Take your upvote and get out.

Making a console exclusive on their worst selling console ever was probably not helping.

Double live is very bad and the cord becomes a literal short. If you’re lucky a breaker will flip or fuse burn out. If you’re not so lucky you have a cable thats either going to start a fire burning its insulation off and melting itself, or potentially exploding depending on quality and type of cable.

On the one hand, there are legitimate uses for double ended male cords. On the other, absolutely none of those legit uses invovle christmas lights

Minnesota here, our kids go back next week.

Back in mar-may it was. Then it was getting 300k users daily with 450k peak players. Now it gets under 30k daily users and ranked 45 on daily players according to steamdb

Sony did a good job of killing PC players tolerance of their bullshit with the helldiver controversy.

Sounds like by his own grading scale he is a dismal failure not worth what his title gets paid.

A minority would assure you that is not weird.

https://lemmy.world/comment/11278397 you can’t even keep your story straight in the same comment chain.

IEA refutes the LCOE figures and gives significantly lower values. And many other experts in the field criticize LCOE as being overly simplistic in ignoring several factors, such as disregarding inflation entirely (over 80% of a NPP’s LCOE), giving hilariously optimistic lifespans for renewables (30+ year turbines and solar, most are lucky to still produce power after 20 without serious upkeep) and assuming 100% load conditions throughout the year, something only Nuclear and potentially hydro can hope to achieve, every other form of energy generation having significantly less and more variable output. When you actually account for these factors, lifetime nuclear cost is not 3-4 times greater, especially when you factor in construction and decomission and disposal pricing that always gets packed in with nuclear but somehow never even considered for other types.

As for 30 year construction time? Cite your source, because the global median is 7.5 years. 5.5 years if you remove outliers such Watts Bar which was literally halted for almost a decade due to other difficulties. Most reactors are finished quicker than this. Japan meanwhile is going from breaking ground to connecting to the grid in just about 4 years. It takes a couples months to put up a turbine, but how long do you think it takes to put up 300 turbines? I live in area surrounded by wind turbines, and I’ll tell you they aren’t putting up 300 in under a year. The park I leave near has slightly over 200 and that took over 10 years to complete despite constant construction crews working to erect them.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/

https://radiyozh.substack.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-reactor-c2a0c6b29116

https://i.imgur.com/KvnkXe6.jpeg

The propaganda of the nuclear industry is truly incredible.

It’s the anti nuclear thats astounding, the figures you’re presenting are a best misleading when sourced to outright fabrications and lies.

If Nuclear was 50%-100% more expensive you might have a point.

But it’s not. It’s barely more than 10-20% on the most pessimistic charts over lifetime. Civilization can afford nuclear and can’t afford to ignore it. And Nuclear price tag only goes down as it benefits from economy of scale, the only thing really hindering it. It doesn’t take 30 years to build a reactor, it takes 5-10 depending on bureaucracy people using protest or legal measure to delay it. The time it takes to build a 1,000mW reactor is roughly the same amount of time it’s going to build 1,000mW of Wind or Solar production anyways. So to get back to the point: What exactly is yours?

The person above you is talking about the Texas power grid, which is lacking in redundancy and endurance. If Beryl had made landful along the Louisiana/Mississippi coast, for example, parts affect by the storm would certainly have lost power and those in adjacent areas. But towns 100-150 miles from the affected area would not have. In Texas, towns that didn’t even see wind or rain from the hurricane, much less any damage within their county, experienced blackouts because when one part of the grid fails, entire chunks of it just collapse in on themselves because they barely meet demand during normal conditions.

In other parts of the US when statewide blackouts happen from a single incident it usually involves massive state and federal level investigations that cost people their jobs and in some cases jail sentences, with revelations of how some key feature was outdated, improperly maintained or an oversight had it being the redundancy of several systems, and in rare cases corruption meaning the real world design doesn’t match the plans and submitted paperwork. These cases tend to be few and far between, once every 25 years if not less frequent, the last one that comes to mind being a power plant(in Ohio?) that went offline expectantly resulting in overloaded high voltage lines that had a very spicy interaction with nearby trees that caused a trip to cascade through the grid. And that was back in 2003.

In Texas the utility company examines itself, decides it didn’t do anything wrong, blames ‘extraordinary weather’ or similar circumstance that wasn’t just predictable but below the minimum standard the other two parts of the US grid grade themselves against while doing nothing to fix the problem, independent reporting usually revealing months or years later the fault point was something common, predictable and should not have been able to cascade throughout the region without redundant safeties present on other grids halting the spread and isolating that small local disturbance till it could be fixed by utility crews. These kind of faults have happened every year for the last 5 years. Sometimes multiple within the same year.

Lifetime CO2 numbers listed here are accurate. The only time NPPs have worse CO2 figures is when they are shut down prematurely (see: Germany.) The actual act of nuclear generation produces no CO2, and mining Uranium is difficult but significantly more efficient than than coal and when comparing the amount of silicon needed for solar to make 1mw compared to uranium needed for NPPs to produce 1mw, the uranium still has has better a better track record. Hydro is a mess with so many different designs that some aren’t that impactful where others devastate entire ecosystems just by existing so it’s difficult to realistically talk about it objectively.

We need NPPs, Wind and Solar if we want a dependable and sustainable power grid, but that’s just one small part of a sustainable future that we desperately need to change the way we live to avert global climate catastrophe.

That’s wrong, nuclear doesn’t equal zero CO2, not even close.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Carbon-footprints-of-various-energy-sources-based-on-32-for-all-energy-sources-other_fig1_308114828

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source

When accounting for construction, lifetime production, decommission and disposal per mwh produced for all energy sources, nuclear still takes the lead. And it further pulls ahead when you compared land useage per mwh produced per square meter. The only place where Nuclear doesn’t have a cutting edge advantage is cost per kwh, and frankly if you’re putting profits over sustainability then welcome to being part of the problem that lead to us burning coal cause it was cheap.

The best possible solution for a sustainable future is baseline nuclear power to cover average usage of loads, rooftop solar on existing buildings to make use of surface area not otherwise being used for something useful, and wind turbines added to areas where wind production is viable without displacing other production needs, such as adding it to agriculture fields or low impact areas. This ideal circumstance would also have people abandoning low density housing (specifically suburban single family homes) to move to more high density housing (apartments or multiplex homes that host multiple families) to allow additional land to be set aside for ecological restoration to better balance and preserve what climate we still have and enhance carbon capture. This is obviously a goldilocks solution that will never happen because humans will be humans, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be encouraging it and taking steps to emulate it as realistically as possible.

When the global nuclear leader also has one of the cleanest grids but the climate lobby still says don’t build nuclear

Blizzard today is not the company we knew 15 years ago. They have been so thoroughly corrupted by the corporate ownership they can’t possibly understand what their core audience wants or needs to stay engaged.

While I will agree Kojima put a lot of thought into it, the phrase well thought out does not apply with the soft-retcons and lot of dumb shit that happens in the games and implied to happen behind the scenes. (A pregnant Boss allowed to partake in the D-Day landings and giving birth in the middle of said landings being just one of many obtuse examples.)

Weclome back Second Pacific Squadon. Think Japan will accept an invite by the US to run some exercises around Puerto Rico?

I was gonna make fun of the French but then I remembered their nuclear doctrine is to lob a 250kt yield warhead as a warning shot.