning and found the following from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and thought of sharing for easier visualisation

5

solo @slrpnk.net 4mo ago

In terms of cleanness it is also incredibly clean.

I believe nowadays it would make more sense to compare nuclear to renewable energy, not coal. Apart from that it's important to keep in mind the nuclear waste problem.

solo @slrpnk.net 4mo ago

Bill Gates is a notorious capitalist. As mentioned in this article:

Gates sees nuclear power as a way to provide data centers with the power they need as well as to lower electricity costs.

He only cares about his projects and money, definitely not about people. See:

Tell Bill Gates: Stop Microsoft’s partnerships with the Israeli Military and ICE

solo @slrpnk.net 4mo ago

"Fast action" in what sense? It looks like the nuclear phase-out in Germany started decades ago.

The history behind Germany's nuclear phase-out

The nuclear phase-out is as much part of the Energiewende (energy transition) as the move towards a low-carbon economy. (...) a majority of Germans is still in favour of putting an end to nuclear power.

after 1989 no new commercial nuclear power stations were built