• 0 Posts
  • 43 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle


  • The problem is that “both” isn’t a valid option unless a country has unlimited finances.

    Otherwise you have to decide on what’s the most feasible option and then renewables win big time

    I sometimes feel as if the current push for atomic is from the fossil-lobby as they are aware that it either works and they get 10-20 more years to sell oil until the reactors are built - and even if it doesn’t work out it still will slow down rollout of renewables

    If you have 100 billion to spend on energy producing you have to choose if you want to go all-in with one source or split it up which would move the end of fossil fuels Back further

    Not to mention having to buy the radioactive materials from dictatorships and having problems to cool down the reactors with rising temperatures and rivers running dry

    I just don’t see how atomic isn’t a huge gamble that can backfire hard (and I’m not even talking about catastrophic events like Fukushima)











  • SEO is wrong - it’s like an arms race where the shittiest party spending the most wins and every one else needs to play by the rules to even exist.

    The world would be better off if noone did it in the first place and search engines could just do the job they intended to do.

    Google totally went to shit in the last years with their first page often full of websites great at SEO but horrible in whatever you were actually looking for.

    Meanwhile the little ultra-specific forum that had a thread years ago about your specific search and no money for SEO is somewhere on page 5 while websites just repeating the search phrase over and over with no answer in sight are at the top.

    That whole industry can cease to exist from one day to the next and nothing of value would be lost - if anything value would be gained for the average person








  • The freedom of one person ends where it starts limiting the freedom of another person

    Unlimited freedom of speech just means that it’s possible to verbally deny a group of people a place in society either by lying about them or by just ignoring their existence - and both are limiting that person’s freedom - not just their freedom of speech.

    I really don’t understand how Americans don’t seem to understand that one person’s freedom should end when it limits the freedom of another person - and if it doesn’t then it’s just the stronger/more forceful one pushing the weaker/more defensive one into a corner.