Sadly they dont. At least not nearly to the extend that they should be.

I think its not about reversing the direction of inertia but more of a “you keep your speed when activating/deactivating the belt, just in the other direction”. You can’t use it to cancel fall damage by reversing gravity for 0.1sec before touching the ground because you also reverse your falling speed when you reverse gravity.

The dolomites are not realy high enough for acclimatization to matters. Everything under 2500m is fine and going (from 0) to 3000m still only affects 40% of people. Unless you are climbing Marmolada (3300m) and are sleeping in huts that are generally below 2800m you should be fine. Of course some people are more affected than others but that is not the norm.

Wat?

shift work without overlapping shifts

That is 100% wage theft as someone has to work overtime. either come early or stay late.

Its exactly the other way round. Odysseus was a common name, Odyssey didn’t exist as a word.

So the travels of John are the Johnenning and everybody just accepts that as a new word afterwards.

I’m sorry but I will put some distrust on numbers coming out of China, especially for big infrastructure projects. They could very well be true but still unobtainable in any country that considers environmental or worker protections. Its a lot cheaper to build big projects when you can simply disregard a lot of the impact.

IF the numbers are true and obtainable without violating human rights that would still only put nuclear on par with solar. Not cheaper. And the same logic that is written in the article the image is from would also apply to solar panels.

… state-owned nuclear developers receive cheap government-backed loans to build new reactors …

… government also requires electric grid operators to buy some of the power from nuclear plants at favorable rates.

… national mandate to expand nuclear power means that companies can confidently invest in domestic factories …

Do these things with solar and see the prices half immediately which would put them way below the Chinese cost per Watt again. As I said before: without government subsidies nuclear can not compete with solar and wind.

Daniel Stenberg
https://mastodon.social/@bagder

petroleum derivatives

That would exclude coal. But yes fossil fuels are generally regarded to be carbon based.

I used the term to describe fuels extracted from the earth that will eventually run out as they are not renewable (on a human timescale). I made no claim about harmfulness there, just ranking the types of fossil fuels by badness while including nuclear.

Nuclear is the least bad fossil fuel. It is infinitely better than coal and still miles better than gas/oil. That doesn’t make it good, and in no way better than renewables. Nuclear is a fossil fuel.

Also shut the fuck up with that “only works if there is sun” argument. Have you looked outside at least once? All live on earth is fueled by plants “that only work if there is sun”. There is enough sun!

most reliable

Solar+wind+batteries are cheaper by at least a factor of 10. They are also decentralized so more resistant to disasters and attacks. Nuclear is the slowest power source to adapt to new demand and spikes. It is also a single point of failure for a whole region that can take 10+ years to replace.

least harmful

How many places on earth have become uninhabitable because of solar power? Sure there are toxic mines where rare earths that are needed for solar panels and batteries are mined, but what do you think is needed to build a nuclear power plant? And where do you think uranium comes from?

Nuclear is not the (near) future of terrestrial power production. That is not disinformation, that is economics.

We could not have had electric cars for 50 years because there were no viable electric cars 50 years ago. The lack of electricity was not the reason.

Also nuclear energy is simply not cheap. Modern reactors (those that are actually good and don’t explode and don’t produce eternal poison) are so expensive that no energy company wants to build them (unless they get a shit ton of subsidies).

If we build more reactors 50 years ago we would have a lot of 50 year old reactors that were designed to last less than 50 years. And upgrading or demolishing them is expensive as fuck.

Yes that is what I do. I treat them like any other dish I use for eating. The side that touches the food gets scrubbed (also the other side im not gross). And every time I bought metal straws they came with a brush.

I also just love the feeling of metal straws when drinking cold drinks because they also get cold. The drink just feels colder if the straw is also cold

Sometimes I wonder how people can be so naive. Even if they don’t know just how much money is thrown at AI, just the fact that it is now in literally anything and on the news every day should be a clue that it is a huge industry. You wouldn’t expect the guy that changes your cars tires to be able to single handedly build a car that is better, faster, cheaper and more efficient than all car companies together.

The parking lot was built specifically to keep Nazis from having a place of worship

Either that or they are all owned by his friends.

Yeah the price for rent should be the amortized cost of upkeep/renovation + some salary to the landlord that is reasonable for the actually work done (which is usually very little).

It should never be enough to pay back a loan the landlord took out to buy the property in the first place.

I think there is a bit of nuance to it. The AI usually rereads the chatlog to “remember” the past conversation and generates the answer based on that+your prompt. I’m not sure how they handle long chat histories, there might very well be a “condensed” form of the chat + the last 50 actually messages + the current prompt. If that condensed form is transient then the AI will forget most of the conversation on a crash but will never admit it. So the personality will change because it lost a lot of the background. Or maybe they update the AI so it interprets that condensed form differently

A country beeing able to produce its own food is a good thing even if said food is not viable on a global market because of cheaper imports. What happens if there is a shipping crisis like with a pandemic? Does everybody just starve because no food is brought in from other countries? Subsidies can be very useful, but just subsidizing corn and soy for export is not one of these cases.

So much long pig walking around.

I also noticed how every post just has 5-10 random down votes. Like perfectly fine post in the correct community, not controversial, no rules broken, -10 down votes.