Strong pass, once we get down to PC level latency in a portable there's a chance I won't get sick just putting them on but for now I think it's safer to just wait.

>The fact that you're having a miserable time is not part of the model

As long as you keep watching, they don't care. Capitalism is always about short-term gains, shoving long-term issues under the rug.

1. Just because a regulation exists doesn't mean it actually improves safety. Quite frankly a lot of nuclear regulations DECREASE safety. They're not really about safety at all, they're just a way to increase costs. Most of the cost isnt new safety decices, it's just mountains of extra paperwork.

2. The perception of risk regarding nuclear is just completely askew. Thousands of chemicals we use are also known carcinogens and can be handled with minimal regulations. Chemical leaks are a daily occurrence to the point they rarely make the news. The regulations against radiation are thousands of times stricter than those against most chemical carcinogens. Even the worst case scenario with nuclear you're talking tens of deaths. Lots of chemical spills have killed thousands and they kill hundreds of thousands in terms of long term exposures. Global warming will kill millions or even tens of millions. The risk from nuclear is miniscule in comparison to the alternatives.

Now that you put it like that, it might actually be a feature.

Why aren't the defense contractors that build reactors for ships and subs building civilian reactors? The naval reactors are small and have been operating safely for decades. What am I missing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors

Search engine optimization... optimization?

Google has become absolute shit the last few years, it is useless for any serious web search.

Fuck google.

Enough to realize that’s a REAL fist flying towards your face?

Most of these cost overruns are not caused by inflation but corporate greed just like how the price went up on eggland's Best eggs even though they did not have to do any culling.

fortunately these are all estimated costs and have not actually spent the money and so we can still spend on a solar, wind and battery but I have to say the main benefit is developing this new technology so that we can use it in our colonies off world that we must have as survival of the species requirement. At this point there is no one doing the damage and the Cascade is inevitable. I sincerely hope I'm wrong but that would require the science of climate change to also be and it just doesn't look like it is. We are in the middle of an Extinction event and this planet will likely be a corpse within the next hundreds of years

> computer (n.)

> 1640s, "one who calculates, a reckoner, one whose occupation is to make arithmetical calculations," agent noun from compute (v.).

> Meaning "calculating machine" (of any type) is from 1897; in modern use, "programmable digital electronic device for performing mathematical or logical operations," 1945 under this name (the thing itself was described by 1937 in a theoretical sense as Turing machine). ENIAC (1946) usually is considered the first.

> Computer literacy is recorded from 1970; an attempt to establish computerate (adjective, on model of literate) in this sense in the early 1980s didn't catch on. Computerese "the jargon of programmers" is from 1960, as are computerize and computerization.

>>WASHINGTON (AP) — A New York Congressman says the use of computers to record personal data on individuals, such as their credit background, "is just frightening to me." [news article, March 17, 1968]

> Earlier words for "one who calculates" include computator (c. 1600), from Latin computator; computist (late 14c.) "one skilled in calendrical or chronological reckoning."

[deleted]

Shock content?! On the internet? No way!

Giveaway details will be a solved issue soon.

Lol, why is that? Microsoft has good products too. I think Azure is more successful than GCP for example.

Well… been in photography and graphic design for almost 20 years now and that’s all I can really think of that I could use on a daily basis that would fall under that lose definition.

The definition being that some would consider that a cheat.

The thumbnail pic alone looks like a family. They all resemble one another.

I don’t think it’s being pedantic to say that that isn’t AI.

Like adding in a smile with teeth vs the picture you took with just their normal smile. Tech is to the point where you can do all kinds of stuff like that instantly.

Instagram is not a necessary good for life, if you want to actually have an impact as a customer in capitalism, not using a service, when you disagree with its actions, is one of the ways of using your power in a market. There is no reason luxury goods like that should be handled in any other way, while necessary goods should be regulated to a certain degree, so that the customer has secured access to them

[deleted]

This is why I included the 'battery' part in there.

But, yes, they're going to pretend like battery tech isn't increasingly viable.

> The problem is that anti-nuke forces took hold in many governments (especially after TMI and Chernobyl) and they made the regulatory environment completely untenable.

Because safety is something that totally should be flexible when it comes to nuclear reactors.

That's not really true at all. Lots of nuclear plants were built in reasonable time frames and budgets. A new nuclear plant used to only cost a Billion dollars (yes, that's adjusted for inflation. The problem is that anti-nuke forces took hold in many governments (especially after TMI and Chernobyl) and they made the regulatory environment completely untenable. Plants that were virtually complete had to be torn apart and rebuilt, many were just abandoned because the cost of the new regulations was more than the cost of the original plant. No industry can ever survive that way. And that was the whole point. The people who make these regulations don't want nuclear to survive. It was just a backhanded way of killing nuclear without an outright ban.

https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/historical-construction-costs-of-global-nuclear-power-reactors

Ah, prepare yourself for the "what if there's no sun or wind" brigade.

Unfortunately that’s not likely to change nearly as quickly as the picture quality. However if the research is legit, you could have a tv with better than OLED picture quality, without the OLED pricing. The 1000 Hz refresh rate is more indicative of how fast the pixels can change, not that at this point there is a need for it.