kugel7c

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The good safety of nuclear in developed countries goes hand in hand with its costly regulatory environment, the risk for catastrophic breakdown of nuclear facilities is managed not by technically proficient design but by oversight and rules, which are expensive yes , but they also need to be because the people running the plant are it's weakest link in terms of safety.

Now we are entering potentially decades of conflict and natural disaster and the proposition is to build energy infrastructure that is very centralized, relies on fuel that must be acquired, and is in the hands of a relatively small amount of people, especially if their societal controll/ oversight structure breaks down. It just doesn't seem particularly reasonable to me, especially considering lead times on these things, but nice meme I guess.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Python

If you count being able write passable snippets: Java, JavaScript, C,C++,maybe Matlab and bash

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I was at a theater for the first time in a long time recently and it was definitely my favorite to visit so far. "Zoo Palast" in Berlin, the interior/the entire vibe was great. The building screams 70s even though it was renovated/rebuilt 2010-2013 so they did a great job there. I can't speak to video or audio quality because I just don't have a a reference but the movie sounded and looked good to me. Also it has a lot of original language showings which is always nice to see here instead of just dubs.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Probably because trains are limited in both weight and volume compared to ships and also less efficient. If you have this short route and know it'll need this amount of cargo shipped it likely makes sense.

This single ship can carry more containers than any train could be expected to pull, likely by at least one order of magnitude.

All in all I'd guess the advantages are roughly:

  • Reduced staff
  • reduced energy use (land based shipping is less efficient almost by default)
  • no need for infrastructure except ports (if you assume there is no train line or this shipping would move existing lines over capacity building this ship is likely cheaper or at least in line with 300km of rail)
  • simpler logistics (loading / unloading)

Disadvantages:

  • Speed (a train would likely move at 3-5x the speed)

I would also not expect the risk for catastrophic fires to be all that high. This ship has the batteries be containers. So once you've designed a container that is a large battery, you've already spent so much that a proper BMS including proper battery fire suppression as well as proper breakers/contractors are things you've built into it without even thinking about cost. The separation provided by building containers as the battery is the next line of defence if one container fails spectacularly, it also allows the batteries to be maintained on land, much cheaper than if they were part of the ship.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

S10+ it's running for me for the last 3 years. Used Samsung's cost like 1/4-> 1/3 the starting price about 1.5 years after release.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

If I'm poor or badly prepared rice with chili crisp and and potentially egg. If it needs to be fast or very lazy 2 bananas and half a liter of milk through the stick blender. Otherwise cereal w/ milk or yoghurt, grocery store bedrolls croissant and such, prepared sweet yoghurt or instant ramen.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

First word that came to mind when I was like 13 followed by an arbitrary number and letter. It just means ball or sphere in German. I took up naming things by simple shapes by then so I guess there must be something I like about it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Probably Keith haring, certainly he's the only one hanging in my room rn.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

People don't need to be able to buy cars. The vast majority can't anyways. So why should the second richest percent of Ethiopia be able to.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

The not interested doesn't work, the don't recommend me videos from this channel works perfectly, and if the first video I get recommended of a channel is so repulsive to me I actually care to do something about it, the entire channel is probably bad anyways.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I've been playing beamNg for 4+ years and it's been in ea the entire time since 2015, possibly the best car game you can get for 20€.

Slay the spire I've also owned since early access, it's maybe the most beautiful single player card game to exist. Although it only spent 1-2 years in ea.

Don't be the first to buy ea games I guess but if the game is already fun why not.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The problem is that we need to for many reasons transition to an international order of democratic cooperation instead of economic and military domination. And if the US can never accept this kind of shared and cooperative approach foreign policy of everyone is going to be forever dragged towards this kind of zero sum bullshit we have at the moment. Even though it's obvious that foreign policy doesn't have to be zero sum.

Even if other countries are potentially less honest with their implementation of global treaties, even a relatively slow movement there and maybe a more thorough movement in the US makes everyone better off.

The only way to actually foster a cooperative relationship is to make yourself vulnerable, otherwise it's just coercion and power not cooperation. And yes if you get hurt too much maybe you'll have to leave again, but this pessimistic outlook from the get go is certainly never going to lead to the changes we obviously need.

How do we solve things that require global attentio and accountability, like climate change, with an increasingly hostile and isolationist country calling the shots on decisions about global economic matters.

Simply put if I want to live in a world somewhat resembling the current one in 60 years, American collapse or integration into global democracy is a necessity.

Also calling a country that has been at war for 80+% of it's history a protector of global peace seems a bit questionable. Similarly I don't think anyone can conclusively say that the US has done more or less harm than good. But by that same nebulous metric shouldn't China hold that same title, as well as the Soviets, the British empire, the Spanish empire,the Romans ?

I would expect almost everyone to feel more ambiguously about the later list than the US, but both the US and empires of the past are exactly what they've always been, a tool for those inside, especially the ones in power to increase their quality of life, while everyone outside gets to be exploited, integrated, subjected to rules that do harm, and be attacked, regime changed and so on. It's not actually the US that is a problem it's the US being a modern empire that's the problem.

That the US tries to be a liberal democracy doesn't really lessen it's status as an empire, especially if the powers at be largely prevent it's people to decide against the status quo of domination.

Almost by necessity the most powerful are the most harmful if there are no systems to prevent their harm, diffuse their power etc.

view more: next ›